American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;439054]The wit and wisdom of Ronald Reagan.

"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." January 20,1981: From Reagan's Inaugural Address.

"Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives."

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'

"Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other."

"A government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth."

"We don't have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much."

"The American dream is not that every man must be level with every other man. The American dream is that every man must be free to become whatever God intends he should become."

"I hope we have once again reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts."

"We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions."

"History teaches that war begins when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap."

"Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the USA was too strong."

"If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth."

Simple, clear and direct.[/QUOTE]Ignoring his abysmal record on civil rights, support for genocidal regimes in central America and being on the wrong side of history when supporting the apartheid regime in South Africa (even Republicans helped in overturning his veto on the sanctions bill in 1986), I did agree with what he said here.

[URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJDhS4oUm0M[/URL]

[QUOTE=SteveC;439062]You still saying that Fox news is a more reliable source? That's its agenda isn't strictly anti-Obama? You keep avoiding that question.[/QUOTE]Clearly the only program you've ever watched on Fox News is Hannity, who is to the extreme right what Rachel Maddow is to the extreme left. I don't think either of them contribute anything of value.

Nevertheless, if you were to watch any of the other programs objectively you might observe the large numbers of Leftist / Liberal / Democrats voicing their opinions in the talking heads segments on Fox News. Just tonight, immediately after O'Reilly's "Talking Points" they brought James Carville on to refute O'Reilly.

I'm not going to conduct minute-by-minute research to prove my point, but Fox is hardly "strictly anti-Obama", although it may appear that way to you because right / conservative / Republicans are also allowed to voice their opinions, some of which may make you cringe.

Thanks,

Jax.

Doppel's latest posts are simply more deflection from his false statements on grandfather provisions and US vs. Europe unemployment rates, that he used in an attempt to discredit Obama. But his deflection and avoidance only expose more clearly what a fraud he is.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;439050]The only thing shifting is you my friend.[/QUOTE]Of course Doppel doesn't provide an example or any evidence. In fact the opposite is true, and this is a tactic of a slippery purveyor of disinformation: [I]accuse the other person of what you are guilty of[/I].

[U]Shifting from the U3 metric to the U6[/U]. Doppel can't stand to talk about the U3, since 6.7% is a good number reflecting the creation of almost 9 Million private sector jobs, and much better than Europe's number. He wants to talk about a higher number (U6) that includes part-time employment, a number people weren't much interested in until Obama became president. And he claims using the official U3 number is "biased" and "cherry picking". Such are the efforts of a man determined to frame Obama in a bad light at any cost and any level of intellectual dishonesty.

[U]Shifting from whether US vs. Europe unemployment rate is better, to whether U3 vs. U6 is better.[/U] This is pure evasiveness. As supported by his own link, the European unemployment rate is 10.5% (EU27) or 11.4% (Euro area)(both older 2012 figures, now closer to 12%). These numbers do not include part-timers, because [I]someone employed part-time is not unemployed[/I]. Doppel doesn't seem to grasp such an obvious point. These numbers are clearly higher than the US 6.7%, which reflect the better performance of the US economy, that Doppel can't stand to admit.

Doppel, since you're too afraid to accept my wager, why don't you at least post the Eurostat definition of unemployment? Surely this will help us settle whether the European number includes the underemployed.

[QUOTE=Esten;439067]Doppel's latest posts are simply more deflection from his false statements on grandfather provisions and US vs. Europe unemployment rates, that he used in an attempt to discredit Obama. But his deflection and avoidance only expose more clearly what a fraud he is.

Of course Doppel doesn't provide an example or any evidence. In fact the opposite is true, and this is a tactic of a slippery purveyor of disinformation: [I]accuse the other person of what you are guilty of[/I].

[U]Shifting from the U3 metric to the U6[/U]. Doppel can't stand to talk about the U3, since 6.7% is a good number reflecting the creation of almost 9 Million private sector jobs, and much better than Europe's number. He wants to talk about a higher number (U6) that includes part-time employment, a number people weren't much interested in until Obama became president. And he claims using the official U3 number is "biased" and "cherry picking". Such are the efforts of a man determined to frame Obama in a bad light at any cost and any level of intellectual dishonesty.

[U]Shifting from whether US vs. Europe unemployment rate is better, to whether U3 vs. U6 is better.[/U] This is pure evasiveness. As supported by his own link, the European unemployment rate is 10.5% (EU27) or 11.4% (Euro area)(both older 2012 figures, now closer to 12%). These numbers do not include part-timers, because [I]someone employed part-time is not unemployed[/I]. Doppel doesn't seem to grasp such an obvious point. These numbers are clearly higher than the US 6.7%, which reflect the better performance of the US economy, that Doppel can't stand to admit.

Doppel, since you're too afraid to accept my wager, why don't you at least post the Eurostat definition of unemployment? Surely this will help us settle whether the European number includes the underemployed.[/QUOTE]Who cares?? Every intelligent person knows that just about every country's government cooks the books. It matters not whether the government is right or left wing. Give it a rest and move on. There is a saying by accountants, "What do you want the numbers to say?

Tres3.

[QUOTE=Esten;439067] Doppel can't stand to talk about the U3, [b]since 6.7% is a good number reflecting the creation of almost 9 Million private sector jobs[/b][/QUOTE]Hahahahahahaha! HAHAHAHAHAHA!

[URL]http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000[/URL]

Witness the tremendous efforts of conservatives to steer the conversation away from Doppel's false statements and from favorable statistics on the US economy.

Let's see if Doppel can post the Eurostat definition of unemployment. If he can't do something so simple, this should be proof positive that he lacks credibility.

[QUOTE=Esten;439070]Witness the tremendous efforts of conservatives to steer the conversation away from Doppel's false statements and from favorable statistics on the US economy.

Let's see if Doppel can post the Eurostat definition of unemployment. If he can't do something so simple, this should be proof positive that he lacks credibility.[/QUOTE]I already posted it. You just ignored it.

Look in the mirror to see lack of credibility.

[QUOTE=Jackson;439066]Clearly the only program you've ever watched on Fox News is Hannity, who is to the extreme right what Rachel Maddow is to the extreme left. I don't think either of them contribute anything of value.

Nevertheless, if you were to watch any of the other programs objectively you might observe the large numbers of Leftist / Liberal / Democrats voicing their opinions in the talking heads segments on Fox News. Just tonight, immediately after O'Reilly's "Talking Points" they brought James Carville on to refute O'Reilly.

I'm not going to conduct minute-by-minute research to prove my point, but Fox is hardly "strictly anti-Obama", although it may appear that way to you because right / conservative / Republicans are also allowed to voice their opinions, some of which may make you cringe.

Thanks,

Jax.[/QUOTE]I don't know why you keep referring me to other news sources, I didn't make any claims in that direction. My point was that the Congressional Budget Office is a more non-partisan source of economic data than Fox News. Any dispute there?

[QUOTE=SteveC;439062]You still saying that Fox news is a more reliable source? That's its agenda isn't strictly anti-Obama?.

[/QUOTE]Anyone who says Fox news is not anti-Obama, should find one story, only one that is positive from start to finish for or pro Obama. From dusk to dawn is all Obama's fault. With the exception of Shepherd Smith and on rare occasions Neil Cavuto, they're consistent Obama bashers. Daily accusations are nefariously guised in the formed of a "question," on their website and on TV. Is Obama destroying the country? Is Obama to blame for everything? And of course the answer is yes. With attack dog Hannity leading the charge, O'Reilly and the rest of the primetime crew are totally obsessed with Obama and want him to fail. Every night its all about something Obama is not doing or doing wrong. Watch the reaction of Fox on Obama's reelection night victory, tells you all you need to know about how they feel about him. According to Fox when Bush was in office, you should not criticize him outside our borders especially on war related / foreign policy matters but Obama is afforded no such courtesy as he is regularly second guessed and bashed at will.

Regular erroneous graphics are shown to disparage Obama, especially on the morning show but never an erroneous graphic that would show him or his administration in a positive light. Every error they make is always against Obama. Odd that this is even being debated, any and every objective observer knows they were against him from the start and remains so now. When Obama first took office the Dow was around 6500 and dropped about 200 points and it was Obama's fault. Now the Dow is at an all time high at 16400 plus but you'll never see them give him any credit for that. Bringing on a democrat or liberal guest then shouting him or her down or cutting their microphone while allowing conservatives to talk uninterrupted is not balance or fair, this is old news.

[QUOTE=SteveC;439075]I don't know why you keep referring me to other news sources, I didn't make any claims in that direction. My point was that the Congressional Budget Office is a more non-partisan source of economic data than Fox News. Any dispute there?[/QUOTE]No argument with that.

[QUOTE=RcCollins;439076]Anyone who says Fox news is not anti-Obama, should find one story, only one that is positive from start to finish for or pro Obama.[/QUOTE]That's your definition of an "anti-Obama" media outlet, any source that does not publish stories that are " [I]positive from start to finish for or pro Obama[/I]"?

Thanks,

Jax.

Like CIA operatives who undergoes psychological training to treat pain as pleasure when undergoing interrogation techniques, I have somewhat adjusted to be able to take on Fox News these days without my blood pressure cooking up.

But what I cannot handle is when they go from hard news to a hillbilly song.

[QUOTE=Jackson;439078]That's your definition of an "anti-Obama" media outlet, any source that does not publish stories that are " [I]positive from start to finish for or pro Obama[/I]"?

Thanks,

Jax.[/QUOTE]Well, yes that's a part of it. Because they did so many for Bush, despite his many short-comings so if you tout the fair and balance slogan, you should do the same for both parties.

[QUOTE=SteveC;439075]I don't know why you keep referring me to other news sources, I didn't make any claims in that direction. My point was that the Congressional Budget Office is a more non-partisan source of economic data than Fox News. Any dispute there?[/QUOTE]Steve, I have not contended the office itself maybe partisan, while I do believe many of the projections made are based on partisan assumptions from sources requesting the data. That said, the CBO's numbers are not the Holy Grail of forecasting and have very frequently been wrong by large margins, totally missing major events while over / under stating surplus and deficient numbers. Regarding Fox vs CBO it is my opinion Fox produces numbers which are more consistently accurate than the CBO.

See the following link from CATO Institute:

[URL]http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/dont-trust-cbos-numbers[/URL]

[QUOTE=RcCollins;439080]Well, yes that's a part of it. Because they did so many for Bush, despite his many short-comings so if you tout the fair and balance slogan, you should do the same for both parties.[/QUOTE]Collins, what a double standard you folks employ. Bush was SAVAGED by the major news outlets. Fox was critical as well but not to the extent of the liberal / main stream news outlets.

Holder and Obama's cries of mistreatment ring hollow indeed when compared to the statements of congressional members and the media during the Bush years.

Based on your yardstick do these two reports make the CBO anti-Obama ?

[URL]http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2014/02/04/319362.htm[/URL]

[URL]http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/5/specter-of-welfare-state-jolts-democrats/?page=all[/URL]