The Obama Record is a Record

I'm not going to speak for Vidi, but your assertion really is silly Foxy. Just because someone looks at one issue as not being the responsibility of the president doesn't mean the president has no effect on anything.

Or, to put it another way, would you say that since the president gets the credit or blame for the issues on your list, that we shouldn't bother voting or paying attention to congress? After all, it's only the president that matters!

I suppose I need to run the sarcasm detection program again.

The Obama supporters, including Vidi, seem to be bending over backwards to excuse Obama for the 15 items on the list because:

1. The President isn't responsible for that . . . .or. . . .

2. It is only that bad because of what he inherited from Bush. . . or . . .

3. Bush was worse or Bush did it too.

In other words, they seem to think it is unfair to characterize any of the 15 items as pertinent to Obama's record.


1. Because hes NOT. Thats just how it is. You cannot blame a guy for something that took place BEFORE he came into office or when he doesnt even hold the purse strings. You want to blame the Harry Reid Senate for not passing a budget? I might (prolly will but with stipulations ) back you on that. But Obama? With a fillibuster happy Republican senate minority ( 1st two years ) and a Obstructionist Republican House ( 2nd two years )? You cannot be honest and not take those things into account.

2. Its about trends. What was the trend when he took office? Was that stat going up or down? What is the historical norm? Did he reverve the bad trends? Maintain the good trends?

3. If I got pissed at Bush for doing something, Im pissed at Obama if he does the same thing. I only ask for the same from my "opponents" its called CONSISTANCY.



Because it is unfair. You cant blame Truman for World War or Nixon for Viet Nam or FDR for the Great Depression ( though lately the Right certainly has tried that rewrite of history as well )

All Im asking for is honesty, Fox. You give me honesty and Ill debate you on any subject you want. We can do so with respect for one another and common decency. We can do so fairly and maybe even find common ground . But the ONLY way to do that is to start from a place thats honest. And that blog from Mr Hawkins is less than honest.

Okay, in the interest of honesty, let's back up and refocus. You are by means not the only one who is failing to grasp the point of the OP.

So once again. . . . .

It does not matter what conditions existed in any other President's administration.
It does not matter whether or not the President is directly responsible for any item in the list in the OP.
It does not matter who is most to blame for the conditions that exist.

The OP lists 15 separate facts, all of which I think can be shown to be true statements.
Each numbered statement specifies a fact of something that exists at this time, three years and six months into Barack Obama's first term of office.

If we are honest, these 15 items would all be considered as part of the record of any previous President's record.

The 15 statements are presented without assigning blame, cause, or process.

The question is, if you accept that the 15 statements are true, why would anybody want to re-elect Barack Obama?
 
Obama was supposed to be the "new kid", the "anti-politician" politician.
No lobbyists in the WH.
Transparency.

You know? All that Hopey Changey stuff.

He sure fooled you and a lot of others.

Not me.

See ya in November

Anyone who believed that Obama wasnt a politician was a fool, I agree.

Where he fooled me, Im sorry to say, was how far Right he was willing to swing and how weak he was going to be when dealing with the Republicans. But at least I can admit that.

How is Romney fooling you?


He's not.

He has a record of saving and creating jobs.
This other guy in office?
Not so much.

He's had his one-term proposition

You know I keep seeing you guys post that and Ive looked and looked and looked for evidence that its true and not only cant I find it, but you folks cant post it.

Go back and look at his record as Governor of Massechusets. REALLY look at it. How did he "fix" things? He RAISED taxes. ...excuse me...sorry ...he raised "fees" and then cut funding to local governments who then had to raise taxes to make up for the lost funds. So technically he didnt raise taxes, but people had to pay more due to his "plan". Small businesses were hit with higher property taxes thus creating more obs...oh wait...no higher taxes DONT create mroe jobs do they?

Then go look at his stated plan for taxes once hes President. REALLY LOOK. How much money do you bring in a year? Under Romney, Ill get a tax break. Yay for me. Hope you make more than $200,000 a year, because if you dont, under Romney you get to pay more. Yay for you!

Hmmm...yeah youre not getting fooled at all.
 
Last edited:
Anyone who believed that Obama wasnt a politician was a fool, I agree.

Where he fooled me, Im sorry to say, was how far Right he was willing to swing and how weak he was going to be when dealing with the Republicans. But at least I can admit that.

How is Romney fooling you?


He's not.

He has a record of saving and creating jobs.
This other guy in office?
Not so much.

He's had his one-term proposition

You know I keep seeing you guys post that and Ive looked and looked and looked for evidence that its true and not only cant I find it, but you folks cant post it.

Go back and look at his record as Governor of Massechusets. REALLY look at it. How did he "fix" things? He RAISED taxes. ...excuse me...sorry ...he raised "fees" and then cut funding to local governments who then had to raise taxes to make up for the lost funds. So technically he didnt raise taxes, but people had to pay more due to his "plan". Small businesses were hit with higher property taxes thus creating more obs...oh wait...no higher taxes DONT create mroe jobs do they?

Then go look at his stated plan for taxes once hes President. REALLY LOOK. How much money do you bring in a year? Under Romney, Ill get a tax break. Yay for me. Hope you make more than $200,000 a year, because if you dont, under Romney you get to pay more. Yay for you!

Hmmm...yeah youre not getting fooled at all.


I'm not voting for the governor.

I'm voting for the business man.

Only one of those two job titles has ever given me a job.
 
He's not.

He has a record of saving and creating jobs.
This other guy in office?
Not so much.

He's had his one-term proposition

You know I keep seeing you guys post that and Ive looked and looked and looked for evidence that its true and not only cant I find it, but you folks cant post it.

Go back and look at his record as Governor of Massechusets. REALLY look at it. How did he "fix" things? He RAISED taxes. ...excuse me...sorry ...he raised "fees" and then cut funding to local governments who then had to raise taxes to make up for the lost funds. So technically he didnt raise taxes, but people had to pay more due to his "plan". Small businesses were hit with higher property taxes thus creating more obs...oh wait...no higher taxes DONT create mroe jobs do they?

Then go look at his stated plan for taxes once hes President. REALLY LOOK. How much money do you bring in a year? Under Romney, Ill get a tax break. Yay for me. Hope you make more than $200,000 a year, because if you dont, under Romney you get to pay more. Yay for you!

Hmmm...yeah youre not getting fooled at all.


I'm not voting for the governor.

I'm voting for the business man.

Only one of those two job titles has ever given me a job.



Thats rich.

The Businessman not the Governor.

Who came first? The Businessman or the Governor?

and what will his title be if he wins? Certainly not businessman. Its will be Mr President. Are you expecting resident Romney to hand you a job? Socialism much?

And you REALLY think running the Government is the same as running a business? Romney cant take advatage of tax breaks to get the economy rolling. He cant do a corporate buy out of Germany then post all the debt to Germany and charge them fees to get America back on track. LOL Business man, not the Governor. Damn man you ARE funny.
 
Last edited:
Gentle Reminder. This thread is in the CDZ

The Obama record is his record no matter how much he and/or his supporters want to get around it. The fifteen items listed below are a summary of his record.

I took the list from Townhall which is by no means an objective source and it is a source I would not use to support a point of view. But the list is a good one to illustrate our President's record in his first term of office.

I wonder if his supporters can dispute that all fifteen items are legitimate? If so, please provide your rationale or legitimate source so we keep this honest.

Others may have some items that need to be added to the list.

The question is, if the list is valid and accepted as the record, why would anybody vote for a second term for Barack Obama?''

Here's the list:

1) Real median household income is down $4300 since Obama took office.

2) The percentage of unemployed workers who've been out of a job for more than a year is over 30%.

3) The country has had the longest streak of +8% unemployment since the Depression under Obama: 39 months and counting.

4) In 2011 under Barack Obama, nearly one out of every seven Americans was on food stamps. That's a 70 percent increase from 2007.

5) Fifty percent of new college graduates are underemployed or unemployed.

6) U.S. home ownership is at a decade long low. So is the number of Americans who say their home is worth more than they paid for it. Home prices are the lowest they've been since 2002.

7) Barack Obama ended NASA's manned space program.

8) Going into this election cycle, Barack Obama had raised more money from Wall Street than any President in history. He has also raised more money from Wall Street than all of the GOP presidential contenders combined in this election cycle.

9) Under Barack Obama's leadership, the last time Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats passed a budget was April 9, 2009.

10) Barack Obama's budget was defeated 414-0 in the House and 99-0 in the Senate.

11) When he was running for President in 2008, Barack Obama pledged not to raise taxes on families making less than 250,000 dollars per year. He broke that promise with the tanning salon tax and with Obamacare, which raises almost 500 billion dollars in new taxes, a significant portion of which would be paid by people making less than 250,000 dollars per year.

12) When Barack Obama took office, gas was $1.95 per gallon. Today gas is $3.72 per gallon.

13) In February of this year, the federal government had a 229 billion dollar deficit. That was the largest deficit in the history of the United States.

14) America lost its AAA credit rating (which it had held since 1917) on Obama's watch despite the fact that Timothy Geithner publicly said there was "no risk" of that happening.

15) Barack Obama added more to the debt in just 38 months than George Bush did in two full terms as President.
15 Facts That Even Obama's Biggest Supporters Should Be Able To Admit Are True - John Hawkins - [page]

I want to see this in a Romney ad!
 
Ahem this thread is NOT about Mitt Romney.
This thread is not about the George W. Bush administration.

This thread is about the record of the Obama Administration thus far.

Could we keep the focus there please?
 
You know I keep seeing you guys post that and Ive looked and looked and looked for evidence that its true and not only cant I find it, but you folks cant post it.

Go back and look at his record as Governor of Massechusets. REALLY look at it. How did he "fix" things? He RAISED taxes. ...excuse me...sorry ...he raised "fees" and then cut funding to local governments who then had to raise taxes to make up for the lost funds. So technically he didnt raise taxes, but people had to pay more due to his "plan". Small businesses were hit with higher property taxes thus creating more obs...oh wait...no higher taxes DONT create mroe jobs do they?

Then go look at his stated plan for taxes once hes President. REALLY LOOK. How much money do you bring in a year? Under Romney, Ill get a tax break. Yay for me. Hope you make more than $200,000 a year, because if you dont, under Romney you get to pay more. Yay for you!

Hmmm...yeah youre not getting fooled at all.


I'm not voting for the governor.

I'm voting for the business man.

Only one of those two job titles has ever given me a job.



Thats rich.

The Businessman not the Governor.

Who came first? The Businessman or the Governor?

and what will his title be if he wins? Certainly not businessman. Its will be Mr President. Are you expecting resident Romney to hand you a job? Socialism much?

And you REALLY think running the Government is the same as running a business? Romney cant take advatage of tax breaks to get the economy rolling. He cant do a corporate buy out of Germany then post all the debt to Germany and charge them fees to get America back on track. LOL Business man, not the Governor. Damn man you ARE funny.


I'm willing to bet that Romney knows the meaning of the word BUDGET

:eusa_shhh:
 
I'm not voting for the governor.

I'm voting for the business man.

Only one of those two job titles has ever given me a job.
Thats rich.

The Businessman not the Governor.

Who came first? The Businessman or the Governor?

and what will his title be if he wins? Certainly not businessman. Its will be Mr President. Are you expecting resident Romney to hand you a job? Socialism much?

And you REALLY think running the Government is the same as running a business? Romney cant take advatage of tax breaks to get the economy rolling. He cant do a corporate buy out of Germany then post all the debt to Germany and charge them fees to get America back on track. LOL Business man, not the Governor. Damn man you ARE funny.


I'm willing to bet that Romney knows the meaning of the word BUDGET

:eusa_shhh:

Im sure he does. But that doesnt mean he knows how to KEEP within one. After all he left Mass, with a 1 billion dollar deficit. And the Olympics, his other claim to fame, he had to ask for approx 500 billion taxpayer dollars more in order to stage the games.

So yeah he knows what a budget is, but he has yet to come in under one.
 
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA!

Thats rich.

The Businessman not the Governor.

Who came first? The Businessman or the Governor?

and what will his title be if he wins? Certainly not businessman. Its will be Mr President. Are you expecting resident Romney to hand you a job? Socialism much?

And you REALLY think running the Government is the same as running a business? Romney cant take advatage of tax breaks to get the economy rolling. He cant do a corporate buy out of Germany then post all the debt to Germany and charge them fees to get America back on track. LOL Business man, not the Governor. Damn man you ARE funny.


I'm willing to bet that Romney knows the meaning of the word BUDGET

:eusa_shhh:

Im sure he does. But that doesnt mean he knows how to KEEP within one. After all he left Mass, with a 1 billion dollar deficit. And the Olympics, his other claim to fame, he had to ask for approx 500 billion taxpayer dollars more in order to stage the games.

So yeah he knows what a budget is, but he has yet to come in under one.

I keeping with Foxy's wishes, I will only say:

Obama, or his supporters are only allowed to use the word BUDGET after they have actually passed one.
:eusa_hand:


Jobs

Budget

Debt

Deficit

in that order
 
I suppose I need to run the sarcasm detection program again.

The Obama supporters, including Vidi, seem to be bending over backwards to excuse Obama for the 15 items on the list because:

1. The President isn't responsible for that . . . .or. . . .

2. It is only that bad because of what he inherited from Bush. . . or . . .

3. Bush was worse or Bush did it too.

In other words, they seem to think it is unfair to characterize any of the 15 items as pertinent to Obama's record.


1. Because hes NOT. Thats just how it is. You cannot blame a guy for something that took place BEFORE he came into office or when he doesnt even hold the purse strings. You want to blame the Harry Reid Senate for not passing a budget? I might (prolly will but with stipulations ) back you on that. But Obama? With a fillibuster happy Republican senate minority ( 1st two years ) and a Obstructionist Republican House ( 2nd two years )? You cannot be honest and not take those things into account.

2. Its about trends. What was the trend when he took office? Was that stat going up or down? What is the historical norm? Did he reverve the bad trends? Maintain the good trends?

3. If I got pissed at Bush for doing something, Im pissed at Obama if he does the same thing. I only ask for the same from my "opponents" its called CONSISTANCY.



Because it is unfair. You cant blame Truman for World War or Nixon for Viet Nam or FDR for the Great Depression ( though lately the Right certainly has tried that rewrite of history as well )

All Im asking for is honesty, Fox. You give me honesty and Ill debate you on any subject you want. We can do so with respect for one another and common decency. We can do so fairly and maybe even find common ground . But the ONLY way to do that is to start from a place thats honest. And that blog from Mr Hawkins is less than honest.

Okay, in the interest of honesty, let's back up and refocus. You are by means not the only one who is failing to grasp the point of the OP.

So once again. . . . .

It does not matter what conditions existed in any other President's administration.
It does not matter whether or not the President is directly responsible for any item in the list in the OP.
It does not matter who is most to blame for the conditions that exist.

The OP lists 15 separate facts, all of which I think can be shown to be true statements.
Each numbered statement specifies a fact of something that exists at this time, three years and six months into Barack Obama's first term of office.

If we are honest, these 15 items would all be considered as part of the record of any previous President's record.

The 15 statements are presented without assigning blame, cause, or process.

The question is, if you accept that the 15 statements are true, why would anybody want to re-elect Barack Obama?


So now we have to accept lies as truth in order to respond in your threads?

See my signature
 
1. Because hes NOT. Thats just how it is. You cannot blame a guy for something that took place BEFORE he came into office or when he doesnt even hold the purse strings. You want to blame the Harry Reid Senate for not passing a budget? I might (prolly will but with stipulations ) back you on that. But Obama? With a fillibuster happy Republican senate minority ( 1st two years ) and a Obstructionist Republican House ( 2nd two years )? You cannot be honest and not take those things into account.

2. Its about trends. What was the trend when he took office? Was that stat going up or down? What is the historical norm? Did he reverve the bad trends? Maintain the good trends?

3. If I got pissed at Bush for doing something, Im pissed at Obama if he does the same thing. I only ask for the same from my "opponents" its called CONSISTANCY.



Because it is unfair. You cant blame Truman for World War or Nixon for Viet Nam or FDR for the Great Depression ( though lately the Right certainly has tried that rewrite of history as well )

All Im asking for is honesty, Fox. You give me honesty and Ill debate you on any subject you want. We can do so with respect for one another and common decency. We can do so fairly and maybe even find common ground . But the ONLY way to do that is to start from a place thats honest. And that blog from Mr Hawkins is less than honest.

Okay, in the interest of honesty, let's back up and refocus. You are by means not the only one who is failing to grasp the point of the OP.

So once again. . . . .

It does not matter what conditions existed in any other President's administration.
It does not matter whether or not the President is directly responsible for any item in the list in the OP.
It does not matter who is most to blame for the conditions that exist.

The OP lists 15 separate facts, all of which I think can be shown to be true statements.
Each numbered statement specifies a fact of something that exists at this time, three years and six months into Barack Obama's first term of office.

If we are honest, these 15 items would all be considered as part of the record of any previous President's record.

The 15 statements are presented without assigning blame, cause, or process.

The question is, if you accept that the 15 statements are true, why would anybody want to re-elect Barack Obama?


So now we have to accept lies as truth in order to respond in your threads?

See my signature

Which statement is a lie? Let's see what you have to show that any statement there is a lie. If it is a lie, then it should be removed from the list.

I believe every statement on the list is 100% true or at least essentially true. And if that is the case, then what would be the incentive to re-elect Barack Obama for four more years?

All I ask of anybody in anybody's thread, not just mine, is that we stay on the topic presented for discussion.
 
I suppose I need to run the sarcasm detection program again.

The Obama supporters, including Vidi, seem to be bending over backwards to excuse Obama for the 15 items on the list because:

1. The President isn't responsible for that . . . .or. . . .

2. It is only that bad because of what he inherited from Bush. . . or . . .

3. Bush was worse or Bush did it too.

In other words, they seem to think it is unfair to characterize any of the 15 items as pertinent to Obama's record.


1. Because hes NOT. Thats just how it is. You cannot blame a guy for something that took place BEFORE he came into office or when he doesnt even hold the purse strings. You want to blame the Harry Reid Senate for not passing a budget? I might (prolly will but with stipulations ) back you on that. But Obama? With a fillibuster happy Republican senate minority ( 1st two years ) and a Obstructionist Republican House ( 2nd two years )? You cannot be honest and not take those things into account.

2. Its about trends. What was the trend when he took office? Was that stat going up or down? What is the historical norm? Did he reverve the bad trends? Maintain the good trends?

3. If I got pissed at Bush for doing something, Im pissed at Obama if he does the same thing. I only ask for the same from my "opponents" its called CONSISTANCY.



Because it is unfair. You cant blame Truman for World War or Nixon for Viet Nam or FDR for the Great Depression ( though lately the Right certainly has tried that rewrite of history as well )

All Im asking for is honesty, Fox. You give me honesty and Ill debate you on any subject you want. We can do so with respect for one another and common decency. We can do so fairly and maybe even find common ground . But the ONLY way to do that is to start from a place thats honest. And that blog from Mr Hawkins is less than honest.

Okay, in the interest of honesty, let's back up and refocus. You are by means not the only one who is failing to grasp the point of the OP.

So once again. . . . .

It does not matter what conditions existed in any other President's administration.
It does not matter whether or not the President is directly responsible for any item in the list in the OP.
It does not matter who is most to blame for the conditions that exist.

The OP lists 15 separate facts, all of which I think can be shown to be true statements.
Each numbered statement specifies a fact of something that exists at this time, three years and six months into Barack Obama's first term of office.

If we are honest, these 15 items would all be considered as part of the record of any previous President's record.

The 15 statements are presented without assigning blame, cause, or process.

The question is, if you accept that the 15 statements are true, why would anybody want to re-elect Barack Obama?

I am not voting for Obama, but.....
If you take these statements, but refuse to look at cause, don't even actually blame Obama for them, simply state that they are true, why would that decide whether or not to re-elect him?

You are setting up a bunch of conditions that make the question seem ridiculous. You seem to be saying, "These things exist. Ignore why they exist or how they came to be, and then make your decision about whether Obama should be re-elected.". Is there a reason you want an answer without any deeper look into things? If you simply wanted people to list positive accomplishments of this administration, I'd think you would have said that, so I can only assume that isn't the case. Yet you seem unwilling to accept that some people, as evidenced by the replies on this thread, will not consider those statements either valid or the responsibility of the president. It sounds to me like you are trying to fix this so that there is only one possible response.
 
Okay, in the interest of honesty, let's back up and refocus. You are by means not the only one who is failing to grasp the point of the OP.

So once again. . . . .

It does not matter what conditions existed in any other President's administration.
It does not matter whether or not the President is directly responsible for any item in the list in the OP.
It does not matter who is most to blame for the conditions that exist.

The OP lists 15 separate facts, all of which I think can be shown to be true statements.
Each numbered statement specifies a fact of something that exists at this time, three years and six months into Barack Obama's first term of office.

If we are honest, these 15 items would all be considered as part of the record of any previous President's record.

The 15 statements are presented without assigning blame, cause, or process.

The question is, if you accept that the 15 statements are true, why would anybody want to re-elect Barack Obama?


So now we have to accept lies as truth in order to respond in your threads?

See my signature

Which statement is a lie? Let's see what you have to show that any statement there is a lie. If it is a lie, then it should be removed from the list.

I believe every statement on the list is 100% true or at least essentially true. And if that is the case, then what would be the incentive to re-elect Barack Obama for four more years?

All I ask of anybody in anybody's thread, not just mine, is that we stay on the topic presented for discussion.

All 15. I went through them on a point by point basis and refuted or debunked each in turn.

Your response is that I can only answer if I deem these obvious distortions are TRUTH.

No. I will not play that game. That is a DIRTY game. One set up to illicit a specific response.
 
1. Because hes NOT. Thats just how it is. You cannot blame a guy for something that took place BEFORE he came into office or when he doesnt even hold the purse strings. You want to blame the Harry Reid Senate for not passing a budget? I might (prolly will but with stipulations ) back you on that. But Obama? With a fillibuster happy Republican senate minority ( 1st two years ) and a Obstructionist Republican House ( 2nd two years )? You cannot be honest and not take those things into account.

2. Its about trends. What was the trend when he took office? Was that stat going up or down? What is the historical norm? Did he reverve the bad trends? Maintain the good trends?

3. If I got pissed at Bush for doing something, Im pissed at Obama if he does the same thing. I only ask for the same from my "opponents" its called CONSISTANCY.



Because it is unfair. You cant blame Truman for World War or Nixon for Viet Nam or FDR for the Great Depression ( though lately the Right certainly has tried that rewrite of history as well )

All Im asking for is honesty, Fox. You give me honesty and Ill debate you on any subject you want. We can do so with respect for one another and common decency. We can do so fairly and maybe even find common ground . But the ONLY way to do that is to start from a place thats honest. And that blog from Mr Hawkins is less than honest.

Okay, in the interest of honesty, let's back up and refocus. You are by means not the only one who is failing to grasp the point of the OP.

So once again. . . . .

It does not matter what conditions existed in any other President's administration.
It does not matter whether or not the President is directly responsible for any item in the list in the OP.
It does not matter who is most to blame for the conditions that exist.

The OP lists 15 separate facts, all of which I think can be shown to be true statements.
Each numbered statement specifies a fact of something that exists at this time, three years and six months into Barack Obama's first term of office.

If we are honest, these 15 items would all be considered as part of the record of any previous President's record.

The 15 statements are presented without assigning blame, cause, or process.

The question is, if you accept that the 15 statements are true, why would anybody want to re-elect Barack Obama?

I am not voting for Obama, but.....
If you take these statements, but refuse to look at cause, don't even actually blame Obama for them, simply state that they are true, why would that decide whether or not to re-elect him?

You are setting up a bunch of conditions that make the question seem ridiculous. You seem to be saying, "These things exist. Ignore why they exist or how they came to be, and then make your decision about whether Obama should be re-elected.". Is there a reason you want an answer without any deeper look into things? If you simply wanted people to list positive accomplishments of this administration, I'd think you would have said that, so I can only assume that isn't the case. Yet you seem unwilling to accept that some people, as evidenced by the replies on this thread, will not consider those statements either valid or the responsibility of the president. It sounds to me like you are trying to fix this so that there is only one possible response.

Every president inherits stuff from his predecessors,. As previously posted, GWB inherited the housing bubble from several of his predecessors and he was aware of it and in the last two years was sounding the alarm about it. But in his first term, he also continued policies that created it and he didn't push for any reforms when he had a GOP Congress that would have probably followed his lead.

So, the housing crash was absolutely part of his record and was absolutely a factor in whether he would have deserved to be re-elected had he been eligible.

Barack Obama inherited a lot of problems from the Bush Administration and he was not the cause of all the factors involved in all those 15 items. But he has had three and a half years now to address the problems, improve things, push for cvorrections, put us back onto a better road. For some time he had a super majority in Congress and strong majorities in both houses for the first two years.

Has he shown effective leadership to address those 15 items? Have the ideas he has pushed been effective in correcting the problems and makiing things better? Has he laid out a clear vision that makes people trust him and believe that he knows what he is doing?

Those who now expect to vote for Obama in November, why?
 
Last edited:
Okay, in the interest of honesty, let's back up and refocus. You are by means not the only one who is failing to grasp the point of the OP.

So once again. . . . .

It does not matter what conditions existed in any other President's administration.
It does not matter whether or not the President is directly responsible for any item in the list in the OP.
It does not matter who is most to blame for the conditions that exist.

The OP lists 15 separate facts, all of which I think can be shown to be true statements.
Each numbered statement specifies a fact of something that exists at this time, three years and six months into Barack Obama's first term of office.

If we are honest, these 15 items would all be considered as part of the record of any previous President's record.

The 15 statements are presented without assigning blame, cause, or process.

The question is, if you accept that the 15 statements are true, why would anybody want to re-elect Barack Obama?

I am not voting for Obama, but.....
If you take these statements, but refuse to look at cause, don't even actually blame Obama for them, simply state that they are true, why would that decide whether or not to re-elect him?

You are setting up a bunch of conditions that make the question seem ridiculous. You seem to be saying, "These things exist. Ignore why they exist or how they came to be, and then make your decision about whether Obama should be re-elected.". Is there a reason you want an answer without any deeper look into things? If you simply wanted people to list positive accomplishments of this administration, I'd think you would have said that, so I can only assume that isn't the case. Yet you seem unwilling to accept that some people, as evidenced by the replies on this thread, will not consider those statements either valid or the responsibility of the president. It sounds to me like you are trying to fix this so that there is only one possible response.

Every president inherits stuff from his predecessors,. As previously posted, GWB inherited the housing bubble from several of his predecessors and he was aware of it and in the last two years was sounding the alarm about it. But in his first term, he also continued policies that created it and he didn't push for any reforms when he had a GOP Congress that would have probably followed his lead.

So, the housing crash was absolutely part of his record and was absolutely a factor in whether he would have deserved to be re-elected had he been eligible.

Barack Obama inherited a lot of problems from the Bush Administration and he was not the cause of all the factors involved in all those 15 items. But he has had three and a half years now to address the problems, improve things, push for cvorrections, put us back onto a better road. For some time he had a super majority in Congress and strong majorities in both houses for the first two years.

Has he shown effective leadership to address those 15 items? Have the ideas he has pushed been effective in correcting the problems and makiing things better? Has he laid out a clear vision that makes people trust him and believe that he knows what he is doing?

Those who now expect to vote for Obama in November, why?


Im not voting FOR Obama. Im voting AGAINST Romney. Romneys entire plan is to "make it worse"

EDIT: Thats not really an answer. So here you go.

Im voting against Mitt Romney because he has not demonstrated that he has any real plan to fix things. We have already seen that the ffects of tax cuts do not produce the results that are claimed. I see no reason to repeal Obamacare to replace it with....oh yeah whenever hes asked he doesnt have an answer as to what he would replace it with. Romney is BAD on foriegn policy, in the single trip he has made he angered the Brits and threw gasoline on the fire in Israel. Though it is tradition that candidates release their tax returns, Romney refuses to show us his, which his own father says would show us how a man cunducts himself. Romneys only experienc ein government was when he was Goevrnor of mass. and there he RAISED taxes and failed to balance the budget ( though to this day he claims that he did thus ignoring the 1 billion dollar deficit he left for the next guy to clean up ) Romney would raise taxes on anyone making less than $200,000 a year while giving tax breaks to everyone making more than that, which I find to be just disgusting.


Romney has been for and against abortion, raising taxes, Ronald Reagan, stem cell research, the individual mandate, the minimum wage, serving in the Viet Nam war, global climate change, gun rights and the stimulus package.

The man has no stance on ANYTHING that cant flip and flop depending on whos listening. That is a man with no principles, only a desire for power.


So yeah, Im voting against him.
 
Last edited:
So now we have to accept lies as truth in order to respond in your threads?

See my signature

Which statement is a lie? Let's see what you have to show that any statement there is a lie. If it is a lie, then it should be removed from the list.

I believe every statement on the list is 100% true or at least essentially true. And if that is the case, then what would be the incentive to re-elect Barack Obama for four more years?

All I ask of anybody in anybody's thread, not just mine, is that we stay on the topic presented for discussion.

All 15. I went through them on a point by point basis and refuted or debunked each in turn.

Your response is that I can only answer if I deem these obvious distortions are TRUTH.

No. I will not play that game. That is a DIRTY game. One set up to illicit a specific response.

No you did not refute a single one. You did not provide a different figure. You did not show how any statement was false. Go back through your posts in the opening pages of the thread and you will see that. Saying that Obama was not responsible or Bush was worse or Mitt Romney would have done no better or changing the subject is not refuting the truth of a statement presented as fact.

The gas price for instance. Even by your own graph you posted, that looks spot on as the national average when Obama took office. You objected to the $1.95. Do you have a better number to offer?
 
Okay, in the interest of honesty, let's back up and refocus. You are by means not the only one who is failing to grasp the point of the OP.

So once again. . . . .

It does not matter what conditions existed in any other President's administration.
It does not matter whether or not the President is directly responsible for any item in the list in the OP.
It does not matter who is most to blame for the conditions that exist.

The OP lists 15 separate facts, all of which I think can be shown to be true statements.
Each numbered statement specifies a fact of something that exists at this time, three years and six months into Barack Obama's first term of office.

If we are honest, these 15 items would all be considered as part of the record of any previous President's record.

The 15 statements are presented without assigning blame, cause, or process.

The question is, if you accept that the 15 statements are true, why would anybody want to re-elect Barack Obama?

I am not voting for Obama, but.....
If you take these statements, but refuse to look at cause, don't even actually blame Obama for them, simply state that they are true, why would that decide whether or not to re-elect him?

You are setting up a bunch of conditions that make the question seem ridiculous. You seem to be saying, "These things exist. Ignore why they exist or how they came to be, and then make your decision about whether Obama should be re-elected.". Is there a reason you want an answer without any deeper look into things? If you simply wanted people to list positive accomplishments of this administration, I'd think you would have said that, so I can only assume that isn't the case. Yet you seem unwilling to accept that some people, as evidenced by the replies on this thread, will not consider those statements either valid or the responsibility of the president. It sounds to me like you are trying to fix this so that there is only one possible response.

Every president inherits stuff from his predecessors,. As previously posted, GWB inherited the housing bubble from several of his predecessors and he was aware of it and in the last two years was sounding the alarm about it. But in his first term, he also continued policies that created it and he didn't push for any reforms when he had a GOP Congress that would have probably followed his lead.

So, the housing crash was absolutely part of his record and was absolutely a factor in whether he would have deserved to be re-elected had he been eligible.

Barack Obama inherited a lot of problems from the Bush Administration and he was not the cause of all the factors involved in all those 15 items. But he has had three and a half years now to address the problems, improve things, push for cvorrections, put us back onto a better road. For some time he had a super majority in Congress and strong majorities in both houses for the first two years.

Has he shown effective leadership to address those 15 items? Have the ideas he has pushed been effective in correcting the problems and makiing things better? Has he laid out a clear vision that makes people trust him and believe that he knows what he is doing?

Those who now expect to vote for Obama in November, why?

Again, I think you have set this up not to ask for honest opinions about why people will vote for Obama, but to express your dislike for his presidency. When you start with, "These things are bad. Whether they are caused by Obama or not, whether any other president can change them or not, they are true now, so Obama gets the blame for them.". Yes, I realize you said you aren't casting blame, but if he is not responsible, then your 15 points are mostly meaningless to the question of why someone would re-elect Obama.

You have tied anyone's response as to why they would vote for Obama to your 15 statements. That is unfair, especially when you seemingly won't accept anyone's reasons for disagreeing with their veracity or disagreeing that they are the responsibility of the president. I don't know if you aren't being clear enough with what you want as responses or if you don't see how tying your question to these points is very limiting on the possible responses, but it's not making for a good discussion.

Perhaps you could rephrase just what it is you are trying to accomplish? Do you simply want the question of why people will vote for Obama answered, or do you just want someone to try and refute your 15 points, or what?
 
Which statement is a lie? Let's see what you have to show that any statement there is a lie. If it is a lie, then it should be removed from the list.

I believe every statement on the list is 100% true or at least essentially true. And if that is the case, then what would be the incentive to re-elect Barack Obama for four more years?

All I ask of anybody in anybody's thread, not just mine, is that we stay on the topic presented for discussion.

All 15. I went through them on a point by point basis and refuted or debunked each in turn.

Your response is that I can only answer if I deem these obvious distortions are TRUTH.

No. I will not play that game. That is a DIRTY game. One set up to illicit a specific response.

No you did not refute a single one. You did not provide a different figure. You did not show how any statement was false. Go back through your posts in the opening pages of the thread and you will see that. Saying that Obama was not responsible or Bush was worse or Mitt Romney would have done no better or changing the subject is not refuting the truth of a statement presented as fact.

The gas price for instance. Even by your own graph you posted, that looks spot on as the national average when Obama took office. You objected to the $1.95. Do you have a better number to offer?


Lets talk about those gas prices shall we.

One of the businesses I own is a machine shop. We keep detailed records of parts when theyre checked. If a bore is supposed to be cut at .625 +/- .0005 we keep track of what it measures along a graph. By plotting the dimensions over time, we get all kinds of data. ( Tool wear, material fluctuations, operator drift, etc. ) But we become adept at looking at trends and finding ways to "reset" a trend back to an acceptable starting point.

The gas price number your blogger friend used was outside the trend. It was an abnormality. And he knew it, as do you. The statement that gas prices were $1.95 WHEN oBAMA TOOK OFFICE IS true. No doubt about that. But stating further that they are $3.72 today implies that it was Obamas policies that drove up prices nearly two dollars. Thats simply dishonest.

Any reasonable individual wouldnt pass it off as something people need to be made aware of. Any honest person wouldnt argue that its relevant.

Nor would any reasonable or honest person lay the blame for the effects of the biggest economic downturn that began BEFORE he took office at the feet of Mr Obama. Nor would any reasonable or honest person expect a quick fix to a problem that was at least 3 decades in the making.



And as usual Ill be gone for the weekend. Enjoy the lies. Hope they keep you all worm and cozy. Its all you folks have left.

PS According to FoxNews, Barak Obama current leads Mitt Romney by 9 points. Those be landslide numbers.
 
Last edited:
For example. On that gas price in the list. It didn;t specify a specific date but here is my own fact checking of that particular statement:

Average gas prices
Jan 21, 2009 4:29 PM

Gasoline prices continue to rise across the country, but diesel prices have decreased compared against the week before. On average, gasoline prices rose around 6 cents. The national gasoline average is now about a $1.17 below the price this time last year. Diesel fuel is now $.97 below this time last year.

National retail fuel price averages

Price
$1,85
Change from last week
.06
Average gas prices--January 19, 2009

And as of August 10, 2012:
Regular price
Current Avg. $3.673
Yesterday Avg. $3.662
Week Ago Avg. $3.567
Month Ago Avg. $3.383
Year Ago Avg. $3.637

Highest Recorded Average Price:
Regular Unl. $4.114 7/17/2008
Daily Fuel Gauge Report--national, state and local average prices for gasoline, diesel and E-85.

No blame. No cause. No recriminations. Just a fact of the situation that exists now, three and a half years into the Barack Obama administration.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top