|
|
On September 21 2012 03:37 Defacer wrote:The Daily Show was on fire last night with Chaos on Bullhshit Mountain. It's obvious that Stewart is taking Fox's post-video propaganda machine a little personally. Link For Canadians.
I don't think he's taking it personally, he's just having a little fun. But you have to realize that most of the big networks provide the same cover to Obama that Fox gives to republicans. Fox just stands out because it has a right wing point of view compared to the left wing views of almost all major media in the US.
(And I should clarify, I don't mean to get into a debate about what's "right" or "left" or whether "left" in the us is really "right" by global standards. I am just saying that most media is "left" relative to the american people.)
|
On September 21 2012 03:41 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 03:29 madsweepslol wrote:On September 21 2012 03:17 ziggurat wrote:
I have seen a few clips of Obama's appearance on Letterman and I was a bit surprised by some of the inaccurate statements he made.
1. He claimed that he had never called his political opponents "unpatriotic" which of course anyone who was alive in 2008 knows isn't true
2. He claimed that he "inherited" a trillion dollar deficit, but the trillion dollar deficit only came in FY 2009
3. He claimed that he couldn't remember how much the national debt was (?!?)
When politicians say things that aren't true I usually want to give them the benefit of the doubt. Maybe Obama was trying to say that he had never called Romney unpatriotic? Maybe by "inherited a trillion dollar deficit" he meant that he inherited a bad economy such that he had no choice but to pass incredibly costly programs?
But how is it even possible that he doesn't know how much the debt is? Did he get nervous and freeze up? Maybe he was just stunned that Letterman was asking him moderately challenging questions? Or did he just not want to say "sixteen trillion" on the air? But seriously, how can the president not know the national debt when the size of the debt has been one of the biggest issues in the campaign?
So assuming that Obama wasn't "lying" when he made these comments -- can anyone offer any defence for these statements? 1. Did he call anyone other than Bush unpatriotic? If not, then I think he's just being lawyerly, since technically Bush wasn't a political opponent, even though that's basically who he ran against. 2. Obama was inaugurated during FY '09, when Bush/110th Congress policies were still in place, so yeah, that's inheriting it. 3. Either incompetence or, as you said, not wanting to say the number on air, i.e. playing politics. The elections were held in Nov of 2008. Obama won, and the democrats achieved strong majorities in the house and the senate as well. Then in January 2009 Obama was inaugurated. Shortly afterwards they passed the $800 billion stimulus bill. Then, at the end of FY 2009, there was a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit (compared to less than 5 hundred billion in FY 2008). So I don't really understand your point in #2.
The U.S. government is like a big ship in that it takes minute to alter course. So what I mean in point #2 is: Obama took office a full third into FY '09, which means most financial legislation in effect that year was passed before he was sworn in. Further, way to ignore the $700 billion bailout signed by Bush on the third day of FY '09.
|
On September 21 2012 03:56 madsweepslol wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 03:41 ziggurat wrote:On September 21 2012 03:29 madsweepslol wrote:On September 21 2012 03:17 ziggurat wrote:
I have seen a few clips of Obama's appearance on Letterman and I was a bit surprised by some of the inaccurate statements he made.
1. He claimed that he had never called his political opponents "unpatriotic" which of course anyone who was alive in 2008 knows isn't true
2. He claimed that he "inherited" a trillion dollar deficit, but the trillion dollar deficit only came in FY 2009
3. He claimed that he couldn't remember how much the national debt was (?!?)
When politicians say things that aren't true I usually want to give them the benefit of the doubt. Maybe Obama was trying to say that he had never called Romney unpatriotic? Maybe by "inherited a trillion dollar deficit" he meant that he inherited a bad economy such that he had no choice but to pass incredibly costly programs?
But how is it even possible that he doesn't know how much the debt is? Did he get nervous and freeze up? Maybe he was just stunned that Letterman was asking him moderately challenging questions? Or did he just not want to say "sixteen trillion" on the air? But seriously, how can the president not know the national debt when the size of the debt has been one of the biggest issues in the campaign?
So assuming that Obama wasn't "lying" when he made these comments -- can anyone offer any defence for these statements? 1. Did he call anyone other than Bush unpatriotic? If not, then I think he's just being lawyerly, since technically Bush wasn't a political opponent, even though that's basically who he ran against. 2. Obama was inaugurated during FY '09, when Bush/110th Congress policies were still in place, so yeah, that's inheriting it. 3. Either incompetence or, as you said, not wanting to say the number on air, i.e. playing politics. The elections were held in Nov of 2008. Obama won, and the democrats achieved strong majorities in the house and the senate as well. Then in January 2009 Obama was inaugurated. Shortly afterwards they passed the $800 billion stimulus bill. Then, at the end of FY 2009, there was a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit (compared to less than 5 hundred billion in FY 2008). So I don't really understand your point in #2. The U.S. government is like a big ship in that it takes minute to alter course. So what I mean in point #2 is: Obama took office a full third into FY '09, which means most financial legislation in effect that year was passed before he was sworn in. Further, way to ignore the $700 billion bailout signed by Bush on the third day of FY '09.
Except for the fact that Obama was a member of the house, and the house was the one who passed the budgets. So he's still responsible.
|
On September 21 2012 04:00 SnK-Arcbound wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 03:56 madsweepslol wrote:On September 21 2012 03:41 ziggurat wrote:On September 21 2012 03:29 madsweepslol wrote:On September 21 2012 03:17 ziggurat wrote:
I have seen a few clips of Obama's appearance on Letterman and I was a bit surprised by some of the inaccurate statements he made.
1. He claimed that he had never called his political opponents "unpatriotic" which of course anyone who was alive in 2008 knows isn't true
2. He claimed that he "inherited" a trillion dollar deficit, but the trillion dollar deficit only came in FY 2009
3. He claimed that he couldn't remember how much the national debt was (?!?)
When politicians say things that aren't true I usually want to give them the benefit of the doubt. Maybe Obama was trying to say that he had never called Romney unpatriotic? Maybe by "inherited a trillion dollar deficit" he meant that he inherited a bad economy such that he had no choice but to pass incredibly costly programs?
But how is it even possible that he doesn't know how much the debt is? Did he get nervous and freeze up? Maybe he was just stunned that Letterman was asking him moderately challenging questions? Or did he just not want to say "sixteen trillion" on the air? But seriously, how can the president not know the national debt when the size of the debt has been one of the biggest issues in the campaign?
So assuming that Obama wasn't "lying" when he made these comments -- can anyone offer any defence for these statements? 1. Did he call anyone other than Bush unpatriotic? If not, then I think he's just being lawyerly, since technically Bush wasn't a political opponent, even though that's basically who he ran against. 2. Obama was inaugurated during FY '09, when Bush/110th Congress policies were still in place, so yeah, that's inheriting it. 3. Either incompetence or, as you said, not wanting to say the number on air, i.e. playing politics. The elections were held in Nov of 2008. Obama won, and the democrats achieved strong majorities in the house and the senate as well. Then in January 2009 Obama was inaugurated. Shortly afterwards they passed the $800 billion stimulus bill. Then, at the end of FY 2009, there was a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit (compared to less than 5 hundred billion in FY 2008). So I don't really understand your point in #2. The U.S. government is like a big ship in that it takes minute to alter course. So what I mean in point #2 is: Obama took office a full third into FY '09, which means most financial legislation in effect that year was passed before he was sworn in. Further, way to ignore the $700 billion bailout signed by Bush on the third day of FY '09. Except for the fact that Obama was a member of the house, and the house was the one who passed the budgets. So he's still responsible.
While I don't necessarily disagree that he is partially responsible, this is a silly claim to make. You can't hold every single member of Congress personally responsible for every bill that passes. I don't remember it passing unanimously.
|
You guys are both wrong on different points.
Obama was a member of the Senate, not the House.
Obama voted FOR the bank bailout (it wasn't an issue in the election because McCain also voted for it). We absolutely should hold him personally responsible for it.
|
On September 21 2012 03:56 madsweepslol wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 03:41 ziggurat wrote:On September 21 2012 03:29 madsweepslol wrote:On September 21 2012 03:17 ziggurat wrote:
I have seen a few clips of Obama's appearance on Letterman and I was a bit surprised by some of the inaccurate statements he made.
1. He claimed that he had never called his political opponents "unpatriotic" which of course anyone who was alive in 2008 knows isn't true
2. He claimed that he "inherited" a trillion dollar deficit, but the trillion dollar deficit only came in FY 2009
3. He claimed that he couldn't remember how much the national debt was (?!?)
When politicians say things that aren't true I usually want to give them the benefit of the doubt. Maybe Obama was trying to say that he had never called Romney unpatriotic? Maybe by "inherited a trillion dollar deficit" he meant that he inherited a bad economy such that he had no choice but to pass incredibly costly programs?
But how is it even possible that he doesn't know how much the debt is? Did he get nervous and freeze up? Maybe he was just stunned that Letterman was asking him moderately challenging questions? Or did he just not want to say "sixteen trillion" on the air? But seriously, how can the president not know the national debt when the size of the debt has been one of the biggest issues in the campaign?
So assuming that Obama wasn't "lying" when he made these comments -- can anyone offer any defence for these statements? 1. Did he call anyone other than Bush unpatriotic? If not, then I think he's just being lawyerly, since technically Bush wasn't a political opponent, even though that's basically who he ran against. 2. Obama was inaugurated during FY '09, when Bush/110th Congress policies were still in place, so yeah, that's inheriting it. 3. Either incompetence or, as you said, not wanting to say the number on air, i.e. playing politics. The elections were held in Nov of 2008. Obama won, and the democrats achieved strong majorities in the house and the senate as well. Then in January 2009 Obama was inaugurated. Shortly afterwards they passed the $800 billion stimulus bill. Then, at the end of FY 2009, there was a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit (compared to less than 5 hundred billion in FY 2008). So I don't really understand your point in #2. The U.S. government is like a big ship in that it takes minute to alter course. So what I mean in point #2 is: Obama took office a full third into FY '09, which means most financial legislation in effect that year was passed before he was sworn in. Further, way to ignore the $700 billion bailout signed by Bush on the third day of FY '09.
I think this is misleading, because although Bush authorized $700 billion, it wasn't all spent. Only $475 billion was actually spent, and that happened over several years. You do make a fair point that Bush started policies that contributed to the debt.
But here's what I think is important. Obama had no obligation to follow through on those policies. His party controlled all 3 houses of government. He could have repealed Bush's excessively expensive policies. He did not. In fact, he accellerated those policies with even more unaffordable spending. Obama has continued to run trillion+ dollar deficits since he's been in power. So for him to say that he was stuck with Bush's policies is false -- he actually endorsed and expanded Bush's already-profligate spending plans.
So here we are four years later, and debt and the economy are still George Bush's fault.
|
On September 21 2012 03:51 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 03:37 Defacer wrote:The Daily Show was on fire last night with Chaos on Bullhshit Mountain. It's obvious that Stewart is taking Fox's post-video propaganda machine a little personally. Link For Canadians. http://www.thecomedynetwork.ca/Shows/TheDailyShow?videoPackage=123839 I don't think he's taking it personally, he's just having a little fun. But you have to realize that most of the big networks provide the same cover to Obama that Fox gives to republicans. Fox just stands out because it has a right wing point of view compared to the left wing views of almost all major media in the US. (And I should clarify, I don't mean to get into a debate about what's "right" or "left" or whether "left" in the us is really "right" by global standards. I am just saying that most media is "left" relative to the american people.)
Naaaaah, this segment had teeth to it. Even by Fox Media's low standards, their coverage of the tape and the backflips they're doing is a sight to behold. Even they look desperate.
Oh yes ... the civil war in the Republican party has also begun. Here's Michelle Malkin having a fucking spaz at Peggy Noonan and David Brooks and their recent editorials.
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/09/hathos-alert-4.html
|
On September 21 2012 04:14 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 03:51 ziggurat wrote:On September 21 2012 03:37 Defacer wrote:The Daily Show was on fire last night with Chaos on Bullhshit Mountain. It's obvious that Stewart is taking Fox's post-video propaganda machine a little personally. Link For Canadians. http://www.thecomedynetwork.ca/Shows/TheDailyShow?videoPackage=123839 I don't think he's taking it personally, he's just having a little fun. But you have to realize that most of the big networks provide the same cover to Obama that Fox gives to republicans. Fox just stands out because it has a right wing point of view compared to the left wing views of almost all major media in the US. (And I should clarify, I don't mean to get into a debate about what's "right" or "left" or whether "left" in the us is really "right" by global standards. I am just saying that most media is "left" relative to the american people.) Naaaaah, this segment had teeth to it. Even by Fox Media's low standards, their coverage of the tape and the backflips they're doing is a sight to behold. Even they look desperate. Oh yes ... the civil war in the Republican party has also begun. Here's Michelle Malkin having a fucking spaz at Peggy Noonan and David Brooks and their recent editorials. http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/09/hathos-alert-4.html
Yeah Romney is struggling. But he's polling just about as well as he ever has. I'm not sure why there is this disconnect between the pundits and the polls...
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150743/Obama-Romney.aspx
|
I think its pretty reasonable to forgive Obama for the situation he was in when first taking office and hold him accountable for the situation at the end of his first term.
We can only give our leaders so many excuses. Bush had a lot of excuses too, but it is still fair to criticize him. Same goes for Obama; a lot of excuses but still accountable.
|
United States41973 Posts
I'd probably vote for a glove puppet over Romney at this point. Actually making an argument in favour of Obama seems somewhat superfluous.
|
|
|
I never heard of this site until now... but the bias it has (from seeing the front page and the commentary page) as well as that article's writing style is quite hilarious.
|
On September 21 2012 03:17 ziggurat wrote:
2. He claimed that he "inherited" a trillion dollar deficit, but the trillion dollar deficit only came in FY 2009
Bush ran trillion dollar deficits for approximately 3 years. It was disguised as ~400 billion dollar deficits on paper because spending for the Iraq and Afghanistan war were classified as "emergency spending" which is not subject to Congressional oversight. When Obama came into office, he did away with this accounting method and lumped it all under the current fiscal year budget.
That's why it looks like the deficit jumped so significantly when Obama took office when in fact the only thing that changed was the accounting method.
|
This little quote comes from between the 1st and second paragraph and shows me all i need to know to trust this article as being totaly correct
Fed up with Obama? Get your personally autographed copy of the New York Times bestseller “Fool Me Twice” exclusively from WND!
Yeah... very unbiased source this WND website :p
|
Lol, if that place was my retirement I would not be applying for another 4 years of hard work 
|
On September 21 2012 04:19 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 04:14 Defacer wrote:On September 21 2012 03:51 ziggurat wrote:On September 21 2012 03:37 Defacer wrote:The Daily Show was on fire last night with Chaos on Bullhshit Mountain. It's obvious that Stewart is taking Fox's post-video propaganda machine a little personally. Link For Canadians. http://www.thecomedynetwork.ca/Shows/TheDailyShow?videoPackage=123839 I don't think he's taking it personally, he's just having a little fun. But you have to realize that most of the big networks provide the same cover to Obama that Fox gives to republicans. Fox just stands out because it has a right wing point of view compared to the left wing views of almost all major media in the US. (And I should clarify, I don't mean to get into a debate about what's "right" or "left" or whether "left" in the us is really "right" by global standards. I am just saying that most media is "left" relative to the american people.) Naaaaah, this segment had teeth to it. Even by Fox Media's low standards, their coverage of the tape and the backflips they're doing is a sight to behold. Even they look desperate. Oh yes ... the civil war in the Republican party has also begun. Here's Michelle Malkin having a fucking spaz at Peggy Noonan and David Brooks and their recent editorials. http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/09/hathos-alert-4.html Yeah Romney is struggling. But he's polling just about as well as he ever has. I'm not sure why there is this disconnect between the pundits and the polls... http://www.gallup.com/poll/150743/Obama-Romney.aspx
Romney is getting killed in the three polls that matter, Virgina, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
National polls don't mean dick in US presidential elections. It's really the way the election goes in a few number of states that really matter.
|
This would be an entertaining little piece of fluff reporting if the site simply reported the facts: Obama has a backup plan in case he loses.
That this is somehow spun by a crazy Obama-hating publication into OBAMA KNOWS HE'S LOSING ROMNEY'S IN FACT IN THE LEAD YOU KNOW BUY A SIGNED I HATE OBAMA BOOK makes it a bit less entertaining.
|
On September 21 2012 04:42 0mar wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 03:17 ziggurat wrote:
2. He claimed that he "inherited" a trillion dollar deficit, but the trillion dollar deficit only came in FY 2009
Bush ran trillion dollar deficits for approximately 3 years. It was disguised as ~400 billion dollar deficits on paper because spending for the Iraq and Afghanistan war were classified as "emergency spending" which is not subject to Congressional oversight. When Obama came into office, he did away with this accounting method and lumped it all under the current fiscal year budget. That's why it looks like the deficit jumped so significantly when Obama took office when in fact the only thing that changed was the accounting method.
Interesting point. Do you have a good source for that? I'd like to take a look at the numbers for that myself. I'll poke around and see what I can find.
|
On September 21 2012 04:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 04:42 0mar wrote:On September 21 2012 03:17 ziggurat wrote:
2. He claimed that he "inherited" a trillion dollar deficit, but the trillion dollar deficit only came in FY 2009
Bush ran trillion dollar deficits for approximately 3 years. It was disguised as ~400 billion dollar deficits on paper because spending for the Iraq and Afghanistan war were classified as "emergency spending" which is not subject to Congressional oversight. When Obama came into office, he did away with this accounting method and lumped it all under the current fiscal year budget. That's why it looks like the deficit jumped so significantly when Obama took office when in fact the only thing that changed was the accounting method. Interesting point. Do you have a good source for that? I'd like to take a look at the numbers for that myself. I'll poke around and see what I can find.
I think xDaunt had discussed that issue with someone else, and there was a bit of conflict as to how to interpret it. I just remember seeing that subject brought up before in this thread.
|
On September 21 2012 04:19 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 04:14 Defacer wrote:On September 21 2012 03:51 ziggurat wrote:On September 21 2012 03:37 Defacer wrote:The Daily Show was on fire last night with Chaos on Bullhshit Mountain. It's obvious that Stewart is taking Fox's post-video propaganda machine a little personally. Link For Canadians. http://www.thecomedynetwork.ca/Shows/TheDailyShow?videoPackage=123839 I don't think he's taking it personally, he's just having a little fun. But you have to realize that most of the big networks provide the same cover to Obama that Fox gives to republicans. Fox just stands out because it has a right wing point of view compared to the left wing views of almost all major media in the US. (And I should clarify, I don't mean to get into a debate about what's "right" or "left" or whether "left" in the us is really "right" by global standards. I am just saying that most media is "left" relative to the american people.) Naaaaah, this segment had teeth to it. Even by Fox Media's low standards, their coverage of the tape and the backflips they're doing is a sight to behold. Even they look desperate. Oh yes ... the civil war in the Republican party has also begun. Here's Michelle Malkin having a fucking spaz at Peggy Noonan and David Brooks and their recent editorials. http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/09/hathos-alert-4.html Yeah Romney is struggling. But he's polling just about as well as he ever has. I'm not sure why there is this disconnect between the pundits and the polls... http://www.gallup.com/poll/150743/Obama-Romney.aspx
First of all, when you average out multiple polls, including the typically right-leaning Ramussen Poll, they have Obama with a 3-5 point advantage, which is considering quite large this late in the election.
But the backlash you're seeing from Reagan and Bush-era conservatives like Noonan, Kristol, McKinnon, Brooks and Frum has little to do with polls, or his likeli. I think they find Mitt Romney's tape truly offensive, on multiple levels.
First, it grossly undermines a serious issue (the size and role of government and the growing welfare state) by oversimplifying it, and reducing it simply to a matter of capturing voters. It's startling to hear Romney himself admit that he has no intention of actually appealing to voters that rely on government subsidies, nor could he if he tried. Instead of addressing the most important domestic issue in America in the next four years, his plan is to ignore the people it affects the most.
Second, conservatives such as McKinnon and Frum are 'compassionate conservatives' from the Bush era. The idea of insulting and categorizing the 47% of people that don't pay income tax as lazy freeloaders that want hand-outs is just intellectually-bankrupt and morally offensive.
And finally, the contents of the video is an unforced error indicative of Romney's incompetence as a politician or political leader. It makes him, and his campaign seem truly dysfunctional and disorganized. It calls into question whether Romney has the capacity to run the country.
These conservatives -- particularly Noonan and Kristol -- are sort of like xDaunt and Blue Panther. They never liked Romney as a candidate, were skeptical about his capacity to lead the country, but they were willing to hold their noses for the greater good of the party. But what Romney's campaign the last two weeks has been so colossally bad you can start to see the inklings of buyer's remorse.
If Romney runs the country the way he runs his campaign, not only will Romney be bad for the Republican Party, he will be bad for America.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
