We need to stop trashing President Obama's accomplishments. - Page 2
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 32

Thread: We need to stop trashing President Obama's accomplishments.

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,719
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Parham View Post
    While I am definitely pro-gun/Pro 2nd amendment... I am also anti-lie, and there are a lot of lies and half truths in the statement below.
    I could cite legitimate sources for at least 95% of the things in that list, but here's the problem. 1) The way you phrase your objection to the list strongly suggests that you've already made up your mind that there are "a lot" of lies and half truths in the list. That, itself, is a lie, and a provable one, but....

    2) It's not the readers' of internet forums responsibility to document, validate or source a thread-creator's posts. I seriously suspect that the OP in this thread knows where I'm going with this, as I further seriously believe that our first exchange was over the same issue, lack of sourcing and lack of attribution, only the exchange was between myself and this poster's previous user name before he got banned back in February. This OP is a blatant example of the identical problems I attempted to warn him about under his previous name, and he obviously didn't learn a thing from either the freely-offered advice, or from being banned for whatever he got banned for in the end. I stopped even reading his threads because of their lack of sourcing and/or attribution to authors who are perfectly entitled to have their names associated with their own work, so I have no idea why he got banned. But I'll eat my hat if this poster and the one who got banned aren't one in the same, and that makes at least two in recent weeks who can't take a hint and choose to trespass instead of be a welcomed guest in Luke's "property."

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  2.   
  3. Okay. So I do have a few issues here. The first is that while I am being pressed for citations and proof the OP fails to cite any prove to what he posted. Its similar to me saying I think that you were born on Mars, and then the burden of proof being on you to prove that you weren't... Rather than the burden of proof being on me to prove that you were. And as far as being a troll.. Nah... I just work during the day. I dpn't spend every waking moment monitoring forums. (only reason I was on here in the first place is because i just picked up a new reloading press... I digress...)
    In any case, lets start at the top.
    The Fogbow: Birthers Debunked :: Obama's Social Security number

  4. Okay,
    I just realized that I have an issue. In trying to find sources that either confirm or deny the list of 101 "crimes against America" that the OP listed that the current POTUS has committed I realized that any source that I find that adresses any of the issues the OP listed is going to be a biased source, and thus untrustworthy. They are either going to be right biased (which would be the reason that they would have such a story in the first place), or they are going to be left biased which would be the reason that they feel the need to discredit the obviously right biased story. Any legitimate news source worthy or watching/reading/listening to wouldn't touch most of these issues with a 50ft pole. I would hope the reason behind that would be that they realizes that issues like the ones listed above are meant merely to distract people from the real goings on in the world. Not to mention the fact that if the people that hate the current POTUS so much would stop trying to de-legitimize him and actually fight him on issues, they might actually gain traction with moderates and the undecided. However when they cling to conspiracy theories and other stories they look like crazy right wing conservatives. Wtih that being said... I have plenty of reasons to disagree with the current POTUS (none of which are on the OP's list) however I don't question his legitimacy, nor do I question his citizenship or patriotism.

  5. First President to violate the War Powers Act.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/us...anted=all&_r=0

    First President to have a social security number from a state he has never lived in.
    The Fogbow: Birthers Debunked :: Obama's Social Security number

    First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.
    This one i can address without a link as "ALL" Americans are not required to "BUY" health insurance. I would suggest you take a closer look at the PPACA.
    http://www.ncsl.org/documents/health...nsolidated.pdf
    Health Reform in Action | The White House

    First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.
    Sooo... Technically I guess this could be considered true. However I believe it to be a half truth, and this a lie. So yes.. He is the first president to pass the "Dream Act" by E.O. However he is far from being the first President to use executive order. Not to mention that for whatever reason the current Congress seems to disagree with ideas that they originated and originally supported if they find out that the POTUS supports them.
    Executive Orders Disposition Tables Index

    That's enough for one night... I've got some reloading to do, and then sleep. Tomorrows Monday again. (I know it's hard to believe but not only conservative Republicans have jobs)


    For the record I am far from a liberal Democrat)

  6. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    An Alternate Reality, I Assure You...
    Posts
    5,115
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Parham View Post
    Okay,
    I just realized that I have an issue. In trying to find sources that either confirm or deny the list of 101 "crimes against America" that the OP listed that the current POTUS has committed I realized that any source that I find that adresses any of the issues the OP listed is going to be a biased source, and thus untrustworthy. They are either going to be right biased (which would be the reason that they would have such a story in the first place), or they are going to be left biased which would be the reason that they feel the need to discredit the obviously right biased story. Any legitimate news source worthy or watching/reading/listening to wouldn't touch most of these issues with a 50ft pole. I would hope the reason behind that would be that they realizes that issues like the ones listed above are meant merely to distract people from the real goings on in the world. Not to mention the fact that if the people that hate the current POTUS so much would stop trying to de-legitimize him and actually fight him on issues, they might actually gain traction with moderates and the undecided. However when they cling to conspiracy theories and other stories they look like crazy right wing conservatives. Wtih that being said... I have plenty of reasons to disagree with the current POTUS (none of which are on the OP's list) however I don't question his legitimacy, nor do I question his citizenship or patriotism.
    Oh, PBO loves AmeriKa... he'd love it even more if it were a Marxist, 3rd world country. There is such thing as misguided and/or false patriotism... that's what you get with Barack. If you can't see through the BS he spews on the TV, broadcasted by the MSM... you're lacking something intellectual. You need to think for yourself, you need to study the founding documents of our nation, understand their respective contexts and then get back to us whether or not you think PBO is acting in the best interests of what it is to be American.
    Quote Originally Posted by Deanimator View Post
    [*]Don't be afraid to use sarcasm, mockery and humiliation. They don't respect you. There's no need to pretend you respect them.
    Operation Veterans Relief: http://www.opvr.org/home.html

  7. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Parham View Post
    Okay,
    I just realized that I have an issue. In trying to find sources that either confirm or deny the list of 101 "crimes against America" that the OP listed that the current POTUS has committed I realized that any source that I find that adresses any of the issues the OP listed is going to be a biased source, and thus untrustworthy. They are either going to be right biased (which would be the reason that they would have such a story in the first place), or they are going to be left biased which would be the reason that they feel the need to discredit the obviously right biased story. Any legitimate news source worthy or watching/reading/listening to wouldn't touch most of these issues with a 50ft pole. I would hope the reason behind that would be that they realizes that issues like the ones listed above are meant merely to distract people from the real goings on in the world. Not to mention the fact that if the people that hate the current POTUS so much would stop trying to de-legitimize him and actually fight him on issues, they might actually gain traction with moderates and the undecided. However when they cling to conspiracy theories and other stories they look like crazy right wing conservatives. Wtih that being said... I have plenty of reasons to disagree with the current POTUS (none of which are on the OP's list) however I don't question his legitimacy, nor do I question his citizenship or patriotism.
    in other words you cannot point out one lie or inaccuracy, which make you appear to be a fool because I found issues with 1 or 2 of the statements and I hate the charlatan who is occupying the office

  8. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,719
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Parham View Post
    Okay,
    I just realized that I have an issue. In trying to find sources that either confirm or deny the list of 101 "crimes against America" that the OP listed that the current POTUS has committed I realized that any source that I find that adresses any of the issues the OP listed is going to be a biased source, and thus untrustworthy.
    First, I saw nothing in the OP that described anything in the list as a "crime." It simply listed items which Barry Dunham aka: Barry Soetero aka: Barack Hussein Obama has "accomplished" so far during his tenure as occupier of the White House.

    Second, there are neither references made to "101" supposed "crimes" nor are there 101 line-items listed. So you are inaccurate at best, biased against the OP at least, and purposeful in your dishonesty at worst. I don't know, nor do I care, which one it is, but any one of them makes your take on the OP untrustworthy because of this demonstrated penchant for exaggeration, bias and hyperbole.

    I am decidedly "right biased." That does not mean that I am motivated to tell lies or ignore provable truths just because they comport best with my conservative leanings. Such is the provenance of leftists and moderates. Can't believe I've felt the need to use this quote twice within the last week or so, but again, it seems apropos:

    "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!" Barry Goldwater - 1964

    There is nothing inherently "untrustworthy" about a person or organization being "right biased." In fact, I should be considered more trustworthy than my secretive counterparts who don't/won't admit whatever biases they possess. I have a "right bias" and I say, "I believe the originalist view that the 2nd Amendment means exactly what it says." Or, "I have a 'right bias' and all the evidence that I've seen and scrutinized informs me that the most well-known, largest, and best-organized gun 'rights' organization is actually a gun control organization." What does my "right bias" have to do either statement first, and would you consider both of them "typical" for a "right biased" person second, and would either be more or less credible if I claimed to be a "moderate" or leftist third? What makes those two statements credible (or not) is the extent to which I can document the assertions made within them.

    When one is discussing the veracity of documents and life experiences that have had well over $1 million spent to keep them from public view, all one can do is weigh the best evidence available and let the scales fall on whichever side of the question they happen to land on. A blind follower of million-dollar secrets is much more* biased than a right-wing activist who accepts that the available evidence points towards fraud. The blind follower seems much less trustworthy to me, as they ignore the available evidence and conclude without question that the person paying to keep his life a secret literally has nothing to hide. It's the classic, "Umm....Huh?" moment.

    So Jason, if you are one of those who believes that spending in excess of $1 million to keep his life secret would lead to a valid conclusion that BarackBarry Hussein DunhamSoeteroObama has nothing to hide, I have to ask, umm....huh?

    Blues
    Last edited by BluesStringer; 04-08-2013 at 01:08 PM. Reason: *changed "no less" to "much more" (with emphasis)
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  9. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Northeast Alabama
    Posts
    3,365
    I can sort of see where he's coming from. I certainly hate the man and see his presidency as a dire threat to this country, but I think the arguments over his citizenship are riduculous and that they sometimes divert attention away from legitimate issues that deserve more attention. However, the people that devote attention to the citizenship issue hardly do so exclusively, or at least almost none of them do so. They still pay plenty of attention to other issues as well, so while the issue of citizenship does divert attention from other issues at times, it doesn't monopolize the arena of discussion. Just a glance at the political posts on this site will demonstrate that. Very few overall are devoted to Obama's citizenship.

    As for the specific statements in the OP, calling them outrights lies might be somewhat of a stretch, which is likely why that claim wasn't easily supportable. It could certainly be said that literary license was taken and that exaggeration were used though. For instance, the czars for the most part did not replace elected officials, and many of the claims are based on events that are disputed or never happened as depicted or interpreted. But playing with those details misses the overall point. This man and his administration have acted in a manner wholly inconsistent with previous presidents and administrations, inconsistent with the principles this nation was founded on, and inconsistent with the Constitution itself. It isn't a matter of each individual statement or how they are worded. It's a matter of wholesale deviation from the principles of the American executive branch of government. That's the point of the OP, and it's a very valid point indeed.
    Posterity: you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it.--- John Quincy Adams
    Condensed Guide To Ohio Concealed Carry Laws

  10. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Elma NY
    Posts
    1,638
    I may have found a lie!
    First President to appoint 45 czars to replace elected officials in his office.
    They didn't replace anybody. They were all given the jobs with a staff and expense accounts to in return for campaign donations at taxpayers expense.
    When the next president gets in I wanna be the Czar of Strip Clubs. We have to close the gap between American Strip Clubs and Canadian Clubs.
    It is gonna be a tough job damn it, but someone has to step up and just do it.
    Tolerance of the intolerant leads to the destruction of tolerance. “You are also reminded that any inappropriate remarks or jokes concerning security may result in your arrest,” in the land of the free.

  11. #20
    That, Is one impressive list. (Looking for tongue in cheek smilie).
    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
    the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast