Obama Busted in What May Be the Crime of the Century…


aacx22

Tested Selected Initiated
Don't really care if it's a white dude or a one eyed, one leg Aleut with lesbian tendencies. Main Stream Media has gone from reporting what happened to what they think will get more readership and market share. Aligned with liberal editors and owners, they manipulate a story to ensure it will push the agenda of liberals and demonize conservatives. Instead of being a check to the government reporting facts, they have aided in the promulgation of the socialist agenda.
We used to be proud of our Freedom of the Press. NOW, and for a long while, they have the freedom to press this great society into a mind set through their propaganda of half trues and dis-information.

Ok... now I somewhat agree with you (when it comes to media only caring about "readership and market share"), but why does it have to do with race when its Obama? If the media is liberal anyway, why would they be afraid of criticizing Obama and being labeled racist, when according to this post here, the president and them should mostly be in agreement? Your earlier post and this post don't seem to work together.
 

FactsNotFiction

New member
"Only if you count people with Masters Degrees working at Denny's and Jiffy Lube. "



Name one. You can't because it's really easy to make a baseless statement like that, but not have the actual facts and data to back it up. The people working those jobs are going be lower skilled workers, not people with advanced degrees.

Want to know why the job market sucks and has for quite a while? Large corporations lobbied the Congress, and this goes back to Reagan, but Clinton did his fair share as did Bush 41, telling Congress that there are billions of consumers for American goods out there in Asia and all we need do is open our markets to them and they'll open their markets to us and we'll all make a ton of money. Sounds like a reasonable idea. What our leaders didn't realize is that once you open the trade barriers it doesn't really matter where goods are made. Before the barriers were lifted if an American company had a factory in Asia made a product and shipped it to the US it would be tariffed, and would therefore cost as much as an American made product. But once the trade barriers dropped, you could make it in a location where labor was far cheaper and then ship it to the US without there being any more added expense than shipping.

Manufacturing jobs for the most part are not skilled jobs, so you don't need an educated work force for them, you just need hands. And here in America for the most part we care about drinking water and breathing air that won't kill us, so yes we have restrictive environmental laws, in Asia, they don't care about their people living in a toxic environment. So when you build a factory in Asia you can get cheap labor, almost slave labor, and then dump poisons anywhere you want. For a company that only cares about their profit, the motive to move those factories and jobs to Asia was irresistible. Further those same corporations did not have to declare those profits in the US but in the lower tax regions of their overseas factories, they were able to offshore their profits while benefitting from the US consumer market and the protections and advantages that come from being a US corporation. And BTW who was the biggest opponent of all these trade deals, the unions, they knew what would happen.

But strangely enough, with wages depressed here in the US, and don't blame Obama for that he's been working to raise minimum wages and is against the growing income inequality in America, some of those businesses are coming back to America. However, it is not a matter of the quality of life of Americans going up with those jobs, it's a matter of the quality of life of Americans going down to the quality of life in Asia.

I own a corporation, granted it's a small one, but my clients have been the biggest corporations in the world. That said the decline in the quality of life in America, the incredible income equality in America is a result of corporations doing what is best for their bottom-line and not what's best for America. And thanks to Citizen's United, they can give as much money to politicians as they want. So who do you think Congress, who needs to be elected every two years and is always in campaign mode and needs money mode, listens to and cares about?

If you think this is a wrong assessment on my part, and BTW it is backed by the numbers, then explain to me how CEO pay has gone through the roof, corporate profits have gone through the roof, the stock market has hit records, the corporations are paying less tax than ever before, and the wages for the average American have dropped? Where's Reagan's trickle down? The rich are getting far richer, and everyone else is getting poorer. A new fact came out, by 2016 the top 1% will own 50% of the world's wealth.
 

FactsNotFiction

New member
Or the fact that 1 0bama job may only equal a .75 FTE job. A fact born out in that if 11 million jobs were created, why is unemployment at 8.7 million when in 2008 it was 6.7 million.


Going back to that 16 million growth in population,

Looking at the chart below from the US Bureau of Labor statistics, you'll see that in January 2009 the number of Americans employed was 133,976,000, mind you it was 5 million higher in Jan 2008, a loss of 5 million jobs in 2008, Bush's last year as president.
In jan 2010 at the lowest point of the recovery the employed total was 129,665,000.
You'll also see on this chart that the current employment level is 140,307,000, a gain of 10,642,000

So why are there still 8.7 million people unemployed as compared to 6.7 million in 2008? First I don't know where the 6.7 million number you use came from, I can't find it, but our population has grown by 16 million since 2008, with the current unemployment rate just the growth in population accounts for some 896,000 of those unemployed. But if you are measuring the employed number from jan 2009, when Obama took the oath of office and when the recession was still in it's first half, the number of people is 3,620,000higher than when the unemployment rate bottomed out a year later. Bottomline, more people have jobs now than before Obama took office, 10.6 million more than at the worst point of the recession.And 58 straight months of job creation.



Here are the numbers from the US Bureau of Labor statistics, that show the US employment rolls by month, in thousands.

Download: Download as an Excel File
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2004 130747 130791 131123 131372 131679 131753 131785 131917 132079 132425 132490 132619
2005 132753 132992 133126 133489 133664 133909 134282 134478 134545 134629 134966 135125
2006 135402 135717 135997 136179 136202 136279 136486 136670 136827 136829 137039 137210
2007 137448 137536 137724 137802 137946 138017 137984 137968 138053 138135 138253 138350
2008 138365 138279 138199 137985 137803 137631 137421 137162 136710 136236 135471 134774
2009 133976 133275 132449 131765 131411 130944 130617 130401 130174 129976 129970 129687
2010 129705 129655 129811 130062 130578 130456 130395 130353 130296 130537 130674 130745
2011 130815 130983 131195 131517 131619 131836 131942 132064 132285 132468 132632 132828
2012 133188 133414 133657 133753 133863 133951 134111 134261 134422 134647 134850 135064
2013 135261 135541 135682 135885 136084 136285 136434 136636 136800 137037 137311 137395
2014 137539 137761 137964 138268 138497 138764 139007 139210 139481 139742 140095(P) 140347(P)
 

FactsNotFiction

New member
Don't really care if it's a white dude or a one eyed, one leg Aleut with lesbian tendencies. Main Stream Media has gone from reporting what happened to what they think will get more readership and market share. Aligned with liberal editors and owners, they manipulate a story to ensure it will push the agenda of liberals and demonize conservatives. Instead of being a check to the government reporting facts, they have aided in the promulgation of the socialist agenda.
We used to be proud of our Freedom of the Press. NOW, and for a long while, they have the freedom to press this great society into a mind set through their propaganda of half truths and dis-information.

I agree with you about the pandering on the part of the media. They used to report facts, now in an effort to not offend anyone (although Fox has decided to limit it's audience to conservatives and panders exclusively to them) the media will now state opinions on both sides of an issue rather than facts. They will have someone argue that 1+1=2 and then give equal time to someone who is convinced that 1+1=3 just so they seem fair and don't offend people with poor math skills. However that said, while the editors may have a more liberal slant, the owners of the media are mega corporations and are usually more conservative than liberal. But facts are facts and are not ideological, they are simply reality.

Baseball is a game that is buried in stats. Batting average, home runs, hits, RBIs, runs scored, etc. We use those stats to evaluate performance. I think few here would argue that a someone hitting .333 with 40 home runs and 110 rbi's is a better hitter than some batting .200 with 10 home runs and 20 rbi's. It's objective. Economic stats work the same way. And my argument about Obama is that his stats are really impressive, especially in contrast to Bush's. By every measure Obama's numbers crush Bush's. It's just math. Yet why do some people ignore the obvious? Because it does not agree with their ideology or because they have a personal issue that does not allow them to be fair and objective. Probably both. Personally if I had voted for Bush I'd have to admit to myself that I picked the wrong guy and that his presidency was a disaster, but maybe I don't want to take responsibility for the poor outcome so I'll just ignore the numbers. Or maybe the reason why I don't like Obama is because he's black, but I can't admit that to myself because it makes me realize I'm a racist?

Just remember though, in 2008 the economy was on the verge of total collapse, so bad that it took down most of the world economies with it, and most of those countries are still worse off than us.
 

aacx22

Tested Selected Initiated
Mappow,

I came across this MSN article fact checking Obama's SOTU:
Link Removed

It looks like they are disputing pretty much every single point... How is that showing liberal bias?
 

longslide10

New member
And regarding his "violation of the constitution" please be specific because from what I can see is that the Republicans have not made any effort to impeach him for anything, and we know if they could they would.

Fast and Furious, Benghazigate, NSA spying, IRS scandals, trying to go around congress' back at every turn, trying to go to war without an approval of congress etc. The reason no impeachment has come YET is because of the senate was a D majority and they wouldn't have it plus his skin color gets in the way. Either congress is complicit in the grand scheme of things or they are scared of their overlords--the banking cartel. One way to look at it is Oblabla is the captain of the ship and no matter who is driving it Oblabla is responsible if it ends up on the reef.
 

FactsNotFiction

New member
Fast and Furious, Benghazigate, NSA spying, IRS scandals, trying to go around congress' back at every turn, trying to go to war without an approval of congress etc. The reason no impeachment has come YET is because of the senate was a D majority and they wouldn't have it plus his skin color gets in the way. Either congress is complicit in the grand scheme of things or they are scared of their overlords--the banking cartel. One way to look at it is Oblabla is the captain of the ship and no matter who is driving it Oblabla is responsible if it ends up on the reef.


Fast and Furious was a Bush program, NSA spying started under Bush as well, 8 investigations into Benghazi, including those run by the Republicans in the House concluded that there was no wrong doing. (BTW 67 people died at US embassies under Bush, 241 Marines died in Beirut due to a single terrorist attack under Reagan)

The IRS scandal was not a scandal and the IRS person in charge of investigating political groups attempting to get tax free status, including liberal groups, was a Republican, and that investigation also cleared the White House. The actual job of that division of the IRS was to investigate non profits who might be faking their purpose to gain tax free status. The requirements of tax free status for political groups are very strict and there was a lot of fraud, so all she was doing was her job, and remember she was a Republican acting on her own accord.

So either you are ignorant of the facts involved in those fake scandals or are consciously bringing them up when you know they are non scandals and that Obama was cleared in all of them.

As for Obama being the Captain of the ship then I guess Bush is to blame for destroying the US and world economies in 2008, ignoring all the FBI and CIA warnings about the 9/11 attacks leading to 3000 deaths, invading Iraq under false pretenses causing the deaths of 4000 Americans, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and costing us $2 Trillion. (also creating ISIS, the military leadership of which is composed of former Saddam generals and Baath party officials) Further Bush put in charge of our emergency response dept, FEMA, a political crony who had no qualifications for the post and when Katrina hit was completely incapable of handling the crisis which lead to many unnecessary deaths (for comparison look at how Obama handled Hurricane Sandy, even Chris Christie praised him). Further Bush and Cheney gave consent for the US to torture people, and they might actually face charges in the international court. It is likely that you'll never see either of them leave the US because they face possible arrest.

So what actual proof of Obama doing anything illegal or unconstitutional do you have? The fact is that if the Republicans could move for impeachment they would have, at the very least just to throw red meat to their base, but they can't because he hasn't. Obama taught Constitutional law, he knows it better than the vast majority of those in the House or Senate.
 

Farmhood

New member
Oh my what a troll! 15 post of progressive liberal trolling...that's got to be a record. Please step back and take a breath before your head explodes!

sinful nature is always hostile to God....
 

FactsNotFiction

New member
There is a point when his own party will run for cover. They still have elections to win.


His ratings in the polls are rising, his favorables are greater than his unfavorables, I think he's over 50% now. . And as the economy gets better, which it is, his numbers will go up even more. And while you may think the 2014 election was representative of a turn to the right in the country, you need to understand that in mid term elections liberals and young people don't vote, and even then the democratic members of the House got 5 million more votes than the Republicans, and in the last 3 elections the Democratic members of the senate got 20 million more votes than the 54 Republican members.

Further in 2014 the Dems had 16 senate seats up for grabs, the republicans only a couple, the Dems had more to lose. In 2016 the Republicans have 24 at risk and the Dems very few, and then liberal and youth turnout will be high, and the economy is doing even better. The demographics long term favor the Democrats as the latino and minority population is growing rapidly and they heavily favor the democrats, even more so after Obama stopped deporting families and opened relations with Cuba. Texas is expected to turn blue in the next 10 years. The Republican party mostly consists of old white men, that's the actual demographic, and they are dying out.

Also in the 2014 state elections, nearly every single liberal referendum got passed.

So enjoy the majority in the Senate today, because all the polls and demographics indicate the Republicans will lose the Senate in 2016 and possibly the House. The Republican House after all having just a 12-16% approval rating. And also in the last 6 presidential elections, the Democratic candidate got more votes 5 out of 6 times, so it's likely Hillary in 2016, which means women will be voting in force, and the Republican party is not too popular with women.

Here's a link to charts that show the decrease in white population and the expansion in latino and black population.

Link Removed
 

Farmhood

New member
(Liberal whining voice) "I think he is over 50% now". If my boss said I was only doing half the job for full pay...what happens? But wait just saw 41% rating this morning. Guess we better go find a more favorable rating huh.

sinful nature is always hostile to God....
 

FactsNotFiction

New member
(Liberal whining voice) "I think he is over 50% now". If my boss said I was only doing half the job for full pay...what happens? But wait just saw 41% rating this morning. Guess we better go find a more favorable rating huh.

sinful nature is always hostile to God....

The Rasmussen poll has him at 51% last week, the Washington Post/ABC poll has him at 50% and with both the trend is rising.

Btw I don't whine, and I don't need to insult people in a discussion supposedly between two adults, why do you have to?
 

Debray

New member
His ratings in the polls are rising, his favorables are greater than his unfavorables, I think he's over 50% now. . And as the economy gets better, which it is, his numbers will go up even more. And while you may think the 2014 election was representative of a turn to the right in the country, you need to understand that in mid term elections liberals and young people don't vote, and even then the democratic members of the House got 5 million more votes than the Republicans, and in the last 3 elections the Democratic members of the senate got 20 million more votes than the 54 Republican members.

Further in 2014 the Dems had 16 senate seats up for grabs, the republicans only a couple, the Dems had more to lose. In 2016 the Republicans have 24 at risk and the Dems very few, and then liberal and youth turnout will be high, and the economy is doing even better. The demographics long term favor the Democrats as the latino and minority population is growing rapidly and they heavily favor the democrats, even more so after Obama stopped deporting families and opened relations with Cuba. Texas is expected to turn blue in the next 10 years. The Republican party mostly consists of old white men, that's the actual demographic, and they are dying out.

Also in the 2014 state elections, nearly every single liberal referendum got passed.

So enjoy the majority in the Senate today, because all the polls and demographics indicate the Republicans will lose the Senate in 2016 and possibly the House. The Republican House after all having just a 12-16% approval rating. And also in the last 6 presidential elections, the Democratic candidate got more votes 5 out of 6 times, so it's likely Hillary in 2016, which means women will be voting in force, and the Republican party is not too popular with women.

Here's a link to charts that show the decrease in white population and the expansion in latino and black population.

Link Removed


WELCOME TO THE USEFUL IDIOT DREAM WORLD

Obama’s Gallup approval rating is lowest yet in year 6

By Kendall Breitman
| 1/20/15 3:16 PM EST


President Barack Obama had his lowest-ever average approval rating during his sixth year in office, Gallup found in an analysis of its daily tracking polls over the past year.

Obama’s Gallup approval rating averaged 42.6 percent during the year that spanned from January 20, 2014 through Monday, the pollster said, reinforcing a year of mediocre numbers for the president.


Read more: Obama?s Gallup approval rating is lowest yet in year 6 - Kendall Breitman - POLITICO


The truth is THE ECONOMY IS DOING BETTER IN SPITE OF KING OBUMA NOT BECAUSE OF KING OBUMA

Link Removed
 

GryHounnd

Banned
WELCOME TO THE USEFUL IDIOT DREAM WORLD

Obama’s Gallup approval rating is lowest yet in year 6

By Kendall Breitman
| 1/20/15 3:16 PM EST


President Barack Obama had his lowest-ever average approval rating during his sixth year in office

And so did Reagan, and so did Clinton, and so did Bush 2.....what's your point? 2nd term presidents seeing their popularity ebb to a low poin in the sixth year of their term is hardly earth shattering news.
 

Farmhood

New member
It is obvious He is responding to post #52! What is wrong with you?

sinful nature is always hostile to God....
 

GryHounnd

Banned
It is obvious He is responding to post #52! What is wrong with you?

sinful nature is always hostile to God....

It was rhetorical. It is obvious to any one who has studied presidential histories that Obama's slump in the polls is nothing unusual. Therefore, it is suspect when used as an argument for justifying the Republicans false sense that they have a mandate to try and run the political table. The Republican Party acts as if the President should just roll over and let them run the political agenda, that is far from the case. Especially when they still have to convince a democratic president to sign whatever legislation they can manage to pass. When they can win a Presidential election AND own the Senate and The House all in the same year, THEN they will have a clear mandate.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
49,491
Messages
624,262
Members
74,334
Latest member
johnporter
Top