Bookmark and Share  
Home Forum Index Politics Philosophy Diversions Theology Join Tips & Rules
SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com®
Before you decide
Over 20,000 selectors
Welcome! » Log In » Create A New Profile

Obama Goes on Offense:

Posted by jazzman 
Obama Goes on Offense:
April 18, 2012 06:56PM
Obama switches from defense to offense. Here's a newly released video by the League of Conservation Voters.

President Obama has fought to take control of our energy future from Big Oil and other dirty energy interests who have put polluter profits ahead of our environment. The president’s first-term accomplishments include:

*Proposing the first-ever national standards to limit the harmful industrial carbon pollution from power plants that contribute to global warming.

*Fighting to eliminate Big Oil’s special tax breaks and invest the savings in clean, renewable energy sources that create jobs.

*Implementing the first-ever national standards to limit mercury and other toxic air pollution from power plants, which will save lives and reduce
asthma attacks.

*Proposing new national standards to increase fuel efficiency standards to 54.5 miles per gallon by the year 2025 – dramatically cutting our dangerous dependence on oil.

*Doubling the country’s use of wind and solar power, while also making huge investments in energy efficiency.

Make no mistake: This year’s presidential election offers a stark choice. Mitt Romney, who refuses to acknowledge the scientific consensus on climate change, has fully adopted Big Oil’s agenda – even appointing a billionaire oil executive as his top energy advisor. So it’s not surprising that Romney has pledged to defend Big Oil’s special tax breaks, while also attacking vital clean energy policies.

It’s also not surprising that Big Oil is coming to Romney's defense – in a big way. Oil and gas interests have given Romney more than $1 million in campaign cash, while the Koch brothers have pledged to spend $200 million in this year’s election. In fact, groups backed by the Koch brothers have already spent nearly $10 million this year attacking President Obama’s clean energy record. At the same time, Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS has dropped millions on false and misleading TV ads.

Watch the video:

[secure3.convio.net]
Re: Obama Goes on Offense:
April 18, 2012 07:01PM
So we have to wait for an election year for this idiot to do anything? Please, one term for this moron and his team please.
Re: Obama Goes on Offense:
April 18, 2012 08:38PM
The title of the thread should be...

"Obama Realizes It's an Election Year - Starts Acting Like a Liberal Again"
Re: Obama Goes on Offense:
April 18, 2012 08:56PM
Correction:

The title of the thread should be...

"Obama Realizes It's an Election Year - Starts Talking Like a Liberal Again"
Re: Obama Goes on Offense:
April 18, 2012 09:25PM
Thanks to Curt I know understand what's going on here.

All of these things from Jazz's last post that Obama is now saying are just mere campaign language. Nothing he is saying he will do are things he may actually do or even bother trying to do if he is reelected. He's just saying them because they sound good and people might want them done. What he says he'll do or not do and what he ends up doing or not doing are not necessarily the same thing nor should we expect them to be. He's just saying them to get votes. I get that now. All we can really expect of a candidate based on what they say they'll do or want to do is that we can't really expect anything of the candidate based on what they say they'll do or want to do.

I finally got it, Curt. Thanks for the clarification. thumbs up

http://imgdump.novarata.net/image.php?di=WN26
Re: Obama Goes on Offense:
April 18, 2012 09:28PM
Think of it this way - Obama's words are the anesthesia Curt needs to numb himself enough to pull the D lever. smileys with beer



PS: Yes Mulva - thanks for the correction. thumbs up
pb
Re: Obama Goes on Offense:
April 18, 2012 09:31PM
Indy! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Think of it this way - Obama's words are the
> anesthesia Curt needs to numb himself enough to
> pull the D lever. smileys with beer
>
>
>
> PS: Yes Mulva - thanks for the correction. thumbs up

This is why Foghorn will win. O attracted many who were willing to hope in 08. Now, even the base needs anesthesia to vote for him.
Re: Obama Goes on Offense:
April 18, 2012 09:35PM
Yes, Foghorn - but the Rs need an even heavier dose to vote for old Milt. I suspect many will be so heavily sedated they will forget to vote altogether and your worst nightmare will come true - four more years of O.
pb
Re: Obama Goes on Offense:
April 18, 2012 09:40PM
Indy! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, Foghorn - but the Rs need an even heavier
> dose to vote for old Milt. I suspect many will be
> so heavily sedated they will forget to vote
> altogether and your worst nightmare will come true
> - four more years of O.

That's not what I'm pickin' up from my sporadic monitoring of RW talk radio.

I know that's what you want to be true, but I don't see it. The GOPs mudslinging is only recently over and O is already underwater in the polls. By the time Milt choses his VEEP he will have a beyond-the-margin-of-error lead and he will win in a cake walk.
Re: Obama Goes on Offense:
April 18, 2012 09:42PM
Let's use your own source, Foghorn - favorability ratings...

[www.realclearpolitics.com]

O: +8

Milt: -8

That's a 16 pt dif.
Re: Obama Goes on Offense:
April 18, 2012 09:51PM
"O: +8

Milt: -8

That's a 16 pt dif."
-Indy!

This is so over.

http://imgdump.novarata.net/image.php?di=WN26
Re: Obama Goes on Offense:
April 18, 2012 09:56PM
Larry OD also showed all the issue polls - 15 polls on things like "Obama supports women's issues".

Obama is winning ALL of them by double digits.

Romney = tough road ahead.

Indy... now talking like TX...
Re: Obama Goes on Offense:
April 18, 2012 09:59PM
Neither of the 2 Obama hating right wingers I'm in contact with have ever sent me anything complimentary about Mitt. In fact they never discuss him. They just might hate Obama enough to drag themselves to the polls in November and pull the lever for Mitt, but their decision certainly won't be based on their love for Mitt. As a side note, neither of them liked McCain, either.
Re: Obama Goes on Offense:
April 18, 2012 10:07PM
Over the weekend I found out my life long Repub dad didn't vote for McCain. He didn't vote for prez last time. He doesn't like Milt, but sez he's voting "against Obama" this time.
Re: Obama Goes on Offense:
April 18, 2012 11:12PM
Ya, wait til the turd sitting in the Whitehouse has to start running on his record rather than letting his lapdogs attack the wife of his opponent. The fact Obama supporters are so stupid as to fall for this speaks VOLUMES to their lack of an education.
Re: Obama Goes on Offense:
April 18, 2012 11:14PM
The fact you fell for the Fox "lapdogs" nonsense speaks volumes about your... ahem... "education."
Anonymous User
Re: Obama Goes on Offense:
April 19, 2012 12:40AM
Ponderer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks to Curt I know understand what's going on
> here.
>
> All of these things from Jazz's last post that
> Obama is now saying are just mere campaign
> language. Nothing he is saying he will do are
> things he may actually do or even bother trying to
> do if he is reelected. He's just saying them
> because they sound good and people might want them
> done. What he says he'll do or not do and what he
> ends up doing or not doing are not necessarily the
> same thing nor should we expect them to be. He's
> just saying them to get votes. I get that now. All
> we can really expect of a candidate based on what
> they say they'll do or want to do is that we can't
> really expect anything of the candidate based on
> what they say they'll do or want to do.
>
> I finally got it, Curt. Thanks for the
> clarification. thumbs up



Actually, you don't seem to get it. Some advertising slogans "Just do it", "Breakfast of Champions", "You're in good hands with Allstate". etc. are not promises. They might imply that you'll be more athletic or safer, but they are not explicit promises. "Change you can believe in" is an advertising slogan in the same vein. If you want to judge Obama on his promises, go to a site like this one: [www.politifact.com]
Re: Obama Goes on Offense:
April 19, 2012 12:47AM
So campaign promises are just advertising slogans. Okie-dokie. Got it.

Thanks again! thumbs up

I should have realized that a something like running on "Change You Can Believe In" was nothing more than a meaningless logo, a come-on indicative of absolutely nothing that might be expected from a candidate repeating such a thing over and over and over again.

Although... he was our first black president. That is certainly "Change" alright. I can believe that.

Okay. He's off the hook.

http://imgdump.novarata.net/image.php?di=WN26
Re: Obama Goes on Offense:
April 19, 2012 12:55AM
Curt very shrewdly, i.e. dishonestly, only posted Obama's "Promises Kept" list.

According to PolitiFact, the breakdown is as follows:

Promise Kept: 177 (35%)
Compromise: 55 (11%)
Promise Broken: 63 (12%)
Stalled: 67 (13%)
In the Works: 144 (28%)
Not yet rated: 2 (0%)

[www.politifact.com]

Here's a big one Curt "missed": [www.politifact.com]
Anonymous User
Re: Obama Goes on Offense:
April 19, 2012 01:02AM
Ponderer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So campaign promises are just advertising slogans.
> Okie-dokie. Got it.
>

Nope. "It’s morning again in America", "Yes We Can!", "In your heart you know he’s right", "Government of, by, and for the people...not the monied interests", "Don’t stop thinking about tomorrow" are all campaign slogans. People read into them what they want. Only the most naive and unsophisticated would think they are promises, as they really are not saying anything. But of course, a candidate can do quite well appealing to the "naive and unsophisticated"

Campaign promises are explicit, and you can rightfully hold that politician accountable, including Obama. See [www.politifact.com] But as a non-naive and sophisticated voter, you should know the difference between slogans and promises.
HHH
Re: Obama Goes on Offense:
April 19, 2012 01:09AM
Curt - Nice counter. Considering many posters seem to think Obama has kept zero promises, the reality is even better than the numbers indicate.

____________________________________________
And no, Indy, I don't think that's what the Koch brothers have in mind
Re: Obama Goes on Offense:
April 19, 2012 01:10AM
"Nope. "It’s morning again in America", "Yes We Can!", "In your heart you know he’s right", "Government of, by, and for the people...not the monied interests", "Don’t stop thinking about tomorrow" are all campaign slogans." -Curt

And Change We Can Believe In.

Such things are meaningless malarkey indicative of nothing in the real world. I GOT that, Curt. You don't have to keep driving it into the dirt! Sheesh!

http://imgdump.novarata.net/image.php?di=WN26
Re: Obama Goes on Offense:
April 19, 2012 01:11AM
Yes he does, because that's all he has.

See also: NY Times Reporter Confirms Obama Made Deal to Kill Public Option [www.selectsmart.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/19/2012 01:11AM by Mulva.
Re: Obama Goes on Offense:
April 19, 2012 01:11AM
Whatsy said: " . . . let his lapdogs attack the wife of his opponent"

He can't be referring to that lady on TV who said: "Ann Romney has never worked a day in her life . . " Surely he knows that this lady is not one of Obama's "lapdogs." He knows that she is only a CNN political pundit and has absolutely no connection whatsoever to the President or his campaign. Actually, she is CNN's "lapdog." I'm sure someone who is as astute as our whatsy would have to know that.

Not only that, I'm also sure that whatsy doesn't consider those poorly chosen, albeit, innocuous words to be an "attack." Calling President Obama and his wife Michelle a criminal as was done by garbage rocker Ted Nugent - now THAT is an "attack."

Maybe we can get whatsy to explain exactly what he meant.
Re: Obama Goes on Offense:
April 19, 2012 01:16AM
Plus, Jazz, she was also merely stating fact. Her only misstep may have been in not including the words "outside of the home" when she said Mrs. Romney has never worked a day in her life. The statement was intended to illustrate how out of touch Mrs. Romney is when it comes to the real world for average American women. And it did just that, which is why the Romney supporters have to obfuscate it and distract everyone with this claptrap about that CNN corespondent attacking her motherhood.

http://imgdump.novarata.net/image.php?di=WN26
Anonymous User
Re: Obama Goes on Offense:
April 19, 2012 01:16AM
Mulva,
Thanks for posting that. So, Obama broke just 12% of the promises made before he was elected. I am going to assume that's pretty good among people generally and excellent among politicians. And most ordinary people don't have Republicans whose only goal is sabotaging their efforts. Also, as you other link points makes clear, there are reasons why promises get broken:
Quote:
When an audience member at a March 25, 2010, speech in Iowa City, Iowa, asked why the public option wasn't included, Obama responded, "Because we couldn"t get it through Congress, that"s why."
Re: Obama Goes on Offense:
April 19, 2012 01:16AM
"It’s morning again in America", "Yes We Can!", "In your heart you know he’s right", "Government of, by, and for the people...not the monied interests", "Don’t stop thinking about tomorrow" are all campaign slogans. People read into them what they want. Only the most naive and unsophisticated would think they are promises, as they really are not saying anything. But of course, a candidate can do quite well appealing to the "naive and unsophisticated." _ Curt "Strawman" Anderson

No one here said that campaign slogans are promises. eye rolling smiley
Re: Obama Goes on Offense:
April 19, 2012 01:21AM
So, Obama broke just 12% of the promises made before he was elected.

Or you could say that Obama has only kept about a third of his promises.
Anonymous User
Re: Obama Goes on Offense:
April 19, 2012 01:26AM
Mulva Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No one here said that campaign slogans are
> promises. eye rolling smiley


Ponderer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So campaign promises are just advertising slogans.
> Okie-dokie. Got it.


Mulva,
You studied math. Isn't this called the "Law of Inverse" where if x=y, then y=x?
Anonymous User
Re: Obama Goes on Offense:
April 19, 2012 01:35AM
Mulva Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, Obama broke just 12% of the promises made
> before he was elected.
>
> Or you could say that Obama has only kept about a
> third of his promises.


!?!?!

I stand corrected. Maybe you didn't study math.


Promise Kept: 177 (35%)
Compromise: 55 (11%)
Promise Broken: 63 (12%)
Stalled: 67 (13%)
In the Works: 144 (28%)
Not yet rated: 2 (0%)


The only other honest way to look it is thus: If you exclude "stalled", "In the Works" and "Not yet rated", Obama kept 60% of his promises.
Re: Obama Goes on Offense:
April 19, 2012 01:40AM
It's very clear that Ponderer isn't trying to make the case that advertising slogans like "Yes we can!" or "Change we can believe in" are campaign promises.
Re: Obama Goes on Offense:
April 19, 2012 01:44AM
Maybe you didn't study math.

Why would you say that? 35% is about a third.
Anonymous User
Re: Obama Goes on Offense:
April 19, 2012 01:47AM
Mulva Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's very clear that Ponderer isn't trying to make
> the case that advertising slogans like "Yes we
> can!" or "Change we can believe in" are campaign
> promises.


Are you two not talking?


Ponderer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The actual "change" that
> Obama campaigned on and everyone who voted for him
> counted on simply never materialized.
Re: Obama Goes on Offense:
April 19, 2012 01:51AM
Ponderer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The actual "change" that
> Obama campaigned on and everyone who voted for him
> counted on simply never materialized.

I highlighted the word "promise" in there for you Curt. eye rolling smiley

http://imgdump.novarata.net/image.php?di=WN26
Re: Obama Goes on Offense:
April 19, 2012 02:37AM
Another thing Curt conveniently leaves out is Politi"fact" is often misinformed as I clearly proved yesterday.
Anonymous User
Re: Obama Goes on Offense:
April 19, 2012 02:48AM
Indy! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Another thing Curt conveniently leaves out is
> Politi"fact" is often misinformed as I clearly
> proved yesterday.


"Proved"! eye rolling smiley snicker.
Re: Obama Goes on Offense:
April 19, 2012 03:39AM
Sorry your source sucks, Curt. Not my fault they have no idea what Obama is really doing. smoking smiley
Anonymous User
Re: Obama Goes on Offense:
April 19, 2012 03:44AM
Indy,
You are contending that you are a more credible source than Politifact, a Pulitzer Prize winner. [www.politifact.com] That contention of yours in itself isn't credible.
Re: Obama Goes on Offense:
April 19, 2012 05:13AM
Curt Anderson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Indy,
> You are contending that you are a more credible
> source than Politifact, a Pulitzer Prize winner.

Umm... no - I never said anything of the sort. What I said was Politifact was misinformed. Which I proved beyond any doubt on the medical marijuana issue in this thread right here...

[www.selectsmart.com]


> [www.politifact.com]
> 09/apr/20/politifact-wins-pulitzer/


So because Politifact won an award - that makes them perfect?

Two Pulitzer winning reporters admit research mistakes:
[www.npr.org]
[lawprofessors.typepad.com]

Pulitzer author suspended for plagiarism:
[news.yahoo.com]

Pulitzer author busted for plagiarism:
[www.case.edu]

Pulitzer JUDGE steps down in face of plagiarism charges:
[www.guardian.co.uk]

Pulitzer finalist caught fabricating information:
[www.deseretnews.com]

Pulitzer winner fabricated winning story:
[en.wikipedia.org]

Pulitzer prize winning college professor admits he lied to his students about military experience:
[www.nytimes.com]

Pulitzer prize winning geography scholar sued for fabrications and defamation
[masalai.wordpress.com]

Need more? Just say the word...



That
> contention of yours in itself isn't credible.


Well - again - you made that contention, not me. I merely stated your Obama medical marijuana assertion was wrong - and proved it. Then gave you information which discredited Politifact's position on Obama and torture.
Anonymous User
Re: Obama Goes on Offense:
April 19, 2012 05:32AM
Indy! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Curt Anderson Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Indy,
> > You are contending that you are a more credible
> > source than Politifact, a Pulitzer Prize
> winner.
>
> Umm... no - I never said anything of the sort.


OK, so you are less credible than (or as credible as) a source you say "sucks" and is "misinformed". Even though you said it, I believe it.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login


This forum powered by Phorum