Obama's Noble Lies - Page 2

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?

Actually, there isn't.


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


Consensus /= right.

A new lie for Obama today on signing statements.


In case that wasn't clear enough...


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.

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.


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."


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.


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.


I think when digging past the platitudes, all will be in agreement on the numbers.

Sssshhhhhhh.... it always has to be bad data. It could NEVER be bad policy.

RCP.com


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.

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.

Poor people smoke in disproportionate numbers on a per capita basis. Any tax that hits a group disproportionately is considered a tax on that group.



The tax discussed is a tax that 34% of the poor will pay while only 13% of the rich will pay it.

You can call that whatever you like but those are the numbers, not the eye rollings, the name callings the rantings or as HuffPo loves to note with Stewart, the evisceratings.

Seems it isn't just I noticing the continual double-talk by Obama. Dick Morris and Eileen McGann really make some key points about the disconnects in this column.


If there is a blue pill and a red pill and the blue pill gets the job done (by government definition) at half the cost, why pick the red pill? The deeper question will be, will we even have the choice of the red pill after the government has outlawed it?

Seven Obama lies.

Remember the Obama motto, if you are going to lie, go big on it. Be the anti-war candidate who add more troops. Be the fiscally responsible candidate who explodes the deficit. Be the savior of the economy by watching unemployment head climb toward double digits while promising 8%.