Obama's Noble Lies

13

Comments

  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,204member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    This :



    This doesn't say anything about the motivation of the statement which is what Takiss was refering to.



    I'm sorry if " Conservative rag " upset you however as you've already stated : .



    That is because discussing motivation instead of the statement is the very definition of an ad-hom.



    That is hilarious.



    An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.



    Ad hominem circumstantial involves pointing out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. Essentially, ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source.



    Did I read that right. Are you declaring that the problem is that someone is unwilling to entertain fallacies?
  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,897member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    That is because discussing motivation instead of the statement is the very definition of an ad-hom.



    That is hilarious.



    An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.



    Ad hominem circumstantial involves pointing out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. Essentially, ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source.



    Did I read that right. Are you declaring that the problem is that someone is unwilling to entertain fallacies?



    there wasn't a question of anyone's beleifs! But a question of motivation for a statement.



    There's a big difference.



    Quote:

    Essentially, ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source



    Which according to your own statement we can do here.









    Quote:

    Did I read that right. Are you declaring that the problem is that someone is unwilling to entertain fallacies







    No. I'm saying in the world of science if many scientists agree on something scientific in nature there's more of a tendancy to be right. Once again this is different from say the historical religious persecution of scientists.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,204member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    there wasn't a question of anyone's beleifs! But a question of motivation for a statement.



    There's a big difference.



    Actually, there isn't.



    Quote:

    Which according to your own statement we can do here.



    You absolutely can. The reasoning won't persuade but there is no rule demanding good reasoning on the forums.



    Quote:

    No. I'm saying in the world of science if many scientists agree on something scientific in nature there's more of a tendency to be right. Once again this is different from say the historical religious persecution of scientists.



    Consensus /= right.



    A new lie for Obama today on signing statements.



    Quote:

    Taught the Constitution for 10 years but still feels it?s a-ok to create those Czars and fire IG?s on a whim? Whatev?.



    And now after raking Bush over the coals for the audacity to issue signing statements what does he do?



    Issue signing statements.



    Obama voters = Suckers!



    In case that wasn't clear enough...



    Quote:

    The House rebuked President Obama for trying to ignore restrictions to international aid payments, voting overwhelmingly for an amendment forcing the administration to abide by its constraints.



    House members approved an amendment by a 429-2 vote to have the Obama administration pressure the World Bank to strengthen labor and environmental standards and require a Treasury Department report on World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) activities. The amendment to a 2010 funding bill for the State Department and foreign operations was proposed by Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas), but it received broad bipartisan support.



    The conditions on World Bank and IMF funding were part of the $106 billion war supplemental bill that was passed last month. Obama, in a statement made as he signed the bill, said that he would ignore the conditions.



    They would ?interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with international organizations and foreign governments, or by requiring consultation with the Congress prior to such negotiations or discussions,? Obama said in the signing statement.



    He told whatever lies were necessary to get into office and now does not expect to abide by his promises. Responsible spending = massively increasing the debt. Stimulus = pork to buy votes and not improve the economy.
  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,897member
    You know I saw something interesting this morning on " Meet The Press ".



    They had a round table discussion about current topics including Obama and the economy. One of the observations that seemed supported by everyone there ( except for the GOP stratigist ) was that if the economy continues to be bad right up to the next election then Obama ( and the democrats ) will suffer ( hung out to dry ) because of it. However if it improves even a little the GOP will be hung out to dry for their early criticism of Obama.



    This is something I've said all along. The GOP and their attacks almost from day one can reflect on them negatively later if they're not right. Almost like they were wishing things to go bad for the sake of their party. Instead of hoping we recover for the sake of all of us.



    The rebuttal by the GOP stratigist was this was sold as an immediate fix
    Quote:

    Let me, let me quote you Larry Summers: "You'll see effects immediately." Christina Romer: "We'll start adding jobs rather than losing them." House Majority leader Steny Hoyer: "There will be an immediate jolt. This will begin creating jobs immediately." And instead, we've seen a loss of 2.6 million jobs.



    Andrea Mitchell countered with
    Quote:

    But unemployment is a, unemployment is a lagging indicator. There has been a decline in the rate of unemployment. That's the, the immediate fix. Plus, you've seen a loosening up of credit. We were on the point of disaster. I think they can accurately argue that they have avoided catastrophe.



    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31865401..._press/page/5/



    Reasonable people who aren't just looking at their party's fortunes realize that any solution will take time. Some comparisons were made to Reagan in the early 80's who's approval ratings were right where Obama's are now. Once things turned around ( Morning in america etc. ) they went back up to become one of the most successful administrations ever. The Republicans are saying from the get go the stimulus package is a failure. If they're wrong they'll be seen as the party of " No ".



    So their you have it. If things are still bad in a year Obama will certainly suffer. If things improve ( even a little ) the Republicans will have egg on their collective faces ( again ) for their heavy handed tactics.



    I'm sure most GOP supporters will disagree with this but I think it's an accurate assessment.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,204member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    You know I saw something interesting this morning on " Meet The Press ".



    They had a round table discussion about current topics including Obama and the economy. One of the observations that seemed supported by everyone there ( except for the GOP stratigist ) was that if the economy continues to be bad right up to the next election then he ( and the democrats ) will suffer ( hung out to dry ) because of it. However if it improves even a little the GOP will be hung out to dry for their early criticism of Obama.



    Most people would note that the reason it was supported by everyone except the GOP strategist was because the GOP strategist was the only person there from the right of the political spectrum.



    Quote:

    Plus, insights analysis on all the week's news from our political roundtable: Republican Strategist and former adviser to Pres. George W. Bush, KAREN HUGHES; Democratic Strategist, BOB SHRUM; NBC News' Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent, ANDREA MITCHELL; and Politico's Chief Political Columnist, ROGER SIMON.



    However given that, I don't think anyone is contesting the general outline of what you say. The real matter will be on whether spin can alter the perception of the word "improve."



    Quote:

    This is something I've said all along. The GOP and their attacks almost from day one can reflect on them negatively later if they're not right. Almost like they were wishing things to go bad for the sake of their party. Instead of hoping we recover for the sake of all of us.



    The rebuttal by the GOP stratigist was " Well this stimulus plan was sold as an immediate fix ".



    Andrea Mitchlle countered with " No it wasn't. The failing of jobs has drop to half of what it was in January. They averted disaster. That was the immediate fix ".



    Now I happened to have been here when Bush was in office and when you were here as well. I know that even when the economy had improved but job creation was weak, you wouldn't call that a recovery. Job creation was part of your definition then and I suspect even though the names and faces have changed that it is still part of most people's definitions now. Based on the spin from above now, a recovery now means merely slow the rate of job destruction. The number of job losses last month increased from the prior month and while lower than the almost 800k from January, were still almost half a million jobs gone.



    I noted how 6% seemed to be the incumbent trigger. Reagan managed to avoid it but had lowered the unemployment rate by 3% within his first term. Obama doesn't have to do better than that but will not be above that. If unemployment hits 10% as even he has noted will happen, and manages to get back down to 7%, he will be reelected and it will likely be an easy reelection. Sure this would mean that no jobs had really been created in his first term, but I think people would still see the recovery and reelect him. However any less than that and it will be a serious fight. If unemployment is still anywhere around the current rate, he will be dust.



    The stimulus was not sold as an immediate recovery, but it was sold as a jobs program that would limit unemployment to 8%. It was sold as something that according to CBO would actually steal from future growth but would limit the pain for now.



    It hasn't limited the pain and still will steal from future growth. So now the point is that the hole to dig out of is even deeper and the tools to address it will be even more limited as it appears there is no support for a second stimulus.



    Finally, I believe a very large problem for Obama is that he is tackling issues that are not the economy and thus it makes it easier to claim he has not addressed the problem. When you are unemployed and someone is constantly trying to fix it, even if it isn't fixed, you are more inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. (Especially true of Obama who many people like) However when you dealt with it in the first month of office and now seem fixated on traveling abroad, passing cap and trade and health care legislation, it is easier to paint a picture of someone who is not handling their business. They can claim the issues are tied together but that will presume unemployed people will care enough to reason that they should be unemployed longer while Obama handles his big lift.



    Quote:

    Reasonable people who aren't just looking at their party's fortunes realize that any solution will take time. Some comparisons were made to Reagan in the early 80's who's approval ratings were right where Obama's are now. Once things turned around ( Morning in america etc. ) they went back up to become one of the most successful administrations ever. The Republicans are saying from the get go the stimulus package is a failure. If they're wrong they'll be seen as the party of " No ".



    Reasonable people will forgive lack of growth as recovery. Starting and ending at 7 percent may be forgiven, even though for most people 6% would get them tossed. But people are not going to forgive the unemployment rate still being 9-10% claiming the losses have been stemmed or slowed.



    Quote:

    So their you have it. If things are still bad in a year Obama will certainly suffer. If things improve ( even a little ) the Republicans will have egg on their collective faces ( again ) for their heavy handed tactics.



    I'm sure most GOP supporters will disagree with this but I think it's an accurate assessment.



    I think when digging past the platitudes, all will be in agreement on the numbers.
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Something I was thinking about the other day:



    The Obama Administration has admitted they "misread how bad the economy was" as they hastily pushed these abominable, pork-laden "stimulus bills" through the legislature.



    Obama is now telling us that "unemployment will keep ticking up" when he told us before that his "stimulus plans" were supposed to prevent that very thing.



    It makes me wonder...



    If they "misread how bad the economy was", could they not also "misread" the current healthcare situation and the effectiveness of Obamacare? Could they not also misread the causes and effects of "climate change" and the effectiveness of "Cap 'N' Trade"?
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,204member
    Sssshhhhhhh.... it always has to be bad data. It could NEVER be bad policy.
  • frank777frank777 Posts: 5,695member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    No. I'm saying in the world of science if many scientists agree on something scientific in nature there's more of a tendancy to be right.



    It's like they don't even bother to teach history in America anymore.
  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,897member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post


    It's like they don't even bother to teach history in America anymore.



    Yes I'm sure you can dig up an example of one scientist being right over other scientists. Remember now we're not talking about religious zelots we're talking other scientists. What were you comparing this to?
  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,897member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    Something I was thinking about the other day:



    The Obama Administration has admitted they "misread how bad the economy was" as they hastily pushed these abominable, pork-laden "stimulus bills" through the legislature.



    Obama is now telling us that "unemployment will keep ticking up" when he told us before that his "stimulus plans" were supposed to prevent that very thing.



    It makes me wonder...



    If they "misread how bad the economy was", could they not also "misread" the current healthcare situation and the effectiveness of Obamacare? Could they not also misread the causes and effects of "climate change" and the effectiveness of "Cap 'N' Trade"?



    Quote:

    when he told us before that his "stimulus plans" were supposed to prevent that very thing.



    Do you have an exact quote that this refers to so we can view the context?



    Quote:

    If they "misread how bad the economy was", could they not also "misread" the current healthcare situation and the effectiveness of Obamacare? Could they not also misread the causes and effects of "climate change" and the effectiveness of "Cap 'N' Trade"?



    This statement has no logic. They're entirely different items.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,204member
    RCP.com



    Quote:

    A new USA Today/Gallup poll puts President Obama's approval rating at 55 percent, which ranks him 10th among 12 post-World War II presidents at the same point in the survey. His approval is down from 61 percent in late May.



    The most interesting lie of Obama's that people are catching onto is the Rush/Delay lie. I don't mean Rush Limbaugh and Tom Delay. I mean that everything Obama wants others to accomplish has to be rushed and everything he has to accomplish gets to be delayed.



    Gitmo closing report.....delayed.


    Mid-year budget report......delayed.


    That incredibly insulting $100 million of "cuts" report..... delayed.




    Meanwhile though... the stimulus and the health care "reform", well they have to be rushed. We all know how well this has worked out with the unread, non-stimulating stimulus.



    The Obama administration already has the ministry of history rewriting the results as we sit here and read them.
    The administration is grabbing some television time to present it's case (yet again) on health care and will use lots of personal anecdotes and stories because the CBO numbers show massive new costs and no savings.



    Obama hasn't turned out to be post-partisan, rather an almost pure partisan.
    He isn't trying to achieve a middle ground, but continues to spout teleprompter platitudes while grabbing ever larger chunks of the U.S. economy.



    People are waking up and realizing that they don't want their lives to be an experiment for President Obama.
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    Meanwhile though... the stimulus and the health care "reform", well they have to be rushed. We all know how well this has worked out with the unread, non-stimulating stimulus.



    Obama himself admits he's "not familiar" with the very health care bill he's telling us must be passed.



    Morning Bell: Obama Admits He?s ?Not Familiar? With House Bill



    Quote:

    During the call, a blogger from Maine said he kept running into an Investors Business Daily article that claimed Section 102 of the House health legislation would outlaw private insurance. He asked: ?Is this true? Will people be able to keep their insurance and will insurers be able to write new policies even though H.R. 3200 is passed?? President Obama replied: ?You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about.?



    This is a truly disturbing admission by the President, especially considering that later in the call, Obama promises yet again: ?If you have health insurance, and you like it, and you have a doctor that you like, then you can keep it. Period.? How can Obama keep making this promise if he is not familiar with the health legislation that is being written in Congress? Details matter.



  • mumbo jumbomumbo jumbo Posts: 1,633member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    RCP.com

    [/URL]



    Yes. Obama's right down there with Bill Clinton, Saint Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.



    http://www.gallup.com/poll/121391/Ob...t-Average.aspx







    Edit: did you know (little-known fact!) that Sir Ronald Reagan actually took the photographs of Ayn "Tubgirl" Rand at the grotesque nadir of her professional and personal plummet? It's true. Poor Ayn. She wanted the Dungeons and Dragons fans. She got the kids who were bullied and became bullies when they "grew up" instead of the kids who were bullied and became fantasists (Ron Paul got those.) But yes, apparently Ron put Ayn up to it.
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Obama has already broken his promise to not raise taxes on people making under $250,000. If ObamaCare® passes, he will do it again. Actually, he'll probably do it regardless, as it will be necessary to pay back China for his "stimulus packages".



    Congress Raises Taxes on Poor to Pay for Health Care ? Again



    Quote:

    Throughout his campaign, President Barack Obama repeatedly promised the American people: ?If you?re a family that?s making $250,000 a year or less you will see no increase in your taxes. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your personal gains tax, not any of your taxes.? Just 15 days into office, President Obama signed a bill expanding the children?s health insurance program that was paid for with a 156% tax hike on tobacco. Since slightly more than half of today?s smokers (53%) earn less than $36,000 per year, Obama?s first effort at expanding government?s role in health care also became his first broken promise.



    But that first Medicaid expansion was minor league compared to the estimated $1.3 trillion health care plan Congress is considering now. And how is Obama planning to pay for his health care bill? Tax hikes. Including employer health care mandates, which as Heritage scholars James Sherk and Robert Book explain, are really just a tax on low-income workers:



    Quote:

    Both the House and Senate drafts of health care reform include so-called ?employer mandates? or ?pay or play? provisions. These mandates require employers to pay higher taxes if (a) they do not offer health insurance, or (b) they offer it but have employees who decline it and instead use the government system.

    ?

    The ostensible purpose of such a tax penalty is to discourage employers from dropping workers onto the taxpayer-subsidized government plan. The tax will pay a portion of the public?s costs when employees use the new government system instead of employer-sponsored insurance. However, the actual result will be lower pay and job losses, especially for low-income workers.

    ?

    If Congress makes health coverage more expensive for employers, or requires new payroll taxes, employers will be forced to cut wages to make up the difference. Even if the law stated (as the House bill does) that employers could not cut pay directly to make up for the cost of health care, they will ultimately, somehow have to do just that.



    Obama has broken his no-new-taxes-on-the-poor pledge once already. Will he do it again?



  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    "What has Obama done for the country? Well, he closed Gitmo, except now he can't. He got us out of Iraq, except we're still there. He ended partisanship, except he didn't. He ended racial politics, except he's promoting it. He's 'saved' millions of jobs. But he has not yet stopped the seas from rising, as he promised. That's still a work in progress." -Rush Limbaugh



  • outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    Obama has already broken his promise to not raise taxes on people making under $250,000. If ObamaCare® passes, he will do it again. Actually, he'll probably do it regardless, as it will be necessary to pay back China for his "stimulus packages".



    Congress Raises Taxes on Poor to Pay for Health Care ? Again



    Wow, what an incredibly dishonest argument. Higher taxes on tobacco = taxes on the poor.
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Outsider View Post


    Wow, what an incredibly dishonest argument. Higher taxes on tobacco = taxes on the poor.



    What is "incredibly dishonest" about it? Didn't Obama say he would not raise ANY tax on people making under $250,000? Or was he just speaking "figuratively"?



    Some poor people buy cigs. ==> Obama raised taxes on cigs. ==> Obama raised taxes on the poor.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,204member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Outsider View Post


    Wow, what an incredibly dishonest argument. Higher taxes on tobacco = taxes on the poor.



    Taxes are rated on their progressiveness and regressiveness all the time.



    Taxes, like sales tax, which disproportionately hit the poor are called taxes on the poor.



    I guess a yacht tax isn't really a tax on the rich, just those who own... yachts.
  • northgatenorthgate Posts: 4,459member
    Only poor people smoke cigarettes? I didn't know that.



    You guys continue to argue yourselves into circles, I swear.



    Sales taxes on apples and bananas is an unfair tax on the poor (which is why we don't do it).



    But taxing cigarettes? Come on.
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Northgate View Post


    Only poor people smoke cigarettes? I didn't know that.



    You guys continue to argue yourselves into circles, I swear.



    Sales taxes on apples and bananas is an unfair tax on the poor (which is why we don't do it).



    But taxing cigarettes? Come on.



    Nobody said only poor people smoke cigarettes. Nice try.
Sign In or Register to comment.