Can we admit that Obama has a really big stick?

The primary forum for general discussion of Hipinion.com

Postby important dentist » Fri Mar 23, 2012 2:31 pm

i was about to try to respond to some of those but then i remembered
"My foremost duty is to the board," Important Dentist countered. "I
cannot afford to spend that much time researching human sexuality."
User avatar
important dentist
 
Posts: 14843
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 10:07 pm
Location: thos shitry ass countrt

Postby Hal Jordan » Fri Mar 23, 2012 2:34 pm

yeah i gotta start ignoring that stuff i'm dying over here

health care should def be a separate thread or a revival of the hold HC thread if there was one
well that was intense
User avatar
Hal Jordan
 
Posts: 19832
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:57 pm

Postby Amblin » Fri Mar 23, 2012 2:36 pm

the funny thing is that the beer summit was nearly three years ago. you know the PSFoSMB crowd expected Obama to be involved in some sort of racial issue constantly.
User avatar
Amblin
 
Posts: 48719
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 8:08 pm
Location: CA

Postby Zwischenzug » Fri Mar 23, 2012 2:44 pm

There is already a line forming for viewing of the monday oral argument. A thread is probably necessary.
User avatar
Zwischenzug
 
Posts: 1643
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 5:21 pm

Postby delgriffith » Sat Mar 24, 2012 11:27 am

I liked this

Image

(Edit: just noticed the "You might also like" section full of Biden gear)
User avatar
delgriffith
 
Posts: 93224
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 5:26 pm

Postby WAC » Sat Mar 24, 2012 11:58 am

He said ALOT of shit last night. And most of it WASN'T how he supported a fascist.
User avatar
WAC
 
Posts: 39673
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 6:47 pm

Postby WAC » Sat Mar 24, 2012 12:04 pm

I don't think this Karl Rove op-ed was mentioned:

This month, Barack Obama's re-election campaign released a 17-minute film, "The Road We've Traveled," that previews the Democratic general election narrative. Directed by Academy Award winner Davis Guggenheim and narrated by actor Tom Hanks, the film explores Mr. Obama's most important decisions.

Viewers are told Mr. Obama deserves re-election for restoring America to prosperity after a recession "as deep as anything . . . since the Great Depression." He accomplished this in part, so the film says, by bailing out the auto companies—deciding not to just "give the car companies" or "the UAW the money" but to force them to "work together" and "modernize the automobile industry." The president, we're told, also confronted "one of the most worrisome problems facing America . . . the cost of health care."

Abroad, Mr. Obama ended the Iraq war and, in the "ultimate test of leadership," Osama bin Laden was killed on his watch. The film heralds Mr. Obama as a leader committed to "tough decisions" and as someone who "would not dwell in blame" in the Oval Office.

Where to begin? Perhaps with the last statement: Mr. Obama has spent three years wallowing in blame. His culprits have ranged from his predecessor, to tsunamis and earthquakes, to ATMs, to Fox News, to yours truly. If you Google "Obama, Blame, Bush" and "Obama, Inherited," you'll get tens of millions of hits.

As for inheriting the worst economy since the Great Depression: Perhaps Mr. Obama has forgotten the Carter presidency, which featured double-digit inflation, double-digit interest rates, and high unemployment.

The film is riddled with other inaccuracies and misleading claims. For example, the United Auto Workers may not have gotten "money" in the bailout, but as an unsecured creditor, the union received a 17.5% ownership interest in General Motors and 55% of Chrysler, while the companies' bondholders got hosed.

The film asserts that the auto companies "repaid their loans." But they still owe taxpayers $26.5 billion, and the Treasury Department's latest report to Congress noted that nearly $24 billion of the bailout money is gone forever.

The film includes Mr. Obama's 2008 claim that the death of his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, from cancer "could have been prevented" if only she "had good, consistent insurance." But earlier this year, a biography of Dunham by Janny Scott, "A Singular Woman," revealed that she had health insurance that covered most all her medical bills, leaving only a few hundred dollars a month in deductibles and uncovered costs. For misleading viewers, the Washington Post fact checker awarded this segment of the film "Three Pinocchios."

The film also offers up numerous straw men. For example, opponents of Mr. Obama's auto industry bailout, we're told, just wanted to "let it go," as if an orderly bankruptcy of GM and Chrysler in the courts rather than by presidential fiat was never an option. It was.

Almost as important as what the film says is what it doesn't. There's not a word about the failure of the president's stimulus to produce the jobs he pledged—according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, fewer Americans are working today (132.7 million) than when Mr. Obama was sworn in (133.6 million).

There's nothing about his promise to cut the deficit in half by the end of his term—according to Treasury's Bureau of Public Debt, the administration has piled up more debt in three years and two months ($4.93 trillion) than his predecessor did in eight years ($4.8 trillion).

Nothing is said about the centerpieces of last year's State of the Union—green energy jobs (Solyndra anyone?) and high-speed rail (fizzled). Nada on the president's promises about how ObamaCare would lower premiums and lower the deficit while allowing people to keep their existing coverage (all untrue).

There's nothing about the crumbling situation in Afghanistan, strained relations with allies like Israel, Mr. Obama's unpopularity in the Islamic World, the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, multiple missteps with Iran (from failing to protest the stolen Iranian elections in 2009 to the mullahs' unchecked pursuit of nuclear weapons), and Mr. Obama's flip flops on closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and providing civilian trials for terrorists.

As for the killing of Osama bin Laden, Mr. Obama did what virtually any commander in chief would have done in the same situation. Even President Bill Clinton says in the film "I hope that's the call I would have made." For this to be portrayed as the epic achievement of the first term tells you how bare the White House cupboards are.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304724404577295601147645884.html

The original article had that Clinton quote as "That's the call I would have made." Presumably they were forced to run a correction, but it negates the entire point of the paragraph.
He said ALOT of shit last night. And most of it WASN'T how he supported a fascist.
User avatar
WAC
 
Posts: 39673
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 6:47 pm

Postby The Dirty Turtle » Sat Mar 24, 2012 12:06 pm

axelrod sent out 6 consecutive tweets in response to that thing
User avatar
The Dirty Turtle
ok
 
Posts: 38004
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 4:04 am
Location: Cannot be found

Postby The Dirty Turtle » Sat Mar 24, 2012 12:12 pm

to be honest i think the administration totally bungled the recent messaging around the osama raid, because to roves point, probably any president would have gone in after osama given the opportunity and if it didnt work, it didnt work
what they should have done was focus around how obama changed our overall military strategy in dealing with al-qaeda and that the big deal wasnt making the call, it was years of military strategy that put him in a position to be able to make that call
User avatar
The Dirty Turtle
ok
 
Posts: 38004
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 4:04 am
Location: Cannot be found

Postby The Dirty Turtle » Sat Mar 24, 2012 12:18 pm

that would have even allowed them to address romneys bullshit about our military shrinking because obama could just say were fighting different battles today and being successful there means looking at things differently...if our biggest threat is al qaeda why would we, trying to be responsible with the budget and not do it all, invest in destroyers instead of drones
oh and by the way, weve killed basically everyone in al-qaeda and their reputation in the muslim world is ruined
User avatar
The Dirty Turtle
ok
 
Posts: 38004
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 4:04 am
Location: Cannot be found

Postby WAC » Sat Mar 24, 2012 1:33 pm

There's going to be plenty of time to flesh out the foreign policy messaging once the general election actually gets going, there's no point of directly addressing Romney at this point and making him look stronger.
He said ALOT of shit last night. And most of it WASN'T how he supported a fascist.
User avatar
WAC
 
Posts: 39673
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 6:47 pm

Postby Jeremy » Sat Mar 24, 2012 2:56 pm

Yeah leaving Romney as the guy who after six years of running for president is worse at campaigning than Rick Santorum probably helps Obama more than engaging with him directly would.
User avatar
Jeremy
 
Posts: 42375
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 6:46 pm

Postby Amblin » Sat Mar 24, 2012 3:38 pm

The Dirty Turtle wrote:that would have even allowed them to address romneys bullshit about our military shrinking because obama could just say were fighting different battles today and being successful there means looking at things differently...if our biggest threat is al qaeda why would we, trying to be responsible with the budget and not do it all, invest in destroyers instead of drones
oh and by the way, weve killed basically everyone in al-qaeda and their reputation in the muslim world is ruined


If things play out with the debates like usual where we get an economic/domestic policy debate, a "town hall" or probably social media integrated event, and a "foreign policy" debate in which Obama is just going to kill him for 90 minutes with facts and rebuttals built around this point. Romney's only strategy in this type of debate is going to really be avoiding much of the military or war related issues and focus his stronger arguments on the "threat" of Iran, North Korea and probably China.
User avatar
Amblin
 
Posts: 48719
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 8:08 pm
Location: CA

Postby Amblin » Sat Mar 24, 2012 3:43 pm

Further, I think the only way we lose any points on foreign policy is if Biden fucks up a response in the VP debate. I think Obama exudes confidence on these issues and can articulate his policies and outlook with a lot of authority based on his success. Biden does have that confidence to an extent, I just think speaking on behalf of the President always creates some opportunity to screw up the message, particular when this Vice President is the one delivering that message.
User avatar
Amblin
 
Posts: 48719
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 8:08 pm
Location: CA

Postby mites » Sat Mar 24, 2012 4:00 pm

yea but biden is more personable and charming and no one fucking knows anything about the world anyway and like no one really votes on the basis of foreign policy
User avatar
mites
 
Posts: 31005
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:41 pm
Location: Bmore

Postby Amblin » Sat Mar 24, 2012 4:08 pm

mites wrote:yea but biden is more personable and charming and no one fucking knows anything about the world anyway and like no one really votes on the basis of foreign policy

First off, President Bush beat John Kerry in 2004 based on foreign policy.

Second, Obama is running for re-election, which means that making the case to keep him in office has to be based primarily on his accomplishments. Clearly the economy is still likely to be the main deciding factor for many voters and he has a whole list of things he can say he did that put us back on a path of growth. But he can really seal the deal by reminding voters of the successes he had with ending the War, wiping out al-Qaeda, getting bin Laden etc. He has a pretty good approval rating when it comes to issues already, so he should probably take advantage of it. It is going to be a big part of this campaign.

People don't have to pay much attention to agree with the War being over in Iraq, Afghanistan drawing down, dead terrorists and whatever sort of progress with Iran the administration can sell to the public by October. Most ignore the details, but all of these issues are pretty familiar to many voters in Ohio, Florida, Virginia and Iowa.
User avatar
Amblin
 
Posts: 48719
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 8:08 pm
Location: CA

Postby Durham » Sun Mar 25, 2012 1:11 am

Image
something something, dares you to blink
User avatar
Durham
 
Posts: 38273
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 6:34 pm
Location: 火車

Postby mites » Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:11 am

Amblin wrote:
mites wrote:yea but biden is more personable and charming and no one fucking knows anything about the world anyway and like no one really votes on the basis of foreign policy

First off, President Bush beat John Kerry in 2004 based on foreign policy.

naw

also incumbents have pretty big advantages unless the economy sucks but thankfully all of the republicans are insane so it would probably really have to suck
User avatar
mites
 
Posts: 31005
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:41 pm
Location: Bmore

Postby Thrills » Sun Mar 25, 2012 9:03 am

:awful:
Last edited by Thrills on Tue Feb 21, 2017 11:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Thrills
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 10:35 am

Postby jarsilver » Sun Mar 25, 2012 9:28 am

the one thing that really irks me about that rove op-ed was his claim that stagflation was worse than the 08 recession. there was no recession during the carter administration.
User avatar
jarsilver
 
Posts: 1641
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:58 pm

Postby arushofwings » Sun Mar 25, 2012 9:33 am

he knows what he's doing
User avatar
arushofwings
 
Posts: 4693
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 1:34 am
Location: LA

Postby Ted Pikul » Sun Mar 25, 2012 11:19 am

http://pickleoffact.tumblr.com

inspectorhound wrote:You are the biggest sociopath on this board
User avatar
Ted Pikul
DARE.
 
Posts: 29734
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 5:01 pm
Location: Salvador Dali's garden party

Postby Amblin » Sun Mar 25, 2012 12:04 pm

mites, go here: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html scroll down to MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE

Combine the percentages of "Iraq" and "Terrorism."

Foreign policy was the biggest issue on voters' minds in 2004.

I do agree about incumbent advantage.
User avatar
Amblin
 
Posts: 48719
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 8:08 pm
Location: CA

Postby husbands » Sun Mar 25, 2012 12:10 pm

I do some work on theories of public opinion, and I really am skeptical that you can say any one issue was the 'biggest' in voters' minds. but foreign policy is definitely an important consideration at times.
ROLL COAL
User avatar
husbands
 
Posts: 11054
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 5:07 pm

Postby Amblin » Sun Mar 25, 2012 12:12 pm

Well lets just agree that voters don't completely ignore it like what was originally claimed.
User avatar
Amblin
 
Posts: 48719
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 8:08 pm
Location: CA

Postby Zwischenzug » Sun Mar 25, 2012 12:28 pm

Yeah the 04 and 06 (and to some extent 08) campaigns were entirely about foreign policy. But, I think it may be better to use the term "national security" when talking about the Bush II reelection.
User avatar
Zwischenzug
 
Posts: 1643
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 5:21 pm

Postby Amblin » Sun Mar 25, 2012 12:34 pm



User avatar
Amblin
 
Posts: 48719
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 8:08 pm
Location: CA

Postby Zwischenzug » Sun Mar 25, 2012 12:41 pm

"Safer, Stronger" and "Whatever It Takes" are probably the best Bush ads. It is also fitting how much the Bush ads copied a lot of the ethos of the Reagan campaign. "Safer, Stronger" seems like it is cut right from "Prouder, Stronger, Better (Morning In America)" and "Wolves" is exactly the same as "Bear."
User avatar
Zwischenzug
 
Posts: 1643
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 5:21 pm

Postby delgriffith » Sun Mar 25, 2012 12:43 pm

Zwischenzug wrote:"Wolves" is exactly the same as "Bear."


Yeah although way more on the nose. It's like they watched "Bear" and thought "let's do that... but really make sure they get it"
User avatar
delgriffith
 
Posts: 93224
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 5:26 pm

Postby Amblin » Sun Mar 25, 2012 12:49 pm

Safer, Stronger is really good



I picked the two above because they were attack ads.
User avatar
Amblin
 
Posts: 48719
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 8:08 pm
Location: CA

PreviousNext

Return to Free-For-All

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: a is jump, anephric, antoine, average deceiver, Big Oil, blayk, blues, Boog Powell, budlite supernova, CelticFC#1, chad, clownwig, CudNylon, dogfight giggle, donna martin, Double McDouble, easy, Ersaph, Eyeball Kid, father of two, fatrick, feaxfang, Feech La Manna, FourLegsGood, freezinseason, fury, Future, futurist, goldmatt, Google [Bot], Google Feedfetcher, hogwild, Hot Piece, hyperbole man, hypocrisy, inmate, inspectorhound, jerbear, john penis, Kiki, Kodiak, light rail coyote, lockheed, lordofdiapers, mooncalf, nocents, nosebleeds, nvrmind, oglop, OKterrific, Organic Croutons, palmer eldritch, palms, Paul, Peptobysmal, Percy Dovetonsils, punkdude69, qmass, R C, robot_by_the_river, Rumpleforeskin, shrinemaidens, skith, snitch, someguy, southpaw, speakers, tex porneau, tgk, theta, Tom Cruise, trope, wario lopez, Yahoo [Bot]