AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The "Vetting" of Obama
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The "Vetting" of Obama - Page 2

post #41 of 57
6/3/12 at 4:40am

GIVE IT A REST YOU SOUND LIKE THAT PHONY TRUMP WITH HIS STUPID ACCUSATION OF OBAMA BEING BORN IN KENYA. JOBS ARE MORE ESSENTIAL THAN THIS CRAP ALREADY.
 

Reply
Reply
post #42 of 57
6/3/12 at 11:21am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

GIVE IT A REST YOU SOUND LIKE THAT PHONY TRUMP WITH HIS STUPID ACCUSATION OF OBAMA BEING BORN IN KENYA. JOBS ARE MORE ESSENTIAL THAN THIS CRAP ALREADY.
 

 

1.  Who are you addressing?

 

2.  You are personally attacking another member by calling him stupid and phony.  Stop.  

 

3.  I don't think Trump has claimed Obama was born in Kenya.

 

4.  Jobs?  Excellent.  Let's have that discussion, because I agree...that's what's important.  I'll start:  Obama has failed.  He will be the first President ever to have a net job loss during his administration.  The economy is almost completely stagnant, and is being held back by the President's policies.  

To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #43 of 57
6/3/12 at 12:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

1.  Who are you addressing?

2.  You are personally attacking another member by calling him stupid and phony.  Stop.  

3.  I don't think Trump has claimed Obama was born in Kenya.

4.  Jobs?  Excellent.  Let's have that discussion, because I agree...that's what's important.  I'll start:  Obama has failed.  He will be the first President ever to have a net job loss during his administration.  The economy is almost completely stagnant, and is being held back by the President's policies.  

He's talking about Mc D not trumpets.

Bush had a net loss from his two terms of over 650,000 private jobs. The only reason he shows a net job gain over those two terms is because he created so many new government jobs.

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #44 of 57
6/3/12 at 12:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

 

We're not that far apart on this one.  I do think it's possible he was born elsewhere (hence the cert is a fabrication).  Notice I use the term "possible."  All in all, I think it's not likely though. As others have pointed out, him being ineligible at this point really doesn't matter. It's not as if everything he did can be undone.  And the resulting scandal would probably be most harmful to us as a nation.  

 

 

The office of the president easily survived the Nixon and Clinton scandals. This possible issue with Obama has nothing to do the integrity of the office itself, or the standing of the nation as a whole... it's to do with Obama himself as a person, his legal status re. eligibility, and member of his team (and others) who are possibly concealing information that the public has a right to know. It's all down to being forthright and open. As I mentioned earlier, the entire issue could be so easily settled if the White House would submit the original document for forensic study by independent, appropriately qualified analysts with no connection to the White House. It would be so easy. And, imagine the PR coup it would be for Obama, just to be able to debunk the army of "Birthers" which have grown, largely as a result of the Obama Administration's obfuscations and less than adequate response to the issue.

 

 

Quote:
I heard a good related point earlier today.  It doesn't really matter if Obama was born in Hawaii, Idaho, New York, etc.  It doesn't matter if we have rock solid verification of the same.  The more major issue is that he was raised outside of the country for some time.  It's therefore not surprising he struggles with traditional American values as a result...he wasn't raised as an American, and seems to have always considered himself somewhat of a cultural outsider...a man searching for his identity.  John Boehner made a related comment on this last year when he essentially said many people didn't identify with the President's narrative as their experiences have been so much different.  I think this is part of the fundamental disconnect we see with Obama and the electorate. 

 

Hmmm... to which "traditional American values" are you referring specifically here?

 

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #45 of 57
6/3/12 at 11:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

 

The office of the president easily survived the Nixon and Clinton scandals. This possible issue with Obama has nothing to do the integrity of the office itself, or the standing of the nation as a whole... it's to do with Obama himself as a person, his legal status re. eligibility, and member of his team (and others) who are possibly concealing information that the public has a right to know. It's all down to being forthright and open. As I mentioned earlier, the entire issue could be so easily settled if the White House would submit the original document for forensic study by independent, appropriately qualified analysts with no connection to the White House. It would be so easy. And, imagine the PR coup it would be for Obama, just to be able to debunk the army of "Birthers" which have grown, largely as a result of the Obama Administration's obfuscations and less than adequate response to the issue.

 

 

It's not looking good for Obama overall. Indeed, why can nobody verify a birth certificate? If the president's birth certificate can't be easily verified, what hope for ~any~ immigration process, let alone "keeping out the terrorists"? 

 

Isn't there an election commission for any democracy? You know, the people that verify the person running for any public office is who they say they are, eligible to run for office, that no voters from beyond the grave are coming back to cast their vote, etc.?

Reply
Reply
post #46 of 57
6/4/12 at 4:06am

Why are you Conservatives always on the defensive? Obama walked into deep shit almost 4 years ago and is trying to get out of it. Thanks to the idiot Bush who ruined almost everything he did in his presidency.Needless wars and piling up debt upon more debt.This man wore blinders Bush for his years in office.Now we are facing a grave crisis.
 

Reply
Reply
post #47 of 57
6/4/12 at 9:44am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post


He's talking about Mc D not trumpets.
Bush had a net loss from his two terms of over 650,000 private jobs. The only reason he shows a net job gain over those two terms is because he created so many new government jobs.

 

If we're only talking about jobs, he showed a net gain of 1 million jobs over two terms.  Yes, there was a lot of public sector growth.  However, it's disingenuous to claim that "he created" those public sector jobs.  Those numbers are for total public sector employment, which is NOT just federal or state government employment.  This includes teachers, firefighters, police, other law enforcement and security, construction, etc.  These jobs were made possible by an expanding economy, which helped provide the revenue to fund those jobs.   

 

Of course, looking at net jobs alone is misleading.  Total unemployment was low during Bush years.  Spending, debt and deficits were far lower.  Economic growth rebounded.  What Obama has done is massively increase the size and scope of the federal government and borrow at a faster rate than any President in history...with little to nothing to show for it.  

To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #48 of 57
6/5/12 at 4:27am

No response from you.Very surprised.
 

Reply
Reply
post #49 of 57
6/5/12 at 8:28am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

Why are you Conservatives always on the defensive? Obama walked into deep shit almost 4 years ago and is trying to get out of it. Thanks to the idiot Bush who ruined almost everything he did in his presidency.Needless wars and piling up debt upon more debt.This man wore blinders Bush for his years in office.Now we are facing a grave crisis.
 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

No response from you.Very surprised.
 

 

It's hard to keep responding to the same idiotic misperceptions.  But here goes: The narrative you're using is the same one the President in trying to use.  That narrative is that all the debts and deficits are Bush's fault.  He "wrecked the economy" and piled on the debt by launching wars and cutting taxes for billionaires.  Now, poor little Obama has to fix the problem.  

 

The problem with this narrative is that it just isn't true.  

 

Deficits:  Bush did engage in deficit spending.  However, excluding TARP, his biggest deficit was in the $400 billion range.  Obama's biggest thus far is over $1.6 trillion. I'm certianly not happy with $400 billion, but given that we had a growing economy, it was somewhat sustainable at least.  Obama's deficits are not (they are projected to be over $1 Trillion a year for the next ten years).  

 

Debt:  Bush racked up about $4 Trillion in debt over eight years.  Again, this is not good.  However, by November, Obama will have added $6 Trillion to the deficit in FOUR years.  This means he's added to the debt faster than all other Presidents...combined.  

 

The economy:  No one has been able to point an action Bush took or failed to take that caused the economic crisis of 2008 and subsequent recession.  Cutting taxes certainly didn't do it.  "Deregulation" certainly didn't do it, though the Left loves to pretend that Bush just came in and wiped out various regulations.  In reality, it was the housing bubble and financial products that no one really understood that caused the tidal wave.  I don't see how you blame Bush for this.  If anything, his administration was pushing for greater oversight and tighter standards of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Here, it was Democrats that claimed Fannie and Freddie were completely solvent.   

 

Wars:  It's hard to claim that Bush "started" the Afghanistan war given that it was in response to 9/11.  This was overwhelmingly supported in both houses of Congress and by the American people.  Iraq has, in fact, cost a lot of money and is a war that many people feel was unnecessary.  In the grand scheme of things however, the Iraq war cost about $1.2 trillion over 9 years.  That's about 130 billion a year.  So is the Iraq war (which is now all but over) responsible for our current $1 Trillion deficits?  

 

Other spending:  When Obama took office, Democrats argued that a massive "infrastructure" stimulus was necessary to create jobs and economic growth.  Clearly, the stimulus was spent and failed, as unemployment is higher now than when Obama took office.  They also pushed relentlessly for Obamacare, which will cost $2 Trillion over 10 years, yet somehow magically not add to the deficit.  My point is...how can all of this spending be blamed on the man who held the office four years prior?  And if it was necessary to "clean up his mess," isn't it obvious that their approach failed miserably?  

 

Tax Cuts: Those who claim that the Bush tax cuts "cost" us money are wholly ignorant of the fact that taxation is not zero sum.  That means that looking at what revenue "would have been" had taxes not been cut is a useless metric.  Doing so ignores that lower taxes tend to stimulate growth, which thereby increases overall revenue in the long term.  This is why by 2007 the government had record revenue despite much lower rates.  The same was true of the Reagan tax cuts, which were far more dramatic.  Revenue doesn't go down over a period of years, because the economy grows.  In fact, revenue has remained around 20% of GDP regardless of what top rate is, be it 90% or 70% or 28% or 35%.  So no, the Bush tax cuts did not contribute to our current situation.  In fact, they've helped us economically.  

 

You see, Marv, this isn't about conservative vs. liberal.  It's about up or down.  It's about reality.  Obama has failed miserably, and it's time for a new President. That is all.  

To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #50 of 57
6/5/12 at 9:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

 

It's hard to keep responding to the same idiotic misperceptions.  But here goes: The narrative you're using is the same one the President in trying to use.  That narrative is that all the debts and deficits are Bush's fault.  He "wrecked the economy" and piled on the debt by launching wars and cutting taxes for billionaires.  Now, poor little Obama has to fix the problem.  

 

The problem with this narrative is that it just isn't true.  

 

Deficits:  Bush did engage in deficit spending.  However, excluding TARP, his biggest deficit was in the $400 billion range.  Obama's biggest thus far is over $1.6 trillion. I'm certianly not happy with $400 billion, but given that we had a growing economy, it was somewhat sustainable at least.  Obama's deficits are not (they are projected to be over $1 Trillion a year for the next ten years).  

 

Debt:  Bush racked up about $4 Trillion in debt over eight years.  Again, this is not good.  However, by November, Obama will have added $6 Trillion to the deficit in FOUR years.  This means he's added to the debt faster than all other Presidents...combined.  

 

The economy:  No one has been able to point an action Bush took or failed to take that caused the economic crisis of 2008 and subsequent recession.  Cutting taxes certainly didn't do it.  "Deregulation" certainly didn't do it, though the Left loves to pretend that Bush just came in and wiped out various regulations.  In reality, it was the housing bubble and financial products that no one really understood that caused the tidal wave.  I don't see how you blame Bush for this.  If anything, his administration was pushing for greater oversight and tighter standards of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Here, it was Democrats that claimed Fannie and Freddie were completely solvent.   

 

 

 

 

There appears to have been an increase in spending since 2009 - see graph - but it is a modest increase over the Bush years, a far cry from Romney's claim.

 

Federal_Spending_Bush_Vs_Obama.png

 

 

Is President Obama’s spending an “inferno,” as Mitt Romney claims, or a binge that “never happened” as an analysis touted by the White House concluded? We judge that both of those claims are wrong on the facts.

The truth is that the nearly 18 percent spike in spending in fiscal 2009 — for which the president is sometimes blamed entirely — was mostly due to appropriations and policies that were already in place when Obama took office.

That includes spending for the bank bailout legislation approved by President Bush. Annual increases in amounts actually spent since fiscal 2009 have been relatively modest. In fact, spending for the first seven months of the current fiscal year is running slightly below the same period last year, and below projections.

 

 

Quote:

Wars:  It's hard to claim that Bush "started" the Afghanistan war given that it was in response to 9/11.  This was overwhelmingly supported in both houses of Congress and by the American people. 

 

 Iraq has, in fact, cost a lot of money and is a war that many people feel was unnecessary.  In the grand scheme of things however, the Iraq war cost about $1.2 trillion over 9 years.  That's about 130 billion a year.  So is the Iraq war (which is now all but over) responsible for our current $1 Trillion deficits?  

 

Other spending:  When Obama took office, Democrats argued that a massive "infrastructure" stimulus was necessary to create jobs and economic growth.  Clearly, the stimulus was spent and failed, as unemployment is higher now than when Obama took office.  They also pushed relentlessly for Obamacare, which will cost $2 Trillion over 10 years, yet somehow magically not add to the deficit.  My point is...how can all of this spending be blamed on the man who held the office four years prior?  And if it was necessary to "clean up his mess," isn't it obvious that their approach failed miserably?  

 

Tax Cuts: Those who claim that the Bush tax cuts "cost" us money are wholly ignorant of the fact that taxation is not zero sum.  That means that looking at what revenue "would have been" had taxes not been cut is a useless metric.  Doing so ignores that lower taxes tend to stimulate growth, which thereby increases overall revenue in the long term.  This is why by 2007 the government had record revenue despite much lower rates.  The same was true of the Reagan tax cuts, which were far more dramatic.  Revenue doesn't go down over a period of years, because the economy grows.  In fact, revenue has remained around 20% of GDP regardless of what top rate is, be it 90% or 70% or 28% or 35%.  So no, the Bush tax cuts did not contribute to our current situation.  In fact, they've helped us economically.  

 

You see, Marv, this isn't about conservative vs. liberal.  It's about up or down.  It's about reality.  Obama has failed miserably, and it's time for a new President. That is all. 

 

Yet once again, I have to take issue with the claim that the Afghanistan war was "in response" to 9/11. How could it have been "in response" to 9/11 when it has been reported from a number of reliable and official sources that the (Bush) administration had planned the Afghanistan invasion prior to 9/11?

 

 

This article by the former UK Environment Minister Michael Meacher (1997-2003) - under the Blair premiership is also very telling.

 

Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer was part of a pre-9/11 operation named Able Danger. Its purpose was to identify Al quaeda cells and their operations, as well as to disrupt their activities. Shaffer says the lead hijacker, Mohamed Atta, was indentified in the report. He then went to the exectuive director of the 9/11 commission Philip Zelikow in 2003, but was ignored. When Shaffer wrote a book detailing Able Danger entitled Operation Dark Heart, the Defense Department bought up and destroyed the enitre first printing of the book at a taxpayer cost of $46,000. Could the DoD, DIA, and/or CIA have known about the hijackers and their intent to attack, yet did nothing so they could have an excuse to go to Afghanistan?.....

 

......

 

Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers obtained their visas in Saudi Arabia. Michael Springman, the former head of the American visa bureau in Jeddah, has stated that since 1987 the CIA had been illicitly issuing visas to unqualified applicants from the Middle East and bringing them to the US for training in terrorism for the Afghan war in collaboration with Bin Laden (BBC, November 6 2001). It seems this operation continued after the Afghan war for other purposes. It is also reported that five of the hijackers received training at secure US military installations in the 1990s (Newsweek, September 15 2001).

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #51 of 57
6/6/12 at 4:21am

What you posted to me is some what true but not all. The stimulus helped with the auto bailout and getting three giant corporations back on their feet and thousands of people back their jobs.I agree Obama spent to much time advocating his health care program instead of getting the economy stronger and on the right road. The goal of the Republicans when Obama came into office was make him a one term president which they wanted all the time.Romney again i say cares about his rich people and not people like myself or others who are struggling to make ends meet. His financial plan is what go back to the Bush era again. Go back instead of forwards.We are in real trouble if Romney becomes president i am afraid this time.This man cowers from everything you confront him with. Good businessman maybe not a good leader to lead this country.Both candidates have flaws.
 

Reply
Reply
post #52 of 57
6/6/12 at 6:00am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

 

 

 

There appears to have been an increase in spending since 2009 - see graph - but it is a modest increase over the Bush years, a far cry from Romney's claim.

 

Federal_Spending_Bush_Vs_Obama.png

 

 

Is President Obama’s spending an “inferno,” as Mitt Romney claims, or a binge that “never happened” as an analysis touted by the White House concluded? We judge that both of those claims are wrong on the facts.

The truth is that the nearly 18 percent spike in spending in fiscal 2009 — for which the president is sometimes blamed entirely — was mostly due to appropriations and policies that were already in place when Obama took office.

That includes spending for the bank bailout legislation approved by President Bush. Annual increases in amounts actually spent since fiscal 2009 have been relatively modest. In fact, spending for the first seven months of the current fiscal year is running slightly below the same period last year, and below projections.

 

 

 

Modest?  LOL!  Federal expenditures in 2008 were $2.9 Trillion.  They are over $3.6 Trillion today.  That's a $700 billion increase, or a 20 percent increase in Federal spending!  Really sammi, I know you're not the biggest Obama fan out there, but you're doing his campaign's bidding to the letter.  They are out there claiming that under Obama, federal spending is growing the least it has in 60 years.  Meanwhile, we're running $1.5 Trillion deficits, don't have a budget at all, and have added over $5 Trillion in debt in just four years.   Like many Obama claims, it just doesn't pass the smell test.  It just doesn't make sense to people.  And it shouldn't, because Obama's spending makes Bush's look like chump change. 

 

 

 


 

 

Yet once again, I have to take issue with the claim that the Afghanistan war was "in response" to 9/11. How could it have been "in response" to 9/11 when it has been reported from a number of reliable and official sources that the (Bush) administration had planned the Afghanistan invasion prior to 9/11?

 

 

This article by the former UK Environment Minister Michael Meacher (1997-2003) - under the Blair premiership is also very telling.

 

Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer was part of a pre-9/11 operation named Able Danger. Its purpose was to identify Al quaeda cells and their operations, as well as to disrupt their activities. Shaffer says the lead hijacker, Mohamed Atta, was indentified in the report. He then went to the exectuive director of the 9/11 commission Philip Zelikow in 2003, but was ignored. When Shaffer wrote a book detailing Able Danger entitled Operation Dark Heart, the Defense Department bought up and destroyed the enitre first printing of the book at a taxpayer cost of $46,000. Could the DoD, DIA, and/or CIA have known about the hijackers and their intent to attack, yet did nothing so they could have an excuse to go to Afghanistan?.....

 

......

 

Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers obtained their visas in Saudi Arabia. Michael Springman, the former head of the American visa bureau in Jeddah, has stated that since 1987 the CIA had been illicitly issuing visas to unqualified applicants from the Middle East and bringing them to the US for training in terrorism for the Afghan war in collaboration with Bin Laden (BBC, November 6 2001). It seems this operation continued after the Afghan war for other purposes. It is also reported that five of the hijackers received training at secure US military installations in the 1990s (Newsweek, September 15 2001).

 

 

Oh boy.  

To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #53 of 57
6/6/12 at 9:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

 

Modest?  LOL!  Federal expenditures in 2008 were $2.9 Trillion.  They are over $3.6 Trillion today.  That's a $700 billion increase, or a 20 percent increase in Federal spending!  Really sammi, I know you're not the biggest Obama fan out there, but you're doing his campaign's bidding to the letter.  They are out there claiming that under Obama, federal spending is growing the least it has in 60 years.  Meanwhile, we're running $1.5 Trillion deficits, don't have a budget at all, and have added over $5 Trillion in debt in just four years.   Like many Obama claims, it just doesn't pass the smell test.  It just doesn't make sense to people.  And it shouldn't, because Obama's spending makes Bush's look like chump change. 

 

 

I guess it all depends of whose figures you're looking at, and how they are presented. There is no single villain here: Both Bush and Obama administrations have sent the deficit into orbit - but so many people are so locked into that partisan model that it is only appropriate to point the blame one way.

 

You are right: I am no fan of Obama - I think he is a traitor both to those who elected him, and the country as a whole for a smorgasbord of reasons. However, one aspect of Obama spending spree than is overlooked is that he can lay claim to being the unrivaled Corporate Welfare Champion: And this was in 2009, not long after he took office!

 

 

"Forget corporate welfare," said Leslie Paige, media director of Citizens Against Government Waste, in an email to the Huffington Post: "We are now seeing full-scale corporate adoption."

While conservative critics of traditional welfare payments to single mothers have bitterly complained about the flow of federal money to the "undeserving poor," the checks, loan guarantees and other subsidies flying out the door of the Treasury, Federal Reserve and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation dwarf the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program -- a.k.a welfare for poor people -- which, by the standards of AIG and Citicorp, get chump change: $23.2 billion this year.

The new Corporate Welfare - including the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP); the Public-Private Investment Program (PPIP); FDIC Temporary Liquidity Guarantees (TLG); the Targeted Investment Program (TIP); the Term Asset-Backed Securities Lending Facility (TALF) etc., etc. -- goes to corporations that are principal players in the financial practices that contributed to the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. These corporations include -- but are by no means limited to -- Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, AIG, Morgan Stanley, J.P. Morgan, Sun Trust, State Street, U.S. Bancorp, PNC Financial Services, Capital One Financial Corp, American Express, Chase Home Finance, Countrywide, and GMAC Mortgage.   

* * *

 

Quote:
Oh boy

 

My reactions as well. And Saudi Arabia

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #54 of 57
6/6/12 at 1:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

 

We're not that far apart on this one.  I do think it's possible he was born elsewhere (hence the cert is a fabrication).  Notice I use the term "possible."  All in all, I think it's not likely though. As others have pointed out, him being ineligible at this point really doesn't matter. It's not as if everything he did can be undone.  And the resulting scandal would probably be most harmful to us as a nation.  

 

 

The office of the president easily survived the Nixon and Clinton scandals. This possible issue with Obama has nothing to do the integrity of the office itself, or the standing of the nation as a whole... it's to do with Obama himself as a person, his legal status re. eligibility, and member of his team (and others) who are possibly concealing information that the public has a right to know. It's all down to being forthright and open. As I mentioned earlier, the entire issue could be so easily settled if the White House would submit the original document for forensic study by independent, appropriately qualified analysts with no connection to the White House. It would be so easy. And, imagine the PR coup it would be for Obama, just to be able to debunk the army of "Birthers" which have grown, largely as a result of the Obama Administration's obfuscations and less than adequate response to the issue.

 

 

Quote:
I heard a good related point earlier today.  It doesn't really matter if Obama was born in Hawaii, Idaho, New York, etc.  It doesn't matter if we have rock solid verification of the same.  The more major issue is that he was raised outside of the country for some time.  It's therefore not surprising he struggles with traditional American values as a result...he wasn't raised as an American, and seems to have always considered himself somewhat of a cultural outsider...a man searching for his identity.  John Boehner made a related comment on this last year when he essentially said many people didn't identify with the President's narrative as their experiences have been so much different.  I think this is part of the fundamental disconnect we see with Obama and the electorate. 

 

Hmmm... to which "traditional American values" are you referring specifically here?

 

The reality is Obama and his team don't want it settled. He prefers that folks like yourself stay on your conspiratorial chain and stay away from thinking about the right answers due to paranoia.

 

I mean really, when has documentation proven anything for you Sammi? In fact it is the exact opposite, you've been so systematically taught to be skeptical about anything resembling rule of law or conventional views that you'd be scared to accept them no matter what sort of proof you had presented.

 

Let's take a look at all the various things that are now "racist" or at a minimum, proof of ill intent.

 

-Asking for a birth certificate or other proof of citizenship

-Asking for a photo ID to veriry right to vote

-Equal and non-affirmative criteria for entrance to schools or awarding of government contracts

-Allowing the states to undertake the roles assigned to them and the federal government to undertake roles assigned to it.

-Rule of law instead of rule of mob

 

When you have a large and disaffected group out there that doesn't believe any documentation proves anything, no laws really matter, that regular words and concepts are all "dog whistles" for different thoughts, and finally that any systematic effort, regulation or action must by definition be against them, then you've got a permanent vote in your pocket and also someone who cannot be helped or redeemed by any other method. They are all flawed, horrible, corrupt, backdoor deals, etc.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #55 of 57
6/8/12 at 5:50am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

 

I guess it all depends of whose figures you're looking at, and how they are presented. There is no single villain here: Both Bush and Obama administrations have sent the deficit into orbit - but so many people are so locked into that partisan model that it is only appropriate to point the blame one way.

 

You are right: I am no fan of Obama - I think he is a traitor both to those who elected him, and the country as a whole for a smorgasbord of reasons. However, one aspect of Obama spending spree than is overlooked is that he can lay claim to being the unrivaled Corporate Welfare Champion: And this was in 2009, not long after he took office!

 

 

"Forget corporate welfare," said Leslie Paige, media director of Citizens Against Government Waste, in an email to the Huffington Post: "We are now seeing full-scale corporate adoption."

While conservative critics of traditional welfare payments to single mothers have bitterly complained about the flow of federal money to the "undeserving poor," the checks, loan guarantees and other subsidies flying out the door of the Treasury, Federal Reserve and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation dwarf the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program -- a.k.a welfare for poor people -- which, by the standards of AIG and Citicorp, get chump change: $23.2 billion this year.

The new Corporate Welfare - including the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP); the Public-Private Investment Program (PPIP); FDIC Temporary Liquidity Guarantees (TLG); the Targeted Investment Program (TIP); the Term Asset-Backed Securities Lending Facility (TALF) etc., etc. -- goes to corporations that are principal players in the financial practices that contributed to the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. These corporations include -- but are by no means limited to -- Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, AIG, Morgan Stanley, J.P. Morgan, Sun Trust, State Street, U.S. Bancorp, PNC Financial Services, Capital One Financial Corp, American Express, Chase Home Finance, Countrywide, and GMAC Mortgage.   

* * *

 

 

My reactions as well. And Saudi Arabia

 

 

No, sammi.  You cannot explain away math.  Bush spent far less than Obama has.  Deficits were far lower.  $1.5 Trillion is nearly four times as bad as $400 billion.  It's just that simple.  

To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #56 of 57
6/8/12 at 10:55am

Obummer is a horrible president, but the left and the MSM keep defending him.  He and his left wing anti American policies need to go. I call for the EPA to be dissolved along with most environmental regulations.  I also call for most labor laws to be dissolved.  Get rid of the greens, the unions, and the minimum wage and let the market work.  Too bad Mittens is nothing but a rino!

Reply
Reply
post #57 of 57
6/8/12 at 3:31pm

It's just one Mitten, right?

The politics of charisma is so Third World. Americans were never going to buy into it for long. - Foudad Ajami
Reply
The politics of charisma is so Third World. Americans were never going to buy into it for long. - Foudad Ajami
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The "Vetting" of Obama