A fine analysis of the current misinformation campaign

slurper_la

Superior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Posts
5,879
Media
9
Likes
3,762
Points
333
Location
Los Angeles (California, United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male

FRE

Admired Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Posts
3,053
Media
44
Likes
833
Points
258
Location
Palm Springs, California USA
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
I am reminded of the boy who cried wolf.

The Republicans have told so many egregious lies that it's got to the point that I no longer listen; I almost assume that everything they say is a lie.

I'm white, but I happily voted for Obana. As a thinking man, I don't agree with everything he has said and done and, like everyone else, he's made a few mistakes, but on the whole, I think that he's been a good president so far. Had he been white, probably he'd have got 60% of the votes instead of 51%. It's too soon to tell, but it may be that in the future, we will look back and see him as one of the best presidents we've had.
 

B_talltpaguy

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Posts
2,331
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
123
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
^You're being far too realistic in your assessment... The wingnuts would attack you right now for doing so, but they're too busy trying to get their heads to stop spinning at the moment.
 

FRE

Admired Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Posts
3,053
Media
44
Likes
833
Points
258
Location
Palm Springs, California USA
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
There is one thing on which they are right: Obama was born in Kenya.

When Obama decided to run for president, he realized that, because he was born in Kenya, the constitution made him illegible. So, he had an aid use a time machine to go back in time and change newspaper records so that it would look as though he'd been born in Hawaii. Clever, wasn't it? And he got away with it!!
 

JTalbain

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Posts
1,786
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
258
Age
34
You didn't dismiss anything.
Actually, he did. Your comparison would only be valid if Obama were stating an alternate reality as fact. Not his promise to close Gitmo and it remaining open, but if he left it opened and claimed later he had never promised to close it or had closed it already. That is the Gitmo equivalent to what is being done by the GOP.
Gitmo opened indefinitely.
Actually they are in the process of trying to put all of the prisoners somewhere. It'll sort itself out. And it would help if the GOP would stop campaigning to keep it open.
Think Progress Steele Hypocritically Criticizes Obama For Having Yet To Close Guantanamo Bay
Still in Iraq for as long as the eye can see.
Actually we have a stated date of withdrawal from Iraq. We will no longer have a combat role in Iraq by Aug 31, 2010, and about 30k-40k troops will stay in an advisory role, leaving by December 31, 2011.
Obama sets date to end Iraq combat mission - Conflict in Iraq- msnbc.com
No debates have been televised.
Nope, but plenty of mudslinging back and forth. Look at the crap that has been shoveled by the GOP lately. They have only criticism of any Democratic policy rather than alternative suggestions of their own, because it is easier to criticize than create. Has it occurred to you that the Republicans might be dodging debate because they know they'd get skewered in a direct confrontation? What great debates can you tell us about that have been denied coverage?
Shovel-ready jobs my ass. Unemployment over 10%, heading higher. The construction jobs you are seeing aren't a result of the stimulus.
This sorely tempts me to take my digital camera, drive a mile from my house, take a picture of the sign by the road construction which proudly states that it is made possible by the Economic Recovery Act, and return to post it here. Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.
What about lobbyists in the WH?
That was covered a mere couple of months after Obama took office. He wanted no lobbyists, then he realized that the lobbyists were also the most competent, because they had all of the experience in the political jobs. So, in an attempt at pragmatism, he compromised and made the rule that lobbyists could not work in any field which they had lobbied in the past two years.
Chris Kelly: Obama Lobbyist Rule Doesn't Apply to Lobbyists: Obama
What about no earmarks?
He never stated that he was going to abolish earmarks. He said earmarks needed to be reformed. It would be foolish to do away with earmarks, because you would not be able to direct spending in any one area. If you wanted to direct $100 million, for example to create jobs in an ailing job sector, you couldn't do that without an earmark. You'd have to direct the money to the states and just hope they spent it that way. It's a Republican talking point that government cannot run anything efficiently, but that kind of reform being passed is what would make them right.
Lawmakers pushing for earmark reform think Obama boosted their chances - TheHill.com-
Also, he publicly endorsed an amendment to earmark reform proposed by Republican senator Jim DeMint after it was shot down on the senate floor (Not just Democrats to blame here, the vote was 79-21). And who says Obama isn't being bipartisan?
Obama: No earmarks for 2009 - CNN.com
 

B_talltpaguy

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Posts
2,331
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
123
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
^I don't know why you wasted your time.. if he returns to this thread at all, it will be to deny or oppose everything you just wrote in one way or another, and then ridicule you for it.
 

JTalbain

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Posts
1,786
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
258
Age
34
^I don't know why you wasted your time.. if he returns to this thread at all, it will be to deny or oppose everything you just wrote in one way or another, and then ridicule you for it.
I don't respond to bs spouting trolls because I think they're going to change their opinions, I respond to them so anyone who is reading won't mistakenly think of their ignored points as "dropped" points. Sorry, it's an old debate reflex. Seriously though, if anyone was on the fence on the subject, read the post I responded to, and then saw no rebuttal, they might think it was true.
 

B_talltpaguy

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Posts
2,331
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
123
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
^Fair enough... And with that, let's all kneel together and pray that nobody is actually that dumb. :biggrin1:





Sadly, we know that many are
 

FRE

Admired Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Posts
3,053
Media
44
Likes
833
Points
258
Location
Palm Springs, California USA
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
A couple hours ago, I got a call from the Republican party. I was asked what I thought about the speaker of the house and a few other things. I replied that I really liked the speaker of the house. I also told him that I was very disturbed by the fact that the Republican party had been taken over by a bunch of radical right-wing reactionaries and that I often found it embarrassing to be a member of the Republican party. Then I told him that I hoped that the Republican party would reform itself so that I could again vote for Republican candidates.

Maintaining my membership in the Republican party enables me to do things like that. If enough people did that, we might see changes very soon. And by the way, yesterday I mailed a donation to the Democratic party even though I am still a registered Republican.

Will anyone here attack me for being a Republican?
 

B_talltpaguy

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Posts
2,331
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
123
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
^Not attack you, but point out that if enough people actually LEFT the Republican Party all together, we could probably spur the creation of a meaningful third party, and tell both of the entrenched parties to stick it up their ass until they change their tune in a big way.

What we most definitely do not need is the bare minimum reform necessary to secure enough begrudging votes to "win" elections. This country needs SERIOUS reform, not the ticky tack psuedo reform bullshit we've been sold for several elections.
 

maxcok

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Posts
7,153
Media
0
Likes
126
Points
83
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Male
^ Nothing will change the status quo - not third parties, not "throw the bums out" mentality, nothing - unless we get the corporate money and control out of the system. The people tasked with changing the rules and trying to undo some of the damage done by the SCOTUS decision, and there's not that much they can do, are beholden to the money and therefore subject to serving corporate interests. Modern campaigns are absurdly expensive, no one can get elected, Repub, Dem or Third Party without the corporate money. It's a catch-22, and it's self perpetuating. The only hope for change is if the people become aware and demand it. That is highly unlikely, given that the people get their information from corporate run media. Hope is dim.

Government serves the people less and less, government serves corporate interests more and more. We are less a democracy and more a corporatocracy with each passing day. We the people are less citizens than we are consumers for corporate profit and exploitation.

Yes, I'm still banging this drum. I'll keep banging this drum, because it's the single issue at the root of all issues. At stake is nothing less than our system of government and the very soul of our nation.
 

B_starinvestor

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2006
Posts
4,383
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
Location
Midwest
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Actually, he did. Your comparison would only be valid if Obama were stating an alternate reality as fact. Not his promise to close Gitmo and it remaining open, but if he left it opened and claimed later he had never promised to close it or had closed it already. That is the Gitmo equivalent to what is being done by the GOP.

What? I'm not following this paragraph - Gitmo is opened. Obama declared it would be closed.

Actually they are in the process of trying to put all of the prisoners somewhere. It'll sort itself out. And it would help if the GOP would stop campaigning to keep it open.
Think Progress Steele Hypocritically Criticizes Obama For Having Yet To Close Guantanamo Bay
I disagree that it will sort itself out. Mixing terrorists into prisons with the general prison population is a recipe for absolute disaster. If you or others on this forum feel bad for those prisoners now, wait until they get introduced to some hardened criminals in max security prisons.


Actually we have a stated date of withdrawal from Iraq. We will no longer have a combat role in Iraq by Aug 31, 2010, and about 30k-40k troops will stay in an advisory role, leaving by December 31, 2011.
Obama sets date to end Iraq combat mission - Conflict in Iraq- msnbc.com

Your link is from February 2009. Things have changed.


Nope, but plenty of mudslinging back and forth. Look at the crap that has been shoveled by the GOP lately. They have only criticism of any Democratic policy rather than alternative suggestions of their own, because it is easier to criticize than create. Has it occurred to you that the Republicans might be dodging debate because they know they'd get skewered in a direct confrontation? What great debates can you tell us about that have been denied coverage?

Obama promised transparent coverage of congressional litigation - he never said anything about televising debates. You are spinning here. Thus far, there has been nothing of the sort televised on C*Span. It was another Obama misrepresentation.


This sorely tempts me to take my digital camera, drive a mile from my house, take a picture of the sign by the road construction which proudly states that it is made possible by the Economic Recovery Act, and return to post it here. Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.
I made that remark 4 months ago. Some jobs have sprung up this spring, but upon his election and throughout 2009 there were no 'shovel ready jobs' as he had pronounced.


That was covered a mere couple of months after Obama took office. He wanted no lobbyists, then he realized that the lobbyists were also the most competent, because they had all of the experience in the political jobs. So, in an attempt at pragmatism, he compromised and made the rule that lobbyists could not work in any field which they had lobbied in the past two years.
Chris Kelly: Obama Lobbyist Rule Doesn't Apply to Lobbyists: Obama

What was covered a few months after he took office? That he lied about eliminating lobbyists?? Yes, I know.

He never stated that he was going to abolish earmarks. He said earmarks needed to be reformed. It would be foolish to do away with earmarks, because you would not be able to direct spending in any one area. If you wanted to direct $100 million, for example to create jobs in an ailing job sector, you couldn't do that without an earmark. You'd have to direct the money to the states and just hope they spent it that way. It's a Republican talking point that government cannot run anything efficiently, but that kind of reform being passed is what would make them right.
Lawmakers pushing for earmark reform think Obama boosted their chances - TheHill.com-
Also, he publicly endorsed an amendment to earmark reform proposed by Republican senator Jim DeMint after it was shot down on the senate floor (Not just Democrats to blame here, the vote was 79-21). And who says Obama isn't being bipartisan?
Obama: No earmarks for 2009 - CNN.com

Hist first major bill - the Healthcare Bill - had thousands of earmarks; in fact more earmarks than any previous bill in history.

Doesn't sound like earmark reform to me.
 

JTalbain

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Posts
1,786
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
258
Age
34
Split into two posts because of length.
What? I'm not following this paragraph - Gitmo is opened. Obama declared it would be closed.
I disagree that it will sort itself out. Mixing terrorists into prisons with the general prison population is a recipe for absolute disaster. If you or others on this forum feel bad for those prisoners now, wait until they get introduced to some hardened criminals in max security prisons.
Obama declared it would be closed and he is working on it. Maybe not at the speed many would prefer, but he is doing so. He recognizes it as a tricky situation, because it is exactly that.

Also, just to set the record straight, people didn't detest Gitmo because they feel sorry for terrorists. They detested Gitmo because it was a place where, seeing as how it was off US soil, suspects could be detained and denied their Constitutional Rights. Some of the men who were released were being held without trial on mere suspicion when we didn't even have any evidence on them. Others we knew were innocent and didn't release them because it made us look better to lie and say they were involved then admit we screwed up.

Aside from having moral and ethical issues with our country's willingness to do such things, others pointed out that Gitmo was the exact kind of thing that terrorists would use to paint the US as duplicitous and evil. We would crow about our unalienable rights, but then we would send people to a prison where those rights are denied? We would deny torturing prisoners, but then send people to a prison we owned to do exactly that? We would say people are entitled to swift justice and due process, but then we would send them to a prison where they could be held indefinitely without trial? They criticized us for this and called us lying hypocrites, and I think it's very patriotic to say they were right.
Your link is from February 2009. Things have changed.
Apparently this guy missed that too. Obama's crucible is overseas - The Week
This guy is under the impression that the withdrawal is beginning in August as originally stated, and this one is dated April 29, 2010. Could you please post a link showing where this has changed exactly?

Obama promised transparent coverage of congressional litigation - he never said anything about televising debates. You are spinning here. Thus far, there has been nothing of the sort televised on C*Span. It was another Obama misrepresentation.
What exactly are you complaining about then? That you don't have access to bills as they are being passed through Congress? THOMAS (Library of Congress) Something like that?
 
Last edited:

JTalbain

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Posts
1,786
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
258
Age
34
I made that remark 4 months ago. Some jobs have sprung up this spring, but upon his election and throughout 2009 there were no 'shovel ready jobs' as he had pronounced.
Shovel ready does not equal the government mailing shovels and work orders to the contractors of their choice. There is a process. They pass the legislation, then the bring in financial analysts to divvy up the money accordingly. Then the states get it. Then the states consult city engineers, who decide what the best use of the money they have just received would be. Then they put together contracts for bidding. Then the companies who might want to do the job bid on them. Then the winner meets with the state, who draws up a contract to sign. Then the company goes out and hires more people, because it had to fire a bunch of their workers due to the recession. THEN, and only then, does the work begin. And yet, if the government hands money to the state and says "Here, use this to create jobs in the construction sector.", it is considered shovel ready. Some states are faster at it than others.
What was covered a few months after he took office? That he lied about eliminating lobbyists?? Yes, I know.
He made an honest attempt and realized it wasn't going to be possible. Keeping his word and denying anyone who had ever lobbied at the cost of filling important government roles with incompetents would have been reckless and illogical. You can call Obama a lot of things, but stupid is not one of them.

Hist first major bill - the Healthcare Bill - had thousands of earmarks; in fact more earmarks than any previous bill in history.

Doesn't sound like earmark reform to me.
All an earmark is in the political context is a restriction on how money allocated by a law/bill/policy can be spent. As a result, any sort of major reformative legislation is likely to have a great many more of them because of the need to redirect focus to different areas. On top of that, the healthcare legislation was over 1000 pages long and involved about a trillion dollars in expenditures. It makes sense that there would be that many earmarks.

Besides, earmarks which actually pertain to the function of the bill to which they are attached are not the issue. The issue is when unrelated earmarks which promote political ideals or a political agenda are attached to such a bill. Take abstinence education. It has been shown repeatedly to not work, and yet we continue to practice it in schools. Why? A number of federal funding programs had this as an earmark, because it is big with Republicans and the Religious Right. It may have absolutely nothing to do with the education funding to which it was attached, but the restriction is there nonetheless.

By the way, Google "abstinence education bill" (without quotes) and you'll find something very interesting. Apparently millions of dollars are being channeled through the health care legislation to revive abstinence education. Why would this be here at all, considering Obama made a request approved by Congress to shift gears to a new teenage pregnancy avoidance program proven to work? Abstinence education also has approximately 0% support among Democrats. And yet the Republicans complain that they had no input in that legislation. :rolleyes: Someone is lying. Again.
 

maxcok

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Posts
7,153
Media
0
Likes
126
Points
83
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Male
I don't respond to bs spouting trolls because I think they're going to change their opinions, I respond to them so anyone who is reading won't mistakenly think of their ignored points as "dropped" points. Sorry, it's an old debate reflex. Seriously though, if anyone was on the fence on the subject, read the post I responded to, and then saw no rebuttal, they might think it was true.
Ooops, looking at the above exchanges, looks like you threw down the gauntlet.

Y'all have fun. :wink:
 

B_starinvestor

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2006
Posts
4,383
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
Location
Midwest
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Split into two posts because of length.

Obama declared it would be closed and he is working on it. Maybe not at the speed many would prefer, but he is doing so. He recognizes it as a tricky situation, because it is exactly that.

Also, just to set the record straight, people didn't detest Gitmo because they feel sorry for terrorists. They detested Gitmo because it was a place where, seeing as how it was off US soil, suspects could be detained and denied their Constitutional Rights. Some of the men who were released were being held without trial on mere suspicion when we didn't even have any evidence on them. Others we knew were innocent and didn't release them because it made us look better to lie and say they were involved then admit we screwed up.

Aside from having moral and ethical issues with our country's willingness to do such things, others pointed out that Gitmo was the exact kind of thing that terrorists would use to paint the US as duplicitous and evil. We would crow about our unalienable rights, but then we would send people to a prison where those rights are denied? We would deny torturing prisoners, but then send people to a prison we owned to do exactly that? We would say people are entitled to swift justice and due process, but then we would send them to a prison where they could be held indefinitely without trial? They criticized us for this and called us lying hypocrites, and I think it's very patriotic to say they were right.


I'm not arguing with your description of the controversy at Gitmo. I hope they get things cleaned up and fix the process and procedures by which suspected terrorists are tried. The point is, Mr. Obama spouted off relentlessly that he would close it right away, and he has not - nor will he ever.

Apparently this guy missed that too. Obama's crucible is overseas - The Week
This guy is under the impression that the withdrawal is beginning in August as originally stated, and this one is dated April 29, 2010. Could you please post a link showing where this has changed exactly?

Let's see what happens come August.:wink:

What exactly are you complaining about then? That you don't have access to bills as they are being passed through Congress? THOMAS (Library of Congress) Something like that?

No - what I'm complaining about is that Mr. Obama PROMISED and PLEDGED full transparancy on congressional litigation on C*Span - he said it dozens and dozens of times. Of course, it was just another in his incredible arsenal of lies and fabrications.
 

B_starinvestor

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2006
Posts
4,383
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
Location
Midwest
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Shovel ready does not equal the government mailing shovels and work orders to the contractors of their choice. There is a process. They pass the legislation, then the bring in financial analysts to divvy up the money accordingly. Then the states get it. Then the states consult city engineers, who decide what the best use of the money they have just received would be. Then they put together contracts for bidding. Then the companies who might want to do the job bid on them. Then the winner meets with the state, who draws up a contract to sign. Then the company goes out and hires more people, because it had to fire a bunch of their workers due to the recession. THEN, and only then, does the work begin. And yet, if the government hands money to the state and says "Here, use this to create jobs in the construction sector.", it is considered shovel ready. Some states are faster at it than others.
He made an honest attempt and realized it wasn't going to be possible. Keeping his word and denying anyone who had ever lobbied at the cost of filling important government roles with incompetents would have been reckless and illogical. You can call Obama a lot of things, but stupid is not one of them.

So - when Mr. Obama was selling his stimulus plan to the people of the U.S. and tirelessly reminding us that there would be shovel ready jobs upon passage of the bill, what he really meant was that "there will be some jobs in construction 18 months or so down the road, so keep the shovel in your garage for the next year and a half or so."

All an earmark is in the political context is a restriction on how money allocated by a law/bill/policy can be spent. As a result, any sort of major reformative legislation is likely to have a great many more of them because of the need to redirect focus to different areas. On top of that, the healthcare legislation was over 1000 pages long and involved about a trillion dollars in expenditures. It makes sense that there would be that many earmarks.

Besides, earmarks which actually pertain to the function of the bill to which they are attached are not the issue. The issue is when unrelated earmarks which promote political ideals or a political agenda are attached to such a bill. Take abstinence education. It has been shown repeatedly to not work, and yet we continue to practice it in schools. Why? A number of federal funding programs had this as an earmark, because it is big with Republicans and the Religious Right. It may have absolutely nothing to do with the education funding to which it was attached, but the restriction is there nonetheless.

By the way, Google "abstinence education bill" (without quotes) and you'll find something very interesting. Apparently millions of dollars are being channeled through the health care legislation to revive abstinence education. Why would this be here at all, considering Obama made a request approved by Congress to shift gears to a new teenage pregnancy avoidance program proven to work? Abstinence education also has approximately 0% support among Democrats. And yet the Republicans complain that they had no input in that legislation. :rolleyes: Someone is lying. Again.

Here is your double-talking president on 'Earmarks'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9E5BvaA9KU

Enough said?