Monday, October 8, 2012

Obama Has Destroyed America!!

It is still amazing to me how easily people can completely ignore the world around them in order to push a Party talking point.

Here’s another of the “discussions” I find myself getting into on Facebook. I haven’t had one of these in a while and it was fun.

Names are changed.



Team War Monger? Pass. 12 years of pro-Patriot Act pro-NDAA pro-War on Drugs is enough for me. I don't need another four years of watching my civil liberties, right to choose, and self-determination stripped away by someone who thinks he knows how to run my life better than me. [I understand the Patriot Act and NDAA complaints – both civil liberties. But the War on Drugs has started decades before Obama & Bush, and Romney would continue it just like every President will for the foreseeable future. And I don’t understand the “Team War Monger,” right to choose, self determination and “someone who thinks he knows how to run my life better than me” complaints. Those are straight out of the right-wing talking points playbook.]
You must have missed the debate. Lol [I honestly don’t know what this statement is in reference to. I think he just wanted to say it. So he said it.]
No, I watched it. It confirmed that Team Obama and Team Romney have the same playbook, coaches, and owners. It's why it's poor sport. [I think people who claim that both Parties and all politicians are the same are just cowards afraid to make a decision that they may later be wrong about. The Parties and all politicians are NOT equal. And Romney out-lied Obama 27-0 during the debate, so Obama’s “owners” must be disappointed for not following the “playbook” and losing. Bla bla fuckity bla. And yes, according to Republican tax messaging, Donald Trump WOULD be considered a "small business," so the President wasn't even wrong about that.]
Well, as far as the Patriot act, I agree. But economically, Obama is driving us off a cliff, at least Romney has a clue how to run a business. [Running a business not only has NOTHING to do with governing a country, but historically, Presidents who previously owned businesses were among the nation’s WORST Presidents. If one were to care about statistics.*]
When Romney comes out in favor of taking a closer look at the Federal Reserve and the boom-bust cycle I'll be more inclined to agree with you on the economy. Until then, I lean toward seeing him as doing the same gaffes that Obama has committed. [Coward.]
Didn't Romney recently call for an audit on the fed? [Yes. It’s a standard cry of the Republican Party. Only, he did it in his usual noncommittal way by stating he also didn’t want to sacrifice the Fed’s independence or hand over its control to Congress in the process. Also, calling for a Fed audit is funny coming from a guy who refuses to release his own tax returns.]
J. Jonah Jameson
America is not a business. Cue Barney rant..NOW.
Well, not exactly, but Obama never ran a lemonade stand [Nothing to do with running a country.], and he's driven our economy into the toilet [Not according to facts. Just fervently repeating this accusation will not make it come true]. Maybe if you want this country to be better off in four years you should consider who's running the place. [I’m sure he’s doing that. I can’t say the same for you.]
J. Jonah Jameson
I'm not a fan of either, all politicians are shit, but I'll take him over Romnuts. Bush ran an oil company and he did worse with the economy, so the businessman argument holds no water. [Hmm. Someone who analyzes information to make an informed opinion. I’m not used to encountering this technique on Facebook. Definitely not a Republican.]
Does being a liberal automatically make your memory lapse? It was the housing bomb that ruined the economy. Until that bubble burst, we had an average 4-5% unemployment rate under Bush. What drives me nuts is how many times I hear what a great boom we had under Clinton's tax hikes... but nobody EVER mentions that the boom was the internet boom. Had nothing to do with taxes. ah, anyway... [Being liberal does not make one’s memory lapse, but apparently being conservative makes one’s ability to use facts lapse. I know that was a childish ‘rubber/glue’ retort, but his statistics ignore the events of Bush’s last two years, as well as the build-up to those last two years and ignores the fact that Clinton’s tax hikes didn’t destroy business in America, which Republicans claim is what going back to those rates will do. Neither of which, had anything to do with Obama. And, people DO mention how the tech boom under Clinton was an economic factor all the time. Republicans, however, pretend no one mentions it just to give them something over which to complain about Clinton.]
J. Jonah Jameson
For one, I'm not a liberal. I have conservative views and liberal views and am registered Independent. [Hah! I knew it!] I don't swallow whole an entire party platform unlike some. And yes, I'm aware of the housing bubble. I also didn't mention taxes, but I very well could. And the tax hike argument is about how a surplus was attained. If you don't think the tax cuts had any effect then you need to burst that little bubble you live in. Not to mention two unpaid for wars. Great economic practices there, awesome arithmetic. But keep sucking up the drivel Fox keeps force feeding you, bro. Feel free to continue your rant by yourself, I have actual work to do and not all day to argue via FB, as is your apparent hobby, Mr. Miller. [I rather enjoyed that fact-based mini-rant, sir. Thank you.]
I love how Barney always conveniently forgets who ran the country into the toilet. Good thing us logical folks remember that stuff. Cue rant!
Dude... it wasn't that long ago. I remember exactly how it went down, and you can't blame it all on Bush.

[Now, I know I didn’t have to insert myself into this discussion. It’s just that whenever I see someone spewing shit-talk, which makes no sense upon the simplest of inspection, my teeth start squeaking together and my temples begin to pound. And I have to do something to relieve their plight. Also, even though he was doing a great job, it seemed J. Jonah Jameson was leaving the mud pit to go back to real life.]

Bill Mancuso
Actually, you can blame it all on Bush. Two unpaid-for wars and two tax cuts and the recession they led to, which began in 2007 (almost a year and a half before Obama took office) amount to just under half our current debt. Also, the housing crash began in October 2007 (15 months before Obama took office). Obama, however has created more jobs in 2010 alone than Bush did in 8 years. As of this October, there have been 30 straight months of job growth. And there are more jobs now than when Obama took office, so he's a net job creator. And the stock market has risen 64% since Obama took office. And all of this through four years of 100% Republican obstructionism - that's putting Party before Country. But these are facts, so please, continue to ignore them.

This clip has gotten a LOT of mileage in my posts.

The financial collapse was caused by the burst of the housing bubble. Up until that happened, we had an average of 4-5% unemployment. My God, is your memory seriously that bad? It really wasn't that long ago.
Bill Mancuso
Which happened in 2007. During Bush. A year and a half before Obama. Right? My God, is no right-wing soldier even remotely good at math?
Hey Bill, did I ever say that the financial collapse didn't start under Bush? That isn't the same thing as saying that it's 'all Bush's fault'. [He’s right. It’s not all Bush’s fault. Bush just poured gasoline on the fire for eight straight years.] The house of cards that was the housing bubble began back in Carter's day, and through the terms of 5 presidents grew until it finally burst under Bush. It would take way more typing than I'm willing to do to explain exactly how that happened, and frankly it'd probably be a waste of my time to try to explain it to you.

I never blamed Obama for the financial collapse. He's got plenty to account for of his own doing, and the recovery-that-never-was is his to own. I just don't want another 4 years of worse than anemic growth. I've got a family to feed, and I feed them better when the economy is humming and people have extra money to spend on original art. [Barney is a comic book artist and sells his original artwork at conventions.]

Bill Mancuso
Carter's fault. Good one. But we should stop blaming Bush, right?

You said of Obama that "he's driven our economy into the toilet" when he clearly has not. That seems to contradict the notion that you "never blamed Obama for the financial collapse." He drove the economy into the toilet, but you don't blame him for the financial collapse. Ok. I get it. Mitt logic. Talk in circles and hope no one notices that you make no sense.

And you might want to lay more blame on 100% Republican obstructionism for keeping this recession going. Seeing as how their #1 priority was to oust Obama instead of helping to create jobs or boost the economy or relieve the housing crisis or take care of returning vets or get people affordable health care.

Oh, and they also kept busy with their #2 priority: subjugating women all the way back to the mid 17th century.

I blame Obama for not having bigger balls and standing up to the Republican obstructionism. But in his second term, I'm sure he'll be better about that.
Bill, I don't know you from Adam, and you don't know me. I debate this crap waaaaay too much, and sometimes I use shorthand that 'new' readers might not quite grasp. For that, I apologize. [Shorthand, longhand, mediumhand: lies are easily disprovable in whatever length you decide to tell them.]

Obama, if you recall, had total government control when he took office. He had a super-majority in the senate and a huge majority in the house. He could get anything he wanted passed in those two years, and he did. He passed a stimulus package that he PROMISED would keep the unemployment rate below 7%. It peaked at over 10% (and that's an inaccurate number to begin with, true underemployment is around 33% of the working age population). He spent his political capitol and his supermajority juggernaut on pushing through stimulus and Obamacare, neither of which anyone read before they were forced to vote on it (breaking another promise that all bills would be made available online for a while before they were voted on, nevermind his promise that all these negotiations would be broadcast on C-SPAN).

So for two years, while our country was nose-diving into economic oblivion, Obama did what for jobs? A failed stimulus package and Obamacare. For two years, when he had NO 'republican obstruction', because they didn't have a voice in government... And after two years, what happened, do you recall? It was only two years ago. The people got sick of Obama and the Democrats not listening to them, and not working with the other half of the people's representatives. And low and behold, a wave like we haven't seen since Newt took over congress in 94 hit Washingdon DC, and liberals were knocked out of office left and right.

Those Republicans were voted into office to STOP OBAMA. And thank GOD they've done as much as they have to do so. You try to blame them for this weak recovery? You need to stop watching MSNBC and look around. The world isn't as you seem to think it is.
Barney, you broke my Facebook! Damn politics, making comic artists act stupid.
Bill Mancuso
Hey, I wasn't done, Sean. I want to be the one to break your Facebook. (that wasn't supposed to sound threatening)

I don't know you from Adam, either, Barney, and I debate this stuff all the time, too. No need to apologize. I am not a "new reader" to right-wing fact obfuscation tactics. Apparently, the difference between your style of debate and mine is that I use facts and you use the standard debunked lies repeated from FOX "News."

First, the stimulus helped. After the year it took to help get us out of Bush's job-hemorrhaging economy, there's been 30 consecutive months of job growth. And like I've said, the fact is there are now more jobs than when Obama took office. So, stop saying "our country was nose-diving into economic oblivion." That's patently false.

Then there's the 64% rise in the stock market, not to mention record-breaking corporate profits and the lowest tax rates in 60 years during his administration.

And Obama NEVER had "total government control when he took office" and NEVER "could get anything he wanted passed." That Republican lie is used to cover their tactic of 100% obstructionism. Which they then use to blame Obama for not getting anything done. And then demand Americans to vote for a Republican for President. After they tried to destroy the economy for the purpose of blaming Obama. Putting Party before Country is anti-American.

He needed a super-majority, 60 seats or more in the senate in order to be filibuster-proof. Technically, he had that for a total of 6 months, but in practice, it never happened. Be patient, I'll explain.

Obama was inaugurated on 1/20/09. There were 58 Democratic Senators at the time. Arlen Specter switched to Democratic on 4/29/09, bringing the total to 59. Still one short of a super-majority. On 5/18/09, Robert Byrd was hospitalized, so he was out of commission - back down to 58 (still 59 on paper). Al Franken was sworn in on 7/7/09, bringing the total back up to 59 (technically 60 in theory, but not in practice - the fact-twisting point Republicans like to use to spread their bullshit). A month and a half later, on 8/25/09, Ted Kennedy died, bringing it back down to 58 in practice (59 on paper). On 9/24/09, Paul Kirk was sworn in to fill Kennedy's seat - back up to 59 in practice (60 on paper). Then, on 2/4/10, Republican Scott Brown was sworn in to replace Paul Kirk - down to 58 in practice (59 on paper).

So, for actual voting purposes, Democrats NEVER had a filibuster-proof senate. Even if we go with what was on paper (even though hospitalized Robert Byrd never voted), that 60-seat filibuster-proof Senate only lasted a total of 6 months.

No matter how many times "Obama had a super-majority for two years" is repeated by Republicans, it will never magically make it come true. Even if they're wearing ruby slippers.

And Republicans were voted in because they ran on a platform of creating jobs. Which, they never did. The very second they got voted in, they concentrated on stopping women's Constitutionally protected right to an abortion (nearly 1,000 anti-abortion bills since 2010) and getting rid of unions and filibustering EVERYTHING Obama proposed - which included creating jobs, boosting the economy, helping the mortgage crisis, helping college tuition, employing and caring for vets and enabling people to afford health care. Republicans broke the filibustering record in 2008 when they hit 61. They're at 375 now. Hey, Boehner, where are the jobs you promised. (I especially love when Republicans say the government doesn't create any jobs, then blame Obama for not creating any jobs. Not to mention they all literally have government jobs. And the fact is Obama has created jobs. But why should I expect Republicans to start making sense now, ay?)

If the Republicans were voted in to STOP OBAMA, it was to STOP OBAMA FROM HELPING THE COUNTRY. And they certainly are trying to hold us under water. But even in spite of their 100% obstructionism, Obama has managed not only to keep us above water, but begin to rise out of it - as per all the actual facts I have presented.

But please, ignore all these facts, too.

And don't get me started on the GOP's campaign of voter suppression. Because if you can't get people to vote for you on merit, then just prevent those who would vote against you.

[Of course I included links to back up my arguments. Lots of them...]

I almost want to respond, but I can tell it wouldn't make a difference. Good luck in the election. I hope your guy doesn't get beat up too bad in the next debate. He looked like Loki after the Hulk got threw with him in this one. ;)

Bill Mancuso
True. If Hulk was pummeling Loki with lies. Good luck with your candidate as well.


********   ***   *******   * *   ********   ***   ********

I miss the days before my buddy “Richard” defriended me. He wouldn’t have given in so easily.

I’ve been doing these Facebook “debates” for a few years now. The main thing I’ve learned is that right-wingers Do. Not. Care. About. Facts. At. All. So, the way I handle my responses is not to try and convince them or even assume that I can. I simply go through their statements point-by-point and reply with the facts. This is solely for the benefit of anyone else reading the thread who might be interested in learning.

The way my opponent responds is to ignore 85% of what I said, then re-word one of their previous statements or just say I’m wrong or twist some new bit of information.

The one thing I often do, however, is go back about a dozen times and edit my sarcasm and profanity before I post it. (I will respond with equal amounts of sarcasm or profanity if used toward me first.) The reason is because these opponents are friends of my friends and I don’t wish to upset MY friends.

Fuck those other guys, though.

********   ***   *******   * *   ********   ***   ********

“If someone doesn’t value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove they should value it? If someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?” – Sam Harris

********   ***   *******   * *   ********   ***   ********

* I originally posted this explanation of businessmen running the country like a business in  
This 'n' That, but since it was only part of several topics in that post, here's the excerpt:

**  **

Mittington R. Money, as well as the rest of the Republican Party have continued to push the idea that businessmen make the best Presidents. Mittington recently agreed with the suggestion of a moronic fan of his that a new requirement for becoming President should be three years of business experience. Aside from the researchable historical fact that all the Presidents of the modern era that were businessmen first (regardless of success) always leave the country in a shambles, running a business for profit is the opposite ideology of running a country for prosperity. Let's take a look at some 20th century Presidents.

Theodore Roosevelt, Republican: Ranked by scholars to be one of the best Presidents. Was not a businessman.

Woodrow Wilson, Democrat: Ranked by scholars to be one of the best Presidents. Was not a businessman.

Warren G. Harding, Republican: Ranked by scholars to be one of the worst Presidents. Was a very successful businessman.

Calvin Coolidge, Republican: Ranked by scholars to be one of the best Presidents. Was not a businessman.

Herbert Hoover, Republican: Ranked by scholars to be one of the worst Presidents. Was a successful businessman.

Franklin Roosevelt, Democrat: Ranked by scholars to be one of the best Presidents. Was not a businessman.

Harry Truman, Democrat: Ranked by scholars to be a mediocre President. Owned a successful haberdashery for two years until it went bankrupt when the recession of 1921 hit.

Jimmy Carter, Democrat: Ranked by scholars to be one of the worst Presidents. Was a successful peanut businessman.

Bill Clinton, Democrat: Ranked by scholars to be one of the best Presidents. Was not a businessman.

George H.W. Bush, Republican: Ranked by scholars to be a mediocre President. Not one of the worst, but not very good, either. Was a successful businessman.

George W. Bush, Republican: Ranked by scholars to be pretty much the fucking worst President ever. Was not at all a successful businessman. In fact, he failed at every single business his father handed him. And he’s our only President that has an MBA (from Harvard – just like Mitt does). But I digress.

This is not to say non-business people always make good Presidents. It just clearly points out that a person with a business background is in no way a qualification to be a good President. Especially since they have a 0% success rate at presidenting. They are two completely separate skill sets.

And when Harvard MBA venture capitalist, Mittington R. Money was Governor of Massachusetts, he was, for a fact, 47th out of 50 in job creation. I wonder if that’s something to take into consideration. No, I don’t. It is.

Pay close attention to what this article says after the individual President descriptions.

No comments:

Post a Comment