Iranian woman to be stoned for adultery

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The majority of jobs Obama preserved were government jobs.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

What Obama made there was a trillion dollar promise. You can't treat it as just another broken election promise because of the money attached to it. American tax payers have every right to expect the promised results when they are paying such a premium price. Dipping above 8% briefly would have been one thing but, to be that wrong with that amount of wealth spent is unforgiveable.

This argument remains an obvious non-sequitur, and a rather blatant example of willful bias.
Why would you expect his projection to be gospel?
Why are you basing judgment of the impact/wisdom of his policies on a speech?

Do you consider Bush being wrong about WMDs to be unforgivable?
Bush had more time to explore the issue, more sources of information to draw from, used more sensationalist rhetoric, and his blunder had far more broad implications than domestic projections.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

And again it needs to be acknowledged: Obama isn't responsible for this down turn but, he took the job fully aware of the challenges before him. 3 years in is a little late to be giving Obama a pass because he didn't create the mess.

I'm not giving him a pass, I don't think I've said that I disagree with you.
I'm asking what criteria you (and others) intended to use to evaluate whether or not Obama is "up to the challenge."

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Gozer

By what criteria?
'Things still suck therefore it's Obama's fault' is intellectually lazy.

Would a McCain Presidency have kept unemployment under 8% while reducing the deficit? Would a Clinton Presidency have spent the stimulus money better? How would we know if he was up to the task? What criteria are you using?

edit - open question to everyone in this thread that think Obama is failing

I believe both Clinton and McCain would have used the first stimulus more wisely. Although Obama promised infrastructure spending little occured because of the massive outlays of cash to the States. New infrastructure does only create temporary jobs but, at least there is a continual benefit for the tax payer for their investment. It is a direct way to help blue collar workers short term while gaining a return long term.

The oil and gas industry was one of the few areas that retained a robust market. Tax exemptions tied to increased domestic employment and production would have jump started that industry. Some of the research dollars given to alternative energy should have been invested in better polution control within the carbon industries. If your concerned about carbon pollution harness more of the natural gas that is so abundant in the northern States and ship it south by pipe line. That could provide clean energy for fleets of County and State vehicles.

America could work with the G8 States to develop high enviromental standard for imported goods. The disadvantage North America and Europe faces in manufactoring are compounded by our high environmental standards. We certainly don't want them lowered. We could benefit the environment greatly by agreeing as a whole to comparable standards in manufactoring for goods we import. By doing this in conjunction with other G8 States we don't put any of us at a disadvantage. It would be just like California leading the rest of the Country in auto emmission standards. Because they represent such an important part of the market the automakers comply and the whole market benefits. China and India would also comply. This wouldn't end their mononpoly on manufactoring because of their low wages but, it would help domestic manufactoring compete. China's low wages would be partly off set by automation and closeness to the market.

I don't know how much of this Clinton or McCain would have done. They might have chosen solutions that didn't work like Obama. But whoever is in the White House is ultimately responsible for the out comes. That is what makes it a hard job.

Originally Posted by Gozer

He was wrong about staying under 8%. Also, economists have revised their analysis of the recession to reflect that it was far worse than they had anticipated.
(my link in post 350 supports this claim)

It was Obama's job to be right. It is hard to imagine that any creditable economist would believe the things he spent that money on would have turned the economy around. I could see them believing that the economy would correct itself within a few months and see Obama's spending as a means of easing the pain until that day. There would have been some merit in that.

Originally Posted by Gozer

But your last sentence is a non-sequitur.
Obama being wrong about the unemployment number is not evidence that he wasted the money (ignoring the presumption that it was he who decided where to spend it all) nor that the economy has no chance of correcting. One is not evidence of the other.

It is evidence that he spent almost a trillion dollars on something that didn't have the promised outcome. That is huge! It is huge because of the money involved. When the taxpayers spent that kind of money they expect results. They didn't get what was promised.

Originally Posted by Gozer

Bush didn't include Iraq or Afganistan in his budget, nor did he include his prescription drug program. Bush's budget was baloney.

And using the lack of a budget as a criticism of Obama is the kind of "screw 'em all" attitude that congressional intransigence is hoping for. The budget is under the pervue of Congress.

Here is Obama's 2012 budget if you're interested. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget

The budget is under the pervue of the Congress. Obama submits a budget and both Houses debate and revise it and eventually it is sent to the President to be signed. Unfortunately his Party didn't find it politically expedient to pass any of his proposed budgets or replace it with one of their own. The reason for this is obvious. They didn't want to be accountable for agreeing to so much spending. Instead they wait for a crisis and then let the money out.

Since the Republicans took the House of Representatives budgets have been passed. These Obama promised to veto even before the vote. The Democrat controlled Senate hasn't even allowed these budgets to be debated.

Compare that to Bush. He like Clinton passed budgets every year they were in power. They did this through compromise.

When Bush proposed the perscription drug program both houses had full opportunity to debate the law. It wasn't push through with a looming dead line wherein the government would shut down.

Originally Posted by Gozer

Is any of this supposed to support your claim that Obama is responsible for media bias? Or the Tea Party? (344)

No we havn't been discussing those things.

The media bias was real and turned the election. No other candidate could have belonged to the church he did or have called that minister his mentor without being blown out of the water. Media would have been relentless in demanding explainations for inconsistancies in his academic life. How did he get into Harvard with sub-par grades? How did he become the editor of the Harvard Law review without ever publishing an article in it? Why won't he release his doctoral thesis? Obama campaigned on Hope and Change like about every other candidate before him. The difference was the rest were expected to fill in the details. If there was no media bias Hillary would have got the nomination and probably the Presidency.

The Tea party began when Bush asked for the first bail out. They gained momentum and power because of Obama's continued big spending. If Obama's had done more to control spending there is no way the Democrats would have had the losses they did in the mid terms. Obama's deficits made the Tea party relevant.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Obama saved mainly government jobs. Most of the money from his stimulus went to States to preserve union jobs. If a few government jobs were lost anyways that just shows you the depth of the hole States were in. That off the chart spike you see on the graph in government jobs was due to the census. I suspect the losses in government jobs are also reflective in the short term nature of those jobs.

Originally Posted by Gozer

This argument remains an obvious non-sequitur, and a rather blatant example of willful bias.
Why would you expect his projection to be gospel?
Why are you basing judgment of the impact/wisdom of his policies on a speech?

It wasn't just a speech. It was a promised return for a large chunk of the nation's future wealth.

Originally Posted by Gozer

Do you consider Bush being wrong about WMDs to be unforgivable?
Bush had more time to explore the issue, more sources of information to draw from, used more sensationalist rhetoric, and his blunder had far more broad implications than domestic projections.

I think Bush and his party were held responsible for acting on wrong intelligence and Obama should be held responsible too.

Originally Posted by Gozer

I'm not giving him a pass, I don't think I've said that I disagree with you.
I'm asking what criteria you (and others) intended to use to evaluate whether or not Obama is "up to the challenge."

I think the question going forward is who will do a better job in the next 4 years. Obama's past performance and future vision are both relevant. If Romney or another runs against him they will be held to the same standard.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Obama saved mainly government jobs. Most of the money from his stimulus went to States to preserve union jobs. If a few government jobs were lost anyways that just shows you the depth of the hole States were in. That off the chart spike you see on the graph in government jobs was due to the census. I suspect the losses in government jobs are also reflective in the short term nature of those jobs.



It wasn't just a speech. It was a promised return for a large chunk of the nation's future wealth.



I think Bush and his party were held responsible for acting on wrong intelligence and Obama should be held responsible too.




I think the question going forward is who will do a better job in the next 4 years. Obama's past performance and future vision are both relevant. If Romney or another runs against him they will be held to the same standard.

No they won't, US elections aren't about records or ideas, they're about ideals , religion and smear campaigns. That's why the US finds itself in a bad position, because the concept of doing what's right for the country and its citizens has fallen behind doing what's best for your political career.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by valo403

No they won't, US elections aren't about records or ideas, they're about ideals , religion and smear campaigns. That's why the US finds itself in a bad position, because the concept of doing what's right for the country and its citizens has fallen behind doing what's best for your political career.

Maybe your right generally but, I think this one will be different. People are desperate for solutions. The hurting has been going on for too long. Whoever has the best plain and looks like they could accomplish it should take this even if Americans have to hold their nose a lttle bit.

America is divided in a lot of areas but, the economy trumps most of them.

[Barnet Flame]

Nobody has a plan. And if they did, it would likely be unpalatable and be a guaranteed vote loser.

Luckily for voters though, there'll be no shortage of soundbites offering simplistic solutions that haven't worked in the past, won't work now and will screw up the future if ever acted upon.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I think Bush and his party were held responsible for acting on wrong intelligence and Obama should be held responsible too.

They were never held accountable. And let's not sugar coat it. Bush and his coleagues didn't just act upon wrong intelligence; they flat out fabricated it to get what they wanted. Bush was going to invade Iraq and wouldn't take no for an answer.

Originally Posted by valo403

No they won't, US elections aren't about records or ideas, they're about ideals , religion and smear campaigns. That's why the US finds itself in a bad position, because the concept of doing what's right for the country and its citizens has fallen behind doing what's best for your political career.

Not really that much different than Canadian elections really. I don't think the U.S. has a monopoly dirty politics.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Maybe your right generally but, I think this one will be different. People are desperate for solutions. The hurting has been going on for too long. Whoever has the best plain and looks like they could accomplish it should take this even if Americans have to hold their nose a lttle bit.

America is divided in a lot of areas but, the economy trumps most of them.

I have yet to see any reason to be as optimistic as you. The way we can all go in our corners and hear only the message we want. The bias mainstream media and of course the internet I just don't see it changing. In fact I can only see it getting worse.
Today I am a glass half empty guy.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

They were never held accountable. And let's not sugar coat it. Bush and his coleagues didn't just act upon wrong intelligence; they flat out fabricated it to get what they wanted. Bush was going to invade Iraq and wouldn't take no for an answer.



Not really that much different than Canadian elections really. I don't think the U.S. has a monopoly dirty politics.

Nothing was fabricated. The intelligence Congress had was the exact same as the President had. It suggested that Iraq had something going on. It was sketchy and turned out to be wrong but, it wasn't fabricated. Both the CIA and their British counterparts agreed that it appeared Iraq were up to something.

Did Bush embellish the certainty of his conclusions to the American public? Of course he did. When your about to declare war you don't express doubts about the cause. The point remains that he and both Houses were convinced that they needed to act based on the intelligence available. With 9/11 not too far in the rear view mirror it's not suprising that they didn't err on the side of caution.

Bush may not have paid too heavy a price. But the Republicans did lose the 2008 election soundly. They effectively lost any influence in government for 2 years and only hold one House today.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Nothing was fabricated. The intelligence Congress had was the exact same as the President had. It suggested that Iraq had something going on. It was sketchy and turned out to be wrong but, it wasn't fabricated. Both the CIA and their British counterparts agreed that it appeared Iraq were up to something.

Did Bush embellish the certainty of his conclusions to the American public? Of course he did. When your about to declare war you don't express doubts about the cause. The point remains that he and both Houses were convinced that they needed to act based on the intelligence available. With 9/11 not too far in the rear view mirror it's not suprising that they didn't err on the side of caution.

Bush may not have paid too heavy a price. But the Republicans did lose the 2008 election soundly. They effectively lost any influence in government for 2 years and only hold one House today.

Curveball and Nigerian Uranium deals were both at best very questionable sources. These were the two main points of evidence for war.

Other intelligence agencies would not verify their validity and in some cases openly called it into question.

The US pretty much ran a smear campaign on Hans Blix.

It was about as close to fabrication as you can get.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

I have yet to see any reason to be as optimistic as you. The way we can all go in our corners and hear only the message we want. The bias mainstream media and of course the internet I just don't see it changing. In fact I can only see it getting worse.
Today I am a glass half empty guy.

Look at the Republican primaries. The social conservatives have been a non factor. Perry was the closest to making some noise but, as soon as he opened his mouth he dropped in the polls. Cain and then Gingrich topped the polls for awhile on the merit of what they had to say. Both guys came across as someone with a plan. Cain's plan didn't include any comprehensive foriegn policy vision. I think that hurt him more then the sexual accusations. Gingrich has been losing ground because of both sides focus on his political past. The divorces hasn't seemed to hurt him but his politics has.

This leaves Romney who has the resume and the organization. What he has lacked is a plan he has been able to communicate. I know he lays a lot out on his web site but, at the debates he always appeared to be more interested in selling Romney the man than putting forward any solutions. That approach has only netted him about 25% of the vote. People won't embrace him fully until he can convince them he has got a plan.

Obama won last time on not much more than a slogan of "hope and change". I believe this time you will see a lot of undecided right into September. The winner will be the one with the more believable plan. The details will mean everything.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Curveball and Nigerian Uranium deals were both at best very questionable sources. These were the two main points of evidence for war.

Other intelligence agencies would not verify their validity and in some cases openly called it into question.

The US pretty much ran a smear campaign on Hans Blix.

It was about as close to fabrication as you can get.

Your confusing the public PR campaign with the information every Congressman and Senator had on their desk. The people who voted to go to war knew there were questions about some of the intelligence. I suspect there always is. What they had to determine is if the questions were large enough to out weigh the indicators which suggested there might be something. I imagine they also wieghed the cost of possibly being wrong either way.

Hans Blix's reports included reported delays whenever he asked to go somewhere which made it appear the Iraqis were hiding something. He also, reported that he couldn't find evidence of the disposal of some of their chemical weapons where they said they disposed of them.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Look at the Republican primaries. The social conservatives have been a non factor. Perry was the closest to making some noise but, as soon as he opened his mouth he dropped in the polls. Cain and then Gingrich topped the polls for awhile on the merit of what they had to say. Both guys came across as someone with a plan. Cain's plan didn't include any comprehensive foriegn policy vision. I think that hurt him more then the sexual accusations. Gingrich has been losing ground because of both sides focus on his political past. The divorces hasn't seemed to hurt him but his politics has.

This leaves Romney who has the resume and the organization. What he has lacked is a plan he has been able to communicate. I know he lays a lot out on his web site but, at the debates he always appeared to be more interested in selling Romney the man than putting forward any solutions. That approach has only netted him about 25% of the vote. People won't embrace him fully until he can convince them he has got a plan.

Obama won last time on not much more than a slogan of "hope and change". I believe this time you will see a lot of undecided right into September. The winner will be the one with the more believable plan. The details will mean everything.

And that's what's going to make this a close race then people think. Obama can't really stand on his record on the economy and people aren't going to buy a vague hope and change Kennedyesque campaign if they're smart.

The guy that can come forward with a plain could win a close race here.

I don't have much hope if an idiot like Newt goes against Obama because the guy is slimy. But Romney might be able to pull it off based on his past record and his economic background.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Your confusing the public PR campaign with the information every Congressman and Senator had on their desk. The people who voted to go to war knew there were questions about some of the intelligence. I suspect there always is. What they had to determine is if the questions were large enough to out weigh the indicators which suggested there might be something. I imagine they also wieghed the cost of possibly being wrong either way.

Hans Blix's reports included reported delays whenever he asked to go somewhere which made it appear the Iraqis were hiding something. He also, reported that he couldn't find evidence of the disposal of some of their chemical weapons where they said they disposed of them.

There was no indication that Iraq was a threat to anyone at all, even in the bull#### intel that Bush and the CIA 'sexed up' as the Brits called it.
Even the fake intel only suggested that Hussain sometime in the future might have the materials to do something, it was all bull as we now know but the intel was never more than a means to an end, the White House wanted to invade Iraq and then looked for reasons, that the reasons they dug up turned out to be false just adds insult to injury so to speak, but even if the intel had proved to be correct it would still not amounted to a reason to invade Iraq.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Look at the Republican primaries. The social conservatives have been a non factor. Perry was the closest to making some noise but, as soon as he opened his mouth he dropped in the polls. Cain and then Gingrich topped the polls for awhile on the merit of what they had to say. Both guys came across as someone with a plan. Cain's plan didn't include any comprehensive foriegn policy vision. I think that hurt him more then the sexual accusations. Gingrich has been losing ground because of both sides focus on his political past. The divorces hasn't seemed to hurt him but his politics has.

This leaves Romney who has the resume and the organization. What he has lacked is a plan he has been able to communicate. I know he lays a lot out on his web site but, at the debates he always appeared to be more interested in selling Romney the man than putting forward any solutions. That approach has only netted him about 25% of the vote. People won't embrace him fully until he can convince them he has got a plan.

Obama won last time on not much more than a slogan of "hope and change". I believe this time you will see a lot of undecided right into September. The winner will be the one with the more believable plan. The details will mean everything.

I agree with some of your thoughts but I will never overestimate the american voter.
But I do disagree with you saying the social conservatives have been a non factor his religion has been a factor, if it wasn't Romney would have been leading in the polls by a ton from the start to the end. His previous liberal positions and then having to change them for the national conservative right is evidence of that too.
As long as there is that 20%(guessing here) of hardcore conservatives they will be a factor till there is more than two parties. They are your base and they may not show up if you don't sing their song.
But I truly want you to be right but I just don't see it.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Curveball and Nigerian Uranium deals were both at best very questionable sources. These were the two main points of evidence for war.

Other intelligence agencies would not verify their validity and in some cases openly called it into question.

The US pretty much ran a smear campaign on Hans Blix.

It was about as close to fabrication as you can get.

And the complete government bought it hook, line and sinker.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Zing?



You don't have to support your claims around here (unfortunately) but it certainly helps folks that like me understand issues better.

You said that Reagen inherited a far worse economic situation, I asked you to provide an objective party that would support that claim.
If it's super-obvious, it shouldn't be that hard.



Listing five statistics with no effort at context isn't a great basis to form an opinion, but thank you for posting what I asked for, even if it is just a headline.



This link makes no effort to contrast.
But I will read through this so I don't amaze anyone else with my ignorance.



I read this in link 1. It's a single factor viewed with no attempt to contextualize the data, and no thesis to support to refute.


I was hoping for more of a fact-checking opinion piece that would provide arguments and context that I could evaluate for myself. Like this:


Reagan faced a worse recession than Obama

If I read your last link correctly I think we are in agreement but with a slight misunderstanding.

I was talking about what each President was handed, upon inauguration. The economy and foreign situation for the USA was far worse at Reagan's inauguration.

That link is talking overall economics over the recessions and not just at each President's inauguration. I am in total agreement that Obama's situation economically has it worse NOW and the recession is far worse now. No argument.


My point that Reagan had is FAR worse is even more true because he had the Soviet Union breathing down his neck. Obama has Iran. A F'n fly on the rhino's butt by comparison.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by HOZ

If I read your last link correctly I think we are in agreement but with a slight misunderstanding.

I was talking about what each President was handed, upon inauguration. The economy and foreign situation for the USA was far worse at Reagan's inauguration.

That link is talking overall economics over the recessions and not just at each President's inauguration. I am in total agreement that Obama's situation economically has it worse NOW and the recession is far worse now. No argument.


My point that Reagan had is FAR worse is even more true because he had the Soviet Union breathing down his neck. Obama has Iran. A F'n fly on the rhino's butt by comparison.

The Soviet Union wasn't breathing down Reagans neck, in fact the very existence of the Soviets meant the world was a far more predictable stable place, each power had its sphere of influence, neither wanted any more than a proxy war in some remote crap hole, the soviets weren't flying planes into buildings or likely to start a nuclear war in order to martyr themselves into heaven.
The world is a far worse place now than it was in the late seventies or early eighties from a US point of view, all the USSR had was a large army and a crumbling economy, Obama has had to deal with a second superpower, China, that owns the US's arse economically and has a large army.

Upon taking power Reagan had no US troops involved in any conflicts, a reletively stable Middle East for the first time in 20 years, and a USSR that was tied up in Afghanistan and relatively eager to agree to nuclear disarmament.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

The Soviet Union wasn't breathing down Reagans neck, in fact the very existence of the Soviets meant the world was a far more predictable stable place, each power had its sphere of influence, neither wanted any more than a proxy war in some remote crap hole, the soviets weren't flying planes into buildings or likely to start a nuclear war in order to martyr themselves into heaven.
The world is a far worse place now than it was in the late seventies or early eighties from a US point of view, all the USSR had was a large army and a crumbling economy, Obama has had to deal with a second superpower, China, that owns the US's arse economically and has a large army.

Upon taking power Reagan had no US troops involved in any conflicts, a reletively stable Middle East for the first time in 20 years, and a USSR that was tied up in Afghanistan and relatively eager to agree to nuclear disarmament.

Upon taking power Reagan faced this....

1. In 1980 the Soviet Union was winning. The MOST evil, most oppressive, most omnipotent force ever conceived was WINNING. They invaded Afghanistan because they could. Like who would stop them? They had a death grip on Central America and South America. They were winning in Asia (NK was doing better than SK!!!) they were winning in Europe. They held their triumphant Olympic games and the only thing WE (west) could do is boycott it. Honestly, dude....people were waiting for the day they would try to invade North America!!!!! BTW: the Soviets invented today's terrorism.

So no....it was not predictable unless you like bad news.

2. ME being worse now? Umm...No. The Iran- Iraq war broke out and it was the worst war since WWII involving casualties and it was the first war since WWI that openly used chemical weapons. So the ME was not stable at all. Reagan had to deal with all sort of failures in the ME in his administration.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Upon taking power Reagan faced this....

1. In 1980 the Soviet Union was winning. The MOST evil, most oppressive, most omnipotent force ever conceived was WINNING. They invaded Afghanistan because they could. Like who would stop them? They had a death grip on Central America and South America. They were winning in Asia (NK was doing better than SK!!!) they were winning in Europe. They held their triumphant Olympic games and the only thing WE (west) could do is boycott it. Honestly, dude....people were waiting for the day they would try to invade North America!!!!! BTW: the Soviets invented today's terrorism.

So no....it was not predictable unless you like bad news.

2. ME being worse now? Umm...No. The Iran- Iraq war broke out and it was the worst war since WWII involving casualties and it was the first war since WWI that openly used chemical weapons. So the ME was not stable at all. Reagan had to deal with all sort of failures in the ME in his administration.

Plus he had to clean up the mess of the well meaning but utterly stupid Jimmy Carter.

He had the Lebanon crisis, up until that point the worst terrorist attack on U.S. assets, he had to deal with a extremely aggressive Soviet Union both in Central America and in Europe, he had to deal with the Korean Airline shootdown, Ghadaffi in Libya was much more aggressive back them dealing in terrorist attacks in Berlin

the American economy that Reagan inherited was in a similar state to today, where it was in tatters, the armed forces in America was pretty much a running joke except for the Marine Corp, and not to mention he got shot 2 months into his first term.

When Reagan took office the Soviets were on the verge of securing a massive sphere of influence and things were not stable as the Soviets were funding useful terrorist groups as far as central America, things were not stable but that was thanks to Kennedy and his mishandling of the Cuban Missile Crisis for example.

Reagan walked into a pretty terrible situation where people were thinking the same thing that they're thinking today, that the American Empire was dead.