Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Saying one thing then doing another,never have found that a desirable trait in people.
PolitiFact | The Obameter: Tracking Obama's Campaign Promises
I'm really not convinced you have an informed opinion on energy policy.
Saying one thing then doing another,never have found that a desirable trait in people.
PolitiFact | The Obameter: Tracking Obama's Campaign Promises
This means nothing.
He could have made 1000 promises to not scratch his ass on public TV and one promise to do something substancial. He could keep the 1000, screw the 1 and be a failure.
Unless you weight the promises and give him a scorecard, it is a worthless claim.
I'm really not convinced you have an informed opinion on energy policy.
I'm really not convinced that it matters what you are convinced on.
I'm really not convinced you have an informed opinion on energy policy.
I'm really not convinced that it matters what you are convinced on.
Then why answer my thread? Obviously anyone who does, has an opinion on what I think of Obama.
This means nothing.
He could have made 1000 promises to not scratch his ass on public TV and one promise to do something substancial. He could keep the 1000, screw the 1 and be a failure.
Unless you weight the promises and give him a scorecard, it is a worthless claim.
Okay, fine weight the promises then. What promise has be broken that has been so damn devastating?
His biggest failure is spending way too much time trying to work with people who damaged the country so terribly and vowed to bring down his administration even before he was sworn in. He just refused to see them for the anti American creeps and assholes they are.
PolitiFact | The Obameter: Campaign Promises that are about Energy
I encourage you to explore all of the content related to Obama on that site. Nothing could be more objective.
That site is FAR from objective and has been shown to be so many times but that is not the point as the content is the question not the character of the deliverer.
I asked YOU why you thought his energy policy was a success not what promises he has kept or not. Most of those policies are terrible energy policy or have little to do with an actual energy policy. Tell me what YOU think is such a good accomplishment on that list and why.
Who says it isn't objective? You are simply making that up. What I like:
He established an energy relationship with Brazil and other S. American countries
In the process of creating 5 million green jobs. (has created a little under a million so far).
His investment in alternate forms of energy.
That site is FAR from objective and has been shown to be so many times but that is not the point as the content is the question not the character of the deliverer.
I asked YOU why you thought his energy policy was a success not what promises he has kept or not. Most of those policies are terrible energy policy or have little to do with an actual energy policy. Tell me what YOU think is such a good accomplishment on that list and why.
Who says it isn't objective? You are simply making that up. What I like:
He established an energy relationship with Brazil and other S. American countries
In the process of creating 5 million green jobs. (has created a little under a million so far).
His investment in alternate forms of energy.
Creating 5 million jobs huh? Want to cite that.
And investing in green tech. He has not invested a dime in green tech. What he has invested in is companies. Companies that are going to go with the status quo as long as they can sell it and are going to resist all efforts to push green tech any further than immediate profits.
This is the problem that I have with government 'investment' in technology. That investment should begin and end with straight out research grants that are awarded to people that are purely in it to push the technology. Companies do not need incentive for R&D. they will do so as long as they can make a profit. In that regard, no matter how much you give them, it will not change their R&D goals. On the other hand, the government must invest in technology because it is the ONLY entity that can invest billions pushing a tech to the next level and shrug the losses off. This is even more true in cases where no benefits are actually realized. See NASA for situations where government investment in technology has pushed the envelope. Investing in companies in the tech industry is NOT the place of government and does not end well.
Establishing an energy policy with Brazil does some good. Stopping American drilling does far more bad.
This means nothing.
He could have made 1000 promises to not scratch his ass on public TV and one promise to do something substancial. He could keep the 1000, screw the 1 and be a failure.
Unless you weight the promises and give him a scorecard, it is a worthless claim.
Okay, fine weight the promises then. What promise has be broken that has been so damn devastating?
The topic is the use of Politifact to demonstrate some kind of scorecard for promises kept. My statement still stands.
It is useless.
Even then, you have determine what criteria is utilized to evaluate even one promise (besides scratching his ass).
Who are you to talk? Can you come up with an objective approach? No, because you are too biased.
Who says it isn't objective? You are simply making that up. What I like:
He established an energy relationship with Brazil and other S. American countries
In the process of creating 5 million green jobs. (has created a little under a million so far).
His investment in alternate forms of energy.
Creating 5 million jobs huh? Want to cite that.
And investing in green tech. He has not invested a dime in green tech. What he has invested in is companies. Companies that are going to go with the status quo as long as they can sell it and are going to resist all efforts to push green tech any further than immediate profits.
This is the problem that I have with government 'investment' in technology. That investment should begin and end with straight out research grants that are awarded to people that are purely in it to push the technology. Companies do not need incentive for R&D. they will do so as long as they can make a profit. In that regard, no matter how much you give them, it will not change their R&D goals. On the other hand, the government must invest in technology because it is the ONLY entity that can invest billions pushing a tech to the next level and shrug the losses off. This is even more true in cases where no benefits are actually realized. See NASA for situations where government investment in technology has pushed the envelope. Investing in companies in the tech industry is NOT the place of government and does not end well.
Establishing an energy policy with Brazil does some good. Stopping American drilling does far more bad.
PolitiFact | The Obameter: Create 5 million "green" jobs
Claims. Yes, THAT'S convincing verbiage.Until the BLS completes these surveys, the exact number of newly created green jobs is open to debate. The Council of Economic Advisers -- which advises the president on economic matters --claims that 225,000 green jobs have been saved or created through the first nine months of 2010.
225K is nowhere near a million. Even more so because it is essentially a guess. We also need to include the fact that the goal posts were moved from creating those jobs to now created OR saved. Heap that on top of the fact that the numbers of created or saved jobs has essentially been a farce through the economic downturn and you have nothing on that claim whatsoever.As of yet, there is simply not enough data to accurately gauge the progress in green job growth. Because of this, we continue to rate this promise as In the Works.
Who are you to talk? Can you come up with an objective approach? No, because you are too biased.
Meaning I shouldn't talk ?
Sorry, but you don't skate on this one.
And I certainly don't answer to you.
Any promise or objective can be set up correctly with measures.
As to weight, that depends on your point of view. But, Politifact holds no sway if people don't agree to the measures to begin with. And this isn't about dissing Politifact. They are simply reporting. But they report raw numbers and to allow you to hold those up as being meaningful would be a mistake on our part.
Do you want to support your statement that I am too biased. Or is this just a smokescreen because someone is calling you on your supposed "logical" approach.
Who are you to talk? Can you come up with an objective approach? No, because you are too biased.
Meaning I shouldn't talk ?
Sorry, but you don't skate on this one.
And I certainly don't answer to you.
Any promise or objective can be set up correctly with measures.
As to weight, that depends on your point of view. But, Politifact holds no sway if people don't agree to the measures to begin with. And this isn't about dissing Politifact. They are simply reporting. But they report raw numbers and to allow you to hold those up as being meaningful would be a mistake on our part.
Do you want to support your statement that I am too biased. Or is this just a smokescreen because someone is calling you on your supposed "logical" approach.
You calling it useless without giving good reason why or coming up with an alternate source of analysis on his promises, makes you biased. The raw data speaks for itself. Obama has succeeded on most of his campaign promises .
Creating 5 million jobs huh? Want to cite that.
And investing in green tech. He has not invested a dime in green tech. What he has invested in is companies. Companies that are going to go with the status quo as long as they can sell it and are going to resist all efforts to push green tech any further than immediate profits.
This is the problem that I have with government 'investment' in technology. That investment should begin and end with straight out research grants that are awarded to people that are purely in it to push the technology. Companies do not need incentive for R&D. they will do so as long as they can make a profit. In that regard, no matter how much you give them, it will not change their R&D goals. On the other hand, the government must invest in technology because it is the ONLY entity that can invest billions pushing a tech to the next level and shrug the losses off. This is even more true in cases where no benefits are actually realized. See NASA for situations where government investment in technology has pushed the envelope. Investing in companies in the tech industry is NOT the place of government and does not end well.
Establishing an energy policy with Brazil does some good. Stopping American drilling does far more bad.
PolitiFact | The Obameter: Create 5 million "green" jobs
1. You dodged all but the first sentence of my post.
2. Your link does not substantiate your claim.
Claims. Yes, THAT'S convincing verbiage.Until the BLS completes these surveys, the exact number of newly created green jobs is open to debate. The Council of Economic Advisers -- which advises the president on economic matters --claims that 225,000 green jobs have been saved or created through the first nine months of 2010.
225K is nowhere near a million. Even more so because it is essentially a guess. We also need to include the fact that the goal posts were moved from creating those jobs to now created OR saved. Heap that on top of the fact that the numbers of created or saved jobs has essentially been a farce through the economic downturn and you have nothing on that claim whatsoever.As of yet, there is simply not enough data to accurately gauge the progress in green job growth. Because of this, we continue to rate this promise as In the Works.
Meaning I shouldn't talk ?
Sorry, but you don't skate on this one.
And I certainly don't answer to you.
Any promise or objective can be set up correctly with measures.
As to weight, that depends on your point of view. But, Politifact holds no sway if people don't agree to the measures to begin with. And this isn't about dissing Politifact. They are simply reporting. But they report raw numbers and to allow you to hold those up as being meaningful would be a mistake on our part.
Do you want to support your statement that I am too biased. Or is this just a smokescreen because someone is calling you on your supposed "logical" approach.
You calling it useless without giving good reason why or coming up with an alternate source of analysis on his promises, makes you biased. The raw data speaks for itself. Obama has succeeded on most of his campaign promises .
I don't need an alternative to show you methodology to be flawed. And for someone who has critical thinker in his/her avatar, it is obvious you don't know what that means. And attempting to use it to prove bias is almost laughable. Well, actually it is laughable.
There may not be a way to actually meaningfully measure his promises kept.
Raw data, espcially in this case, would need to be processed. Just looking at the numbers is meaningless.
1. You dodged all but the first sentence of my post.
2. Your link does not substantiate your claim.
Claims. Yes, THAT'S convincing verbiage.
225K is nowhere near a million. Even more so because it is essentially a guess. We also need to include the fact that the goal posts were moved from creating those jobs to now created OR saved. Heap that on top of the fact that the numbers of created or saved jobs has essentially been a farce through the economic downturn and you have nothing on that claim whatsoever.As of yet, there is simply not enough data to accurately gauge the progress in green job growth. Because of this, we continue to rate this promise as In the Works.
True, I was quoting Obama. However, I bet his estimate will come close. We will have to wait and see.
We are running out of the fuels we have. We need to invest in alternate forms of energy. Is gov involvement the best way to go? No, but it's a start. Energy companies arent going to do it.
