Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dogma wrote:Well, not a complete lie, just selective with information. Still bs though.

Except in that instance he fail to use the weasel words that could have made it truthful but misleading. Instead he claimed the price on the day of his inauguration, which makes it a straight up lie.

I believe some people claimed that he was a magical being of dark skin tone.

There was a slightly famous radio personality saying something like that, yes. So maybe he really did travel back in time to crash the economy.

Also, SSNs weren't generally issued at birth until 1986, and Obama isn't 25-26.

Basically what it means is that he was in Connecticut when he need one, or whatever state he was in when he applied sent their excess demand to Connecticut to get published. Which is, well, really boring.

Yes he did.

Fair enough, I remember lots of people making noise about it, and thinking they kind of had a point though it was being really overstated, I just didn’t remember Obama later taking it back.

Still, it’s a lot of noise to be made over what was, basically, a piece of loose campaign rhetoric.

But then I would lose my job!

Well then we can’t have that. Guess we better instead keep telling lies for dogma’s sake… or should that be Mr Carroll.

Kilkrazy wrote:This thread is producing more complaints than I have seen for a long time.

Please keep the discussion polite.

Well those complaints better not be about Teddy, or I'm going to have to get a big stick!

sebster wrote:

gregor_xenos wrote:I recieved this and found it rather enlightning....

Almost everything in there is straight up lied. Seriously, you’ve been played for a fool, and should be very angry at Rich Carroll. Don’t believe me? Let’s go through it.

The fact-checking work you did here is remarkable. I tip my hat to you.

Call em crazy, but Im pretty damn sure gas was a LOT more then $1.79 when Obama became President. I dont want to sound like a supporter of his as Im not, but just saying, it was around 3 bucks a gallon when he became President, not that fething low. It was around that low when I was 18ish if I remember correctly

KingCracker wrote:Call em crazy, but Im pretty damn sure gas was a LOT more then $1.79 when Obama became President. I dont want to sound like a supporter of his as Im not, but just saying, it was around 3 bucks a gallon when he became President, not that fething low. It was around that low when I was 18ish if I remember correctly

There was an explanation for this earlier in the thread, but this was indeed the case (briefly). Click on the 6 year scale to see, and remember he was sworn in Jan 20th 2009.

As with you, I don't think I ever saw those prices. On the other hand, I may be overestimating my ability to remember historic gas prices. That site shows the average gas price at $3.50, which is near-exactly what it was when I filled up this morning.

Yea, sometimes I dont want to read an entire thread to see if my post even matters anymore

But yea, I think I paid about 8-10 cents more a gallon the other day......but a month ago it was a good 10-15 cents cheaper lol. Depends on the day really

Looking at this gas was quite a bit cheaper three years ago.

http://www.GasBuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx?city1=USA Average&city2=&city3=&crude=n&tme=36&units=us

Of course you really need to overlay certain world events and some other factors to get a good understanding. Oil is sold in a world market...

Im sorry, but where the hell did they get that gas was that cheap only a few years ago? I dont buy that for a second.

For all we know, the gas companies deliberately lower the price around elections simply for these sort of statistics. It wouldn't surprise me.

Just for reference:

The same graph (6 year running average of gas prices) overlaid with the same from Canada. Just to show how ridiculous it is to assume that it's just the US's gas prices.

Those graphs are nearly identical. Thats kindda odd

KingCracker wrote:Those graphs are nearly identical. Thats kindda odd

no the markets are tied. you need to look at a benchmark or by PADD.

KingCracker wrote:Those graphs are nearly identical. Thats kindda odd

I agree.

The US and Canada are trading partners, if you looked at mexico's or australia's as well it would show a similarity. They are all major trading partners so they all take dives at the same time. US history class ftw.

"First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S. , including those with criminal convictions. "

Yeah that's not true

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/obamas-record-high-deportations-draw-hispanic-scorn/


Jeez wounder what else in that "article" isn't based on facts. As apathetic as I am towards Obama most of what the OP posted is either true or forgets the fact that the financial crisis started before Obama came to office. In January 200 we were losing 500,000 plus jobs a month, now we are slowly adding them. A Republican winning in 2012 will not make any difference.

Ouze wrote:The fact-checking work you did here is remarkable. I tip my hat to you.

Cheers, something to do on a slow day I guess Helped that I could remember most of those nonsense issues, so kind of knew where to go to check my corrections.

I wonder if gregor_xenos will be impressed?

gregor_xenos wrote:I recieved this and found it rather enlightning....
Rant/rave and fume all you like; sorces are cited.


**snipped highly partisan bs and tinfoil hat wearing allusion**

Thank you for bringing yourself to our attention and giving us all a very clear window into what you consider newsworthy and who you are as a poster here, welcome to ignore.

tata!

I guess the 1.2 million who dropped out of the workforce in January 2012 don't mean anything?

With extended unemployment running out and open, decent-paying jobs still scarce, the unemployment might be an artificial 6%-7% by November. The people will buy it and re-elect one of the most inept Presidents in US history.


The OP used some facts and did an awful job extrapolating upon them.

KingCracker wrote:Those graphs are nearly identical. Thats kindda odd

Not really, most of the difference worldwide in gas prices can be fully accounted for by different tax rates.

For example, Europeans could be paying less than 1 euro/liter right now if they had fuel taxes like we have in the U.S.

Stormrider wrote:I guess the 1.2 million who dropped out of the workforce in January 2012 don't mean anything?

With extended unemployment running out and open, decent-paying jobs still scarce, the unemployment might be an artificial 6%-7% by November. The people will buy it and re-elect one of the most inept Presidents in US history.


The OP used some facts and did an awful job extrapolating upon them.

Please extrapolate the facts for me Stormrider? I must of missed it?

Stormrider wrote:I guess the 1.2 million who dropped out of the workforce in January 2012 don't mean anything?

With extended unemployment running out and open, decent-paying jobs still scarce, the unemployment might be an artificial 6%-7% by November. The people will buy it and re-elect one of the most inept Presidents in US history.


The OP used some facts and did an awful job extrapolating upon them.

Implying the GOP offers any better alternatives. You guys had a shot with Huntsman but he was just too reasonable for you guys. I guess man on dog,I hate contraception, proud of my earmarks Santorum
is what you guys consider "Presidential".

Stormrider wrote:The people will buy it and re-elect one of the most inept Presidents in US history.

God I love the US political debate. Everyone is either inept, or great, there is no gradation. It started with Bush II, and its continued with Obama.

Whatever, makes my job easier.

Bleak_Fantasy wrote:You guys had a shot with Huntsman but he was just too reasonable for you guys.

Huntsman didn't have the personal charisma for a Presidential run. GHW Bush was about as wooden as it gets when it comes to modern Presidents, and he had Reagan's legacy to run on. Without that, he never would have even gotten funding.

Gore was similar, and lost largely because Clinton simply wasn't as popular as Reagan. Well, that, and GWB was actually a pretty solid candidate (Whereas Dukakis was Dukakis.) and even turned out to be a middling President.

sebster wrote:I wonder if gregor_xenos will be impressed?

I don't know this guy, and it's sort of a crappy thing to make sweeping denouncements upon the motivations of people I don't know and have never met. Now that I have denounced that sort of thing, I will immediately engage in just that sort of reprehensible behavior, and posit:

No. I suspect the sort of person who posts things like this actually believe them on faith, not on evidence. I have some co-workers who I foolishly friended on facebook (that's 2 mistakes in 3 words) who have started posting stuff much like this near-daily. They just know he's an unamerican, secret-muslim who wants to destroy the US and no amount of "facts" will convince them otherwise. It's like Fox Mulder's office, only the "I Want To Believe" poster has a photoshopped Kenyan birth certificate on it instead of a UFO.

In other words, I imagine this is exactly how the right felt about all that "evidence" and "reporting" that W had not actually finished his National Guard service. But that's a whole other thread.

Stormrider wrote:The OP used some facts and did an awful job extrapolating upon them.

A couple of factual claims were presented faithfully, a few other claims were presented in a dishonest fashion, while most points were straight up lies. Items fitting in the second category are bad enough, and there is simply no place for things fitting in the third.

You can find this list all over the internet, by the way. Lots of people seem to believe it, and presumably use it as part of their thinking on politics, and that should piss people off.

Ouze wrote:
No. I suspect the sort of person who posts things like this actually believe them on faith, not on evidence. I have some co-workers who I foolishly friended on facebook (that's 2 mistakes in 3 words) who have started posting stuff much like this near-daily. They just know he's an unamerican, secret-muslim who wants to destroy the US and no amount of "facts" will convince them otherwise. It's like Fox Mulder's office, only the "I Want To Believe" poster has a photoshopped Kenyan birth certificate on it instead of a UFO.

Conversely, I have a number of co-workers (My other job is at an NPO that works in permaculture, google it to feel the progressiveness.) and college buddies that post things about soldiers being murderers, Republicans all being racist red necks, the evils of capitalism, and how breeders are all awful people.

There's some magical quality of political, social, religious, and philosophical issues that makes people think their random dabbling makes them qualified to discuss them.

Ouze wrote:I don't know this guy, and it's sort of a crappy thing to make sweeping denouncements upon the motivations of people I don't know and have never met. Now that I have denounced that sort of thing, I will immediately engage in just that sort of reprehensible behavior, and posit:

No. I suspect the sort of person who posts things like this actually believe them on faith, not on evidence. I have some co-workers who I foolishly friended on facebook (that's 2 mistakes in 3 words) who have started posting stuff much like this near-daily. They just know he's an unamerican, secret-muslim who wants to destroy the US and no amount of "facts" will convince them otherwise. It's like Fox Mulder's office, only the "I Want To Believe" poster has a photoshopped Kenyan birth certificate on it instead of a UFO.

In other words, I imagine this is exactly how the right felt about all that "evidence" and "reporting" that W had not actually finished his National Guard service. But that's a whole other thread.

Yeah, the trick is that there’s a great big middle ground between ‘what we know’ and actual facts and information, and everyone has at least a few things they believe really intensely, despite it not lining up with reality, and most have quite a few. And we can end up like that through no fault of our own, we can hear arguments that seem very convincing, but they might not be the whole truth, or might contain out-dated information, or have their information given in a misleading fashion, or just be a straight up lie.

I think a lot of people could read that list in the opening post, and be convinced that Obama was a uniquely terrible president, if they’d never heard anything to the contrary. There’s no shame in getting duped. It’s only when you’re informed that you were lied to, and continue to believe lies that there’s anything to be ashamed about.

It's up to Gregor_Xenos at this point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:Conversely, I have a number of co-workers (My other job is at an NPO that works in permaculture, google it to feel the progressiveness.) and college buddies that post things about soldiers being murderers, Republicans all being racist red necks, the evils of capitalism, and how breeders are all awful people.

There's some magical quality of political, social, religious, and philosophical issues that makes people think their random dabbling makes them qualified to discuss them.

It's not restricted to any one category, though. I was watching cricket with a mate the other day, and he commented on an older player being brought back into the national team, after he'd retired some years ago. He said it was just novelty call up because Australia doesn't take that particular format of the game seriously. I pointed out that the player in question was the most successful bowler in the recent domestic tournament, coming third in wickets taken, and having a better economy rate than any other bowler. He said it didn't matter, because the guy is 41 so what future does he have, and I pointed out he'd been selected with the World Cup in mind, and that was only 8 months away, and that an article explaining that came out immediately after his selection.

I wondered how, given he knew none of that, and really very little about cricket in general, he could possibly have formed an opinion at all.

Shrike325 wrote:

gregor_xenos wrote:
First President to have a social security number from a state he has never lived in.

What? I'm pretty sure SSN's are national.

The first 3 numbers of an SSN refer to the state in which the SSN was obtained, for most people born since 1980 or so this will be the state they are born in. For those born earlier, numbers may vary as it was not the norm to have a SSN assigned at birth.

My SSN for instance was obtained while living in NH (001-003), despite being born in MI (503-504).

Apprently President Obamas SSN was assigned in Connecticut in 1977.

For the Presidents defense, the SSN back then did not have to be applied for by the person the number was to be assigned, it could be and often was done by a relative (mainly the parents). So who knows.

To the OP, it helps to cite sources on things. I agree about the shape of the economy, it certainly has not gotten better over the last 3 years, and there have been a lot of administrative oddities and procedural errors. But sources, really, not that difficult, it helps keep people from just jumping in with insults, though some still will.

ParatrooperSimon wrote:
4th, "Obama is the maide after Led Zepplin finished with the hotel room" IF OBAMA was Jesus himself, you guys still would try and find reasons (most of them gak or waaaaaaaaaaaaay out of praportion) to say he was a bad president

I am not an american citizen so it's not really my place to comment on the State of the Union but this quote really speaks my mind on how it looks from a direct outside perspective. Remember I may live in a different country but In 45 minutes I can drive to Duluth and visit

I'm actually very proud of Obama for being able to keep a country afloat in the sinking ship it was handed to him on.

You can't expect a 20+ year mutli-billion dollar millitary campaign that brought no spoils of war to be good for the economic development of a country!
I'm not trying to argue about weather or not the war was justified. I'm just stating that war costs money, lots of money.. and that's what tax payers are suffering for!

And even though Osama is dead, he is still winning, I realize this every time I go to the border and see 12 foot fences, concrete barricades and dozens of cameras where there used to be a gate house and an open road.

just my 2c

biccat wrote:

KingCracker wrote:Those graphs are nearly identical. Thats kindda odd

Not really, most of the difference worldwide in gas prices can be fully accounted for by different tax rates.

For example, Europeans could be paying less than 1 euro/liter right now if they had fuel taxes like we have in the U.S.

Thats not accurate actually.
*Taxes.
*Transport costs and bottlenecks.
*Supply to a region.
*Refining capacity in a region, and complexity of that capacity.

Stormrider wrote:I

The OP used some facts and did an awful job extrapolating upon them.

Maybe he could be the rep. candidate...