Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 37

Thread: Myths about an Obama administration

  1. #1

    Myths about an Obama administration

    As happens every four years, the candidates and other partisans create a dire mythology about what their opponent would do as President. This year the myths about Obama were flying wildly. I'd like to put together a list of things to mark off as they either fall or are proven right. So far, I've got: (please suggest only real ones, things like "he's a Muslim" and "he was born elsewhere" are no longer worth discussing)


    raise taxes
    bad for Israel
    flaming liberals in the cabinet
    will kill jobs
    will flee in defeat from Iraq
    Fairness doctrine
    Will (with Michelle) prove to be an angry black radical
    will institute socialism

  2. #2
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,943
    amnesty for illegals
    take away 401K

    and of course...

    cancel Christmas

  3. #3
    don't forget the 500% tax increase on ammo...and of course the cancelling of the Easter egg hunt.

  4. #4
    Board Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Brooklyn Heights
    Posts
    2,462
    he's also a secret agent working on behalf of islamic jihad to topple our government and country from within

    lolz at canceling christmas....

  5. #5
    [QUOTE=fukushimajin;2889475][B][U]raise taxes[/U][/B]
    bad for Israel
    flaming liberals in the cabinet
    will kill jobs
    [B][U]will flee in defeat from Iraq[/U][/B]
    [B][U]Fairness doctrine[/U][/B]
    Will (with Michelle) prove to be an angry black radical
    [B][U]will institute socialism[/U][/B][/QUOTE]

    [QUOTE=parafly;2889492][B][U]amnesty for illegals[/U][/B]
    [B][U]take away 401K[/U][/B]

    and of course...

    cancel Christmas[/QUOTE]

    There is no intellectually honest way to claim the bolded above have not been discussed and/or promised, either by Obama himself, or by some ranking member of the all-but-filibuster-proof Democrat Congressional Leadership.

    The only thing you can debate is the right/left position on those issues, and how Obama (and both of you) would describe them.

    For example:

    "Raise Taxes". Obama himself on many occasions promised to raise taxes on those making over $250,000. That is "raising taxes". Recent comments show he may change his mind, and not do it, but it was clearly something he discussed doing.

    "Flee in Defeat From Iraq". Obama called it an "immediate troop drawdown, done responsably" within 16 months, or something similar. Since Liberals feel it was an illegal and poorly thought out war, you two wouldn't call it defeat anyway, you'll call that smart decision making. The end result of the promise to withdraw asap is the same. Of course, he has also made comments post-election that this may not happen either.

    "Fairness Doctrine" Not discussed by Obama directly, but there are more than enough quotes by Democrat Leaders to show that there is Democratic party support for this idea. If they pass it, are you claiming Obama will veto it? Where is the Obama quote backing that claim? And even then,

    "Institute Socialism", this one is a bit tougher, but still pretty clear. Obama is on record promising multiple new Govt. programs, Govt. Job programs, Govt. Indutry Susidization (Alt. Energy) and other policies those on the right would consider Socialist in nature. Since you two Libs agreew ith all of this, you of course won't agree, and will defe3nd the genius of these programs, all the while ignoring that they are, at their heart, redistribution of wealth from weathy to less wealthy, as would increased taxation on the over $200K crowd.

    As for the last two, again we find terminology differences between right and left. The left, generally, sees immigration reform with minimal penalties as fair and rightious. The right sees it as de facto amnesty a la the McCain plan and the once-defeated reform plan. Again, since you want this passed, you;re hardly going to see things from a righty perspective, and will defend it.

    As for 401K, that was a Democrat who proposed changing those rules, although I do not believe it was a particularly high-ranking one. But his idea was, in effect, to change the very nature of private 401K saving, to begin taxation on it, and to mandate everyone does it via force of Law. It's a pipe drem till it gets passed, of course, but it was brought up, and by a Democrat.

    These ideas are not fantasy or myth, as you'd like to think. They were taken ddirectly from the mouths of Democrats, Obama and others. Now, how many will get passed, who knows of course. And will Obama support them all (the ones he didn't promice himself), who knows.

    But to make it out as if righties are paranoid, after the last 8 years of endless lefty "grand right-wing conspiracy of the Evil selected-not-elected illegal war mak'in Bush Empire" is a bit of a joke, frankly.

  6. #6
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,947
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2889535]...redistribution of wealth from weathy to less wealthy, as would increased taxation on the over $200K crowd.[/QUOTE]

    By this logic, every single president and congressman since the income tax was thought up is a socialist. If Obama wants to roll back tax on the wealthy to the levels that were instituted during the Reagan administration...then Ronald Reagan was, in fact, a socio-communist.

  7. #7
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;2889549]By this logic, every single president and congressman since the income tax was thought up is a socialist. If Obama wants to roll back tax on the wealthy to the levels that were instituted during the Reagan administration...then Ronald Reagan was, in fact, a socio-communist.[/QUOTE]

    It's a matter of degree. Yes, we already have a broad variety of "socialist" programs and policies in place today, no one can (or should) debate that point.

    The question (and the claims of "socialist") are more one of "how much more will we have under Obama than we have now"?

    You're not going to claim Obama will have more taxation, more Govt. spending, more Govt. involvement, more Govt. control over industries (like health care) and more redistribution via taxation than previous administrations, right?

    So yes, he is MORE socialist. Only time will tell if he is A socialist.

  8. #8
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2889535]

    "Fairness Doctrine" Not discussed by Obama directly, but there are more than enough quotes by Democrat Leaders to show that there is Democratic party support for this idea. If they pass it, are you claiming Obama will veto it? Where is the Obama quote backing that claim? And even then,

    [/QUOTE]

    Obama has discussed this directly. He said he doesn't agree with it.

    Are there dems who do, like Chuck Schumer? Sure. But Obama is on the record as saying he's not one of them.

  9. #9
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2889658]Obama has discussed this directly. He said he doesn't agree with it.

    Are there dems who do, like Chuck Schumer? Sure. But Obama is on the record as saying he's not one of them.[/QUOTE]

    Interesting, I have not heard him say that or read any quote of him saying that. Perhaps I need to watch more MSNBC......

    It's irrelevant, of course, as it is the Democratic Congress qand not Obama forwarding the idea as law, and if they pass it, Obama may disagree with it....and still sign it. Big difference between disagreement and veto.

    We'll see, of course.

  10. #10
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2889681]Interesting, I have not heard him say that or read any quote of him saying that. Perhaps I need to watch more MSNBC......

    It's irrelevant, of course, as it is the Democratic Congress qand not Obama forwarding the idea as law, and if they pass it, Obama may disagree with it....and still sign it. Big difference between disagreement and veto.

    We'll see, of course.[/QUOTE]

    I posted it in a thread awhile back ...

    [url]http://www.broadcastingcable.com/CA6573406.html[/url]

    His spokesman said he regarded it as a "distraction" and did not favor reinstating it.

  11. #11
    William Ayers for Secretary of Education.

  12. #12
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2889717]I posted it in a thread awhile back ...

    [url]http://www.broadcastingcable.com/CA6573406.html[/url]

    His spokesman said he regarded it as a "distraction" and did not favor reinstating it.[/QUOTE]

    Link's not working for me (page won't load). :( Will try it again later.

    Did you take whatever his quote in the story was to mean "If Congress Passes It, I Will Veto It" then?

    Just curious (since I cannot read it for myself).

    [QUOTE=FF2;2889724]William Ayers for Secretary of Education.[/QUOTE]

    Why not? He is a respected professor, an expert of education, and I don't think we was ever convicted of any crime with the Weather Underground.

    Are you implying there is something wrong with Professor Ayers?:eek:

    Or are you, as usual, just trolling because have anything to add to the conversation?:rolleyes:

  13. #13
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2889762]Link's not working for me (page won't load). :( Will try it again later.

    Did you take whatever his quote in the story was to mean "If Congress Passes It, I Will Veto It" then?

    Just curious (since I cannot read it for myself).



    Why not? He is a respected professor, an expert of education, and I don't think we was ever convicted of any crime with the Weather Underground.

    Are you implying there is something wrong with Professor Ayers?:eek:

    Or are you, as usual, just trolling because have anything to add to the conversation?:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

    Just adding to the myth list. Dumb things dumb people have said.

  14. #14
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2889762]Link's not working for me (page won't load). :( Will try it again later.

    Did you take whatever his quote in the story was to mean "If Congress Passes It, I Will Veto It" then?

    Just curious (since I cannot read it for myself).

    [/QUOTE]

    He did not say that, so those looking to see if he left that sort of wiggle room will find it there.

    What he said was that he regarded the discussion as a waste of time, basically, that didn't address real issues. That was in June, before even bigger issues emerged that any effort to pass the fairness doctrine would detract from.

    While I am against the fairness doctrine, I have to think that even dems like Pelosi who may favor it are probably politically astute enough to realize how dumb it would be to try and pass something like that during a time of economic duress. The potential for a voter backlash would be great.

    I could be wrong, of course. But I think the politics of it are pretty obvious.

    Now, three years from now, if the recession is over and the Dow is back above 10,000 or whatever, who knows. But I think Pelosi and Schumer and whoever else wants it probably know how to read polls well enough to steer clear of that foolishness. (But I've been wrong before.)

  15. #15
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Long Island & Section 337
    Posts
    4,859
    [QUOTE=fukushimajin;2889475]As happens every four years, the candidates and other partisans create a dire mythology about what their opponent would do as President. This year the myths about Obama were flying wildly. I'd like to put together a list of things to mark off as they either fall or are proven right. So far, I've got: (please suggest only real ones, things like "he's a Muslim" and "he was born elsewhere" are no longer worth discussing)


    raise taxes
    bad for Israel
    flaming liberals in the cabinet
    will kill jobs
    will flee in defeat from Iraq
    Fairness doctrine
    Will (with Michelle) prove to be an angry black radical
    will institute socialism[/QUOTE]
    How about the following:

    Raise income tax rates and Social Security contribution income maximums?

    Establish formal diplomatic relations with Hamas and the Palestinian Authority?

    Will he make appointments to the Court system of idealogues that will push it hard Left?

    Will he enact business policies that cause corporations to send jobs abroad?

    Will he pull troops out of Iraq faster than the recommendations of his military advisors? Will he be pressured to do so prematurely by the hard left of his party?

    Will he institute the Fairness Doctrine, as Pelosi/Schumer wish?

    Will he move towards a National Health Care system? Not institute completely, but lay the groundwork for such a system?

    These are my questions. The answers we will have to wait and see. But if you want to play the inflammatory "black radical" "flee in defeat" game, knock yourself out.

  16. #16
    [QUOTE=HDCentStOhio;2889812]
    Establish formal diplomatic relations with Hamas and the Palestinian Authority?
    [/QUOTE]

    Uh, we have formal diplomatic relations with the Palestinian Authority now and have for some time. Abbas has had numerous meetings with both Bush and Rice.

  17. #17
    What is this, a thinly-veiled "I told ya so" thread?

  18. #18
    [QUOTE=HDCentStOhio;2889812]How about the following:

    Raise income tax rates and Social Security contribution income maximums?

    Establish formal diplomatic relations with Hamas and the Palestinian Authority?

    Will he make appointments to the Court system of idealogues that will push it hard Left?

    Will he enact business policies that cause corporations to send jobs abroad?

    Will he pull troops out of Iraq faster than the recommendations of his military advisors? Will he be pressured to do so prematurely by the hard left of his party?

    Will he institute the Fairness Doctrine, as Pelosi/Schumer wish?

    Will he move towards a National Health Care system? Not institute completely, but lay the groundwork for such a system?

    These are my questions. The answers we will have to wait and see. But if you want to play the inflammatory "black radical" "flee in defeat" game, knock yourself out.[/QUOTE]


    These are mostly good ones -- I'll add them to the list. I see this as a long-term project, we'll see if I can keep up with it.

    Uh on the black radical stuff -- I swear I heard that emanating from Hannity/Limbaugh but maybe it was just this site. The flee in defeat is a close parallel to the McCain "wave the white flag of surrender" trope.

  19. #19
    "Will he enact business policies that cause corporations to send jobs abroad?"

    Too late, that's already been done.

  20. #20
    [QUOTE=fukushimajin;2889475]As happens every four years, the candidates and other partisans create a dire mythology about what their opponent would do as President. This year the myths about Obama were flying wildly. I'd like to put together a list of things to mark off as they either fall or are proven right. So far, I've got: (please suggest only real ones, things like "he's a Muslim" and "he was born elsewhere" are no longer worth discussing)


    raise taxes
    bad for Israel
    flaming liberals in the cabinet
    will kill jobs
    will flee in defeat from Iraq
    Fairness doctrine
    Will (with Michelle) prove to be an angry black radical
    will institute socialism[/QUOTE]

    So I guess all the stuff he said in the primaries about change was just more BS for the big donors on the left.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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

Follow Us