• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Road We've Travelled~ Commercial

Last edited:
Great ad! I started a thread on it as well here.

Didn't know there was another, perhaps a nice mod will merge them.

Moderator's Warning:
None of the nice mods where available, so I took care of it.
 
My thoughts after watching this...

(aside from the complete bogus grandoise nature of creating a 17 minute psuedo documentary of your presidency 3 yrs into what could be your only term, and attaching a heavy bias to it which pretty much equates to "I am the president who wants to pull the wool over your eyes, do you like me? please like me? pretty please?")


1) So many times I have heard this push by the president to call this "The worst economic crisis since the great depression". I know it has a nice ring to it, but it's not accurate. The wartime economy during WWII was where the large impact to public debt occured that would hang as a black cloud over the US. The inherant need for the Marshall Plan would necessitate a long term financial plan based on creating debt, to offer payments to other nations, so they could repay us that debt. In the meantime our economy lagged. Those payments were not finally repaid until the mid 2000s. Now Obama has increased the debt to levels not seen since WWII. That's a more appropriate comparison. Also, there have been numerous other serious economic collapses in the meantime, such as the Stock Market crash in 86, the formation of OPEC and the rise in fuel causing gas lines in the 70s to name a few. Each time the economy has a small panic, there are a few years of hard times, before the economy recovers. There are many indicators that the economy was not recovering as they had wanted it to. Just a couple month's ago, Bernanke said the recovery is "frustratingly slow".

2) This emphasis on how great the ARRA was doesn't truly represent how unsuccessful it truly was. Most of the projects shown in the video would more than likely not have qualified for the ARRA funds, since they had to be "shovel ready" at the time of the act. For large extensive projects of those magnitude there are years of planning that needs to go into them, which was not provided for by this act. Here in MA, there is a proposed extension to the MBTA's Green Line, which they were requesting federal funds for at the time. They were not able to get any of the ARRA funds for that project, which has now stalled and ultimately is likely not to get completed, since it wasn't "shovel ready".

3) What tax cut did he give the middle class? He was going to raise tax rates across the board, until caving in to pressure from the right to extend the Bush Tax cuts.

4) There is a very telling line about the auto-bailout. "Auto Executives had asked for another bail-out". First, off... Using the term Auto Executives seems to indicate that it's all of them. Ford Motor Corp restructured and recovered on their own, without bailout money. However, that seems to be how Obama treated GM, like it was the US Govt's state run auto-industry. So when GM's first auto bail-out didn't work, why would you cave into giving them another? That was such a poor decision. The government already has a perfectly functioning system to protect businesses in this type of crisis. It's bankruptcy. Eventually that's how Obama would treat this problem, however, not until after he caved in to "pressure" that they identify, and just handed them yet more billions of taxpayer money. Then he went way out of line, and broke every sound legal agreement of this country, and violated the terms stipulated his position by the US Constitution, and tried to a) make personnel decisions of a private corporation, and b) bought out a private industry, at a rate which could never be recovered thus permanently taking ownership of a major auto-maker, and c) forced a domestic company to merge with a foreign company, furthur violating the bounds of the constition. The only thing this video appropriately details of this bailout, is just how opposed to this action the American people are. The president is supposed to do the will of the people. However, most of the other details are conveniently left out. All they do is focus on how if he didn't give the bail-out jobs would've been lost. Guess what, jobs were lost. GM went on a structured bankruptcy, fired enough employees to streamline production, and then are now getting to re-hiring them. Again, Ford Motor Corp did the same thing on their own, without Obama giving them billions, and then buying them out. That proves a clear example that the free market would've succeeded, and that were was no true need for the wasting of taxpayer money, nor the complete violations of the constitution involved.

5) They've painted the healthcare bill as saving people money... when all estimates is that the costs of this healthcare bill are skyrocketing and contributing to major increases of the deficit, and debt. The video paints how his judgement was skewed by personal feelings. However, he then even acknowledges, how it isnt politically wise to be giving away so much money, when we don't have the money to be giving, yet he does so anyway. Where does the president think this money is going to come from?

6) He promised an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq on the campaign. This withdrawal actually matched the staged withdrawal which Bush had set up. His policy in Iraq was basically what Bush's was.

7) LMFAO @ them suggesting his presidency would have been over if the operation to assasinate Osama bin Laden was botched. In truth, there had been several opportunities to try and get bin Laden, dating back to the Clinton Administation, and though none of them were successful, they didn't end a presidency, or even look bad on each of the presidents who made such an attempt.

8) "He restored science to its rightful place." You mean he reopened pandora's box into the ethics of cloning, and or creating embryos just to run tests on? That's not science that's mad science.

9) "He increased mileage standards which will reduce oil imports." That's a key line they likely wish wasn't in the video now that gas prices are soaring...

10) "He doubled production from newables". Is that what really occured? Or is it that he gave large sums of federal funds to companies which then turned and went overseas, or just went bust all together?

11) Many of these series of acts that they are giving credit to Obama for, are bills that originated in the legislature, that he is just simply putting ink to paper on. Then he's shamelessly taking credit, for what turn out to be run of the mill legislative decisions which occur in almost every administration. None of them have any lasting impact on the people, or have anybody cheering, "Thank you Obama for restoring science, and making children have higher standards across 46 states...

12) He makes light of the fact that he violated the constitution by appointing Robert Cordray with a recess appointment, when the congress was not in recess, to bypass the fact that his nomination was not getting approved. He was even censured by a House Resolution for the act. One of a number of censure resolutions which have come up as a result of the President's blatant disregard for the Constitution.

13) "They changed the way the world sees us" Really? Bloodshed in Afghanistan. Anti-America demonstrations go on still, daily.

14) "He placed two experienced jurists on the Supreme Court". Wow, really? What amazing work he did to do that... what did that involve again?

15) I LOOOOVE how their job graphic is not only inaccurate to scale, but also covers up the portion under his administration where the job market plummeted.

16) "With business booming, they repaid their loans" However, their loans were fairly low. The huge part of that money we will not see in the first auto-bailout, and the GM stock buyout, which the video avoids mentioning. They still are on the hook for a $35B stock buyout. How can you claim you are making a profit, when the US Govt owns a 60% share in your stock?

17) Everytime I look at the stage ensembles he makes up, it just shows off what a phony showpiece he thinks he is. Remember the large Columns in Denver? Just wait until you see what phony stage theatrics he will have in Charlotte. Not only wool over your eyes, but smoke and mirrors as well.

18) Funny, no mention of the Troops in Libya... No mention of Cash for Clunkers... No Mention of broken promises of closing down Guantanamo, met with, yeah Bush was right on how to handle this... No mention of shutting down NASA (in case you were watching this in FL)... No mention of how the national debt grew faster under this president than any of the 43 prior presidents... No mention of turning down the Keystone Pipeline... No mention of a mid-term drastic shift change in congressional seating as a pushback against Obama... No mention of all those golf rounds, which suddenly halted amid criticism from Romney... Selective editing no doubt?


In the end, one has to question ultimately... if the accomplishments they're attempting to tout here in this video are as good as they try to make them seem... why then would they need to make a 17 minute high priced hollywood production to make that claim? Wouldn't their successes stand out on their own? Truth is even he sees that many of the swing voters who hoped on board the hope and change express have changed their minds about him.

However, nothing seems to change after that video. It hardly seems worth it. If you like Obama, I'm sure you liked it. If you don't like Obama, you more than likely disagree with much of it. If you're in between, I don't see that it sways you either way...
 
Last edited:
Few people, including myself, are going to watch a 16 minute long self pump-piece. The style reminds of the waves of pro Ron Paul videos. They would think "if people would only watch this PR they certainly will support Paul. The Obama supporter OPer appears to have that opinion about this video. It just another political video.
 
Last edited:
I think this a funny thing, what about the road wave traveled
 
Few people, including myself, are going to watch a 16 minute long self pump-piece. The style reminds of the waves of pro Ron Paul videos. They would think "if people would only watch this PR they certainly will support Paul. The Obama supporter OPer appears to have that opinion about this video. It just another political video.

I think you are right that it will not convince anyone to support Obama that is opposed to him. But I don't think that was the target audience, I think this was intended to create excitement among his base for the direction he is leading the country. He has not been very good up to this about communicating the accomplishments he's made to the toxic conditions he inherited. I think this will help in that regard. And I think the production quality is better than most political ads I've seen, which always helps. I'm also a big fan of Tom Hanks and was glad to see him come forward to support the president with his talent.
 
My thoughts after watching this...

(aside from the complete bogus grandoise nature of creating a 17 minute psuedo documentary of your presidency 3 yrs into what could be your only term, and attaching a heavy bias to it which pretty much equates to "I am the president who wants to pull the wool over your eyes, do you like me? please like me? pretty please?")

1) So many times I have heard this push by the president to call this "The worst economic crisis since the great depression". I know it has a nice ring to it, but it's not accurate. The wartime economy during WWII was where the large impact to public debt occured that would hang as a black cloud over the US. The inherant need for the Marshall Plan would necessitate a long term financial plan based on creating debt, to offer payments to other nations, so they could repay us that debt. In the meantime our economy lagged. Those payments were not finally repaid until the mid 2000s. Now Obama has increased the debt to levels not seen since WWII. That's a more appropriate comparison. Also, there have been numerous other serious economic collapses in the meantime, such as the Stock Market crash in 86, the formation of OPEC and the rise in fuel causing gas lines in the 70s to name a few. Each time the economy has a small panic, there are a few years of hard times, before the economy recovers. There are many indicators that the economy was not recovering as they had wanted it to. Just a couple month's ago, Bernanke said the recovery is "frustratingly slow".

The stock market crash was not in 1986, it was in 1987. It was not because of macro-economic situation but due to programme tradings. Only the 70's is comparable to this recession, and by most objective measure, this recession is worse, there's no point claiming otherwise. WWII and the Marshal Plan gave the US advantage that saw its rise to become the biggest economic power. Don't try to claim to that it was a burden. You can make criticism of Obama without having to go against the facts.


2) This emphasis on how great the ARRA was doesn't truly represent how unsuccessful it truly was. Most of the projects shown in the video would more than likely not have qualified for the ARRA funds, since they had to be "shovel ready" at the time of the act. For large extensive projects of those magnitude there are years of planning that needs to go into them, which was not provided for by this act. Here in MA, there is a proposed extension to the MBTA's Green Line, which they were requesting federal funds for at the time. They were not able to get any of the ARRA funds for that project, which has now stalled and ultimately is likely not to get completed, since it wasn't "shovel ready".

The recovery Act seems to have been a flop for the most part.


3) What tax cut did he give the middle class? He was going to raise tax rates across the board, until caving in to pressure from the right to extend the Bush Tax cuts.

False. Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010: Information Center


4) There is a very telling line about the auto-bailout. "Auto Executives had asked for another bail-out". First, off... Using the term Auto Executives seems to indicate that it's all of them. Ford Motor Corp restructured and recovered on their own, without bailout money. However, that seems to be how Obama treated GM, like it was the US Govt's state run auto-industry. So when GM's first auto bail-out didn't work, why would you cave into giving them another? That was such a poor decision. The government already has a perfectly functioning system to protect businesses in this type of crisis. It's bankruptcy. Eventually that's how Obama would treat this problem, however, not until after he caved in to "pressure" that they identify, and just handed them yet more billions of taxpayer money. Then he went way out of line, and broke every sound legal agreement of this country, and violated the terms stipulated his position by the US Constitution, and tried to a) make personnel decisions of a private corporation, and b) bought out a private industry, at a rate which could never be recovered thus permanently taking ownership of a major auto-maker, and c) forced a domestic company to merge with a foreign company, furthur violating the bounds of the constition. The only thing this video appropriately details of this bailout, is just how opposed to this action the American people are. The president is supposed to do the will of the people. However, most of the other details are conveniently left out. All they do is focus on how if he didn't give the bail-out jobs would've been lost. Guess what, jobs were lost. GM went on a structured bankruptcy, fired enough employees to streamline production, and then are now getting to re-hiring them. Again, Ford Motor Corp did the same thing on their own, without Obama giving them billions, and then buying them out. That proves a clear example that the free market would've succeeded, and that were was no true need for the wasting of taxpayer money, nor the complete violations of the constitution involved.

The free market would have taken GM apart if the industry could even survive that. It freaked them so much, Ford was begging for government help for its competitors. Ford was lucky it had money going into the crash, so it only accepted government "loans", instead of an actual "bailout". If you think GM should be gone, then fine. If not, be thankful there was a bailout. Same with the banking industry. The constitution was not violated since GM and Chrysler agreed to the bailout.


5) They've painted the healthcare bill as saving people money... when all estimates is that the costs of this healthcare bill are skyrocketing and contributing to major increases of the deficit, and debt. The video paints how his judgement was skewed by personal feelings. However, he then even acknowledges, how it isnt politically wise to be giving away so much money, when we don't have the money to be giving, yet he does so anyway. Where does the president think this money is going to come from?

The same place the Republicans think they will get it to cut taxes for everyone, keep the military at the same size, and previous to the pullout, to stay in Iraq and a surge in Afghanistan for some, followed by a moon base. The US healthcare system is screwed either way.


6) He promised an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq on the campaign. This withdrawal actually matched the staged withdrawal which Bush had set up. His policy in Iraq was basically what Bush's was.

Most people are just happy there's a withdrawal at all. It's Guantanamo that he will have to face up to his failed promise.

7) LMFAO @ them suggesting his presidency would have been over if the operation to assasinate Osama bin Laden was botched. In truth, there had been several opportunities to try and get bin Laden, dating back to the Clinton Administation, and though none of them were successful, they didn't end a presidency, or even look bad on each of the presidents who made such an attempt.

No other President made the call to have a SEAL team raid a compound in Pakistan to kill Bin Laden that we know of. Obama did. Give him credit where credit's due. But he would be wise to not overplay that hand and lessen its impact.


8) "He restored science to its rightful place." You mean he reopened pandora's box into the ethics of cloning, and or creating embryos just to run tests on? That's not science that's mad science.

No, it's science. Punishing scientists for researching on the embryonic stem cells line they deemed suitable to their research by withholding federal funding because of religious beliefs was a stupid policy, and it was right to overturn it. Science should never be subjugated to irrational religious beliefs. Ethical questions should be addressed openly and objectively. When embryos are destroyed every day, it make no sense to think that it can't be used for stem cells research.


9) "He increased mileage standards which will reduce oil imports." That's a key line they likely wish wasn't in the video now that gas prices are soaring...

One doesn't have anything to do with the other. The US is a net exporter of refined oil products: U.S. Becomes Net Oil-Product Exporter | InvestorPlace. It was a stupid line because some Americans are just clueless enough actually believe that one has to do with the other.


10) "He doubled production from newables". Is that what really occured? Or is it that he gave large sums of federal funds to companies which then turned and went overseas, or just went bust all together?

Neither occurred. The government made loan guarantee to companies that failed. The ad claimed they were "on track" to doubling renewable energy, whatever "on track" actually means. Renewable energy production has increased, but not by that much.

11) Many of these series of acts that they are giving credit to Obama for, are bills that originated in the legislature, that he is just simply putting ink to paper on. Then he's shamelessly taking credit, for what turn out to be run of the mill legislative decisions which occur in almost every administration. None of them have any lasting impact on the people, or have anybody cheering, "Thank you Obama for restoring science, and making children have higher standards across 46 states...

Sure, if you have no criticism of the bills, it's Obama taking "shameless credit". All spending bills are passed by the legislature, never stop anyone from blaming the Presidents for them.
 
12) He makes light of the fact that he violated the constitution by appointing Robert Cordray with a recess appointment, when the congress was not in recess, to bypass the fact that his nomination was not getting approved. He was even censured by a House Resolution for the act. One of a number of censure resolutions which have come up as a result of the President's blatant disregard for the Constitution.

The Republican-controlled house should have tried to impeach him then, but political theater was the order of the day.


13) "They changed the way the world sees us" Really? Bloodshed in Afghanistan. Anti-America demonstrations go on still, daily.

So the world comes down to Afghanistan?

14) "He placed two experienced jurists on the Supreme Court". Wow, really? What amazing work he did to do that... what did that involve again?

Being President, nominating the nominee, get Congress to approve them.


15) I LOOOOVE how their job graphic is not only inaccurate to scale, but also covers up the portion under his administration where the job market plummeted.

You should see the graph again.


16) "With business booming, they repaid their loans" However, their loans were fairly low. The huge part of that money we will not see in the first auto-bailout, and the GM stock buyout, which the video avoids mentioning. They still are on the hook for a $35B stock buyout. How can you claim you are making a profit, when the US Govt owns a 60% share in your stock?

Simple - when they made a profit. Having a government as a shareholder doesn't change the basic accounting.


17) Everytime I look at the stage ensembles he makes up, it just shows off what a phony showpiece he thinks he is. Remember the large Columns in Denver? Just wait until you see what phony stage theatrics he will have in Charlotte. Not only wool over your eyes, but smoke and mirrors as well.

And this criticism just show what a small person you are. Seriously, who cares what prop was put on stage?


18) Funny, no mention of the Troops in Libya... No mention of Cash for Clunkers... No Mention of broken promises of closing down Guantanamo, met with, yeah Bush was right on how to handle this... No mention of shutting down NASA (in case you were watching this in FL)... No mention of how the national debt grew faster under this president than any of the 43 prior presidents... No mention of turning down the Keystone Pipeline... No mention of a mid-term drastic shift change in congressional seating as a pushback against Obama... No mention of all those golf rounds, which suddenly halted amid criticism from Romney... Selective editing no doubt?

You have to ask that? If you haven't got that from the title and the source, it doesn't say much for your intelligence.

In the end, one has to question ultimately... if the accomplishments they're attempting to tout here in this video are as good as they try to make them seem... why then would they need to make a 17 minute high priced hollywood production to make that claim? Wouldn't their successes stand out on their own? Truth is even he sees that many of the swing voters who hoped on board the hope and change express have changed their minds about him.

However, nothing seems to change after that video. It hardly seems worth it. If you like Obama, I'm sure you liked it. If you don't like Obama, you more than likely disagree with much of it. If you're in between, I don't see that it sways you either way...

Since you're no where "in-between" how would you know whether it sway them or not? Politicians of all stripe spend millions of dollar on these ads for a reason.
 
Last edited:
So....

Giant long campaign ad.

Great. It'll make those that like Obama cheer and those that dislike Obama moan and be too long and obnoxious for it to have much affect on those tha tdon't give a ****.

Wonderful investment.

I think I'll pass on giving a **** about this propoganda. Perhaps there was no thread on this because the "hype" as you stated doesn't really exist outside of staunch left wing circles
 
I finally watched this....and can only say I feel a bit sorry for the GOP. This is a very well done campaign commercial/Documentary, and will be very hard to counter.

Obama Campaign Biopic: "The Road We've Traveled" | RealClearPolitics

It is a very slick commercial and I am sure it will sway some people but you can also convince people through slick advertising that feeding their kids some sugar laden brightly colored cereal is giving your kids a good breakfast and now that I think about it those will be the moms that vote for obama after seeing his commercial.
 
So....

Giant long campaign ad.

Great. It'll make those that like Obama cheer and those that dislike Obama moan and be too long and obnoxious for it to have much affect on those tha tdon't give a ****.

Wonderful investment.

I think I'll pass on giving a **** about this propoganda. Perhaps there was no thread on this because the "hype" as you stated doesn't really exist outside of staunch left wing circles

Of course you would have that reaction as you are not the intended audience. Seems pretty clear that the ad is intended to fire up the Democratic base and bring in campaign donations. I'd give it a B in that context. A+ for production values ... C+ for content.
 
I finally watched this....and can only say I feel a bit sorry for the GOP. This is a very well done campaign commercial/Documentary, and will be very hard to counter.

Obama Campaign Biopic: "The Road We've Traveled" | RealClearPolitics


483776_3530135179224_1447580397_33308890_693835530_n.jpg
 
Of course you would have that reaction as you are not the intended audience.

I know

It'll make those that like Obama cheer

I fully understand what the point of the propoganda piece is. That said, at first blush it seems a rather inefficient means of getting enthusiasm and enticing campaign donations given the potential cost of the thing and alternatives that could've been done. Obama's alreayd been a fundraising juggrnaught and didn't have much issue exciting the base last time out. It just seems a bit like a Michael Bay approach to campaigning
 
he should of called it "triumph of the will"....



(oh noe he di int! GODWINZZZZZZ!!!!!!!!!!)


:pimpdaddy:
 
Grass-roots reactions to Obama's 'The Road We've Traveled' video

"In choosing to debut a new documentary-style video at “watch parties” across the country, the president’s campaign was getting early feedback on the organizational and grass-roots potential of the 2012 iteration.

A chance to see that video, "The Road We've Traveled," drew about 40 campaign supporters and volunteers to one of those events at a small field office just outside Cleveland, an area where the campaign must turn out a sizable vote if it is going to again carry the Buckeye State in the fall.

This particular office opened in February, on Presidents Day, and is one of 11 that are open across the state."

"Many in the group nodded in approval at various points of the film, and applauded moments like the passage of healthcare reform.

The local volunteer coordinator bracketed the film with appeals for those on hand to sign up for phone banking or "one-on-ones." One visitor who planned to sign up to volunteer wondered if there was a cheat sheet he would have for "hard questions" he might get from voters.

Beverly Darling of Brecksville already has been fielding such questions. She said the film left her that much more motivated "to bring people into the organization and make them feel like I feel about it."

She's been hosting house parties to bring in groups, even if it's just six people at a time, to get people motivated for the reelection fight, an effort she acknowledged has been tougher than it was four years ago.

That's why the campaign is mobilizing so early, even as the Republican nomination fight still rages. Steve Holecko, a teacher and volunteer from Middleburgh Heights, noted that in the 2008 campaign Parma didn't have a volunteer office open until late August.

"People say that the grass-roots campaign in Ohio is not going to be anything like it was in 2008. Well they're right. It's going to be bigger," he said. "This army of volunteers we're developing, through phone calls, through word of mouth."

Grassroots reactions to Obama's "The Road We've Traveled" video - latimes.com
 
I think the video is really good, and I think it should be directed at independents and liberals. For Republicans it will not work, because it assumes too much.

However through the video, I noticed they skipped many topics. I heard nothing about the war in Libya, nothing about the deficit. And even though they mention the wall street regulation, it is a lie that it can't happen again or that it will be effective. The wall street regulation bill is just a complete mess, who will open up heaps of loopholes. They also don't mention that many of Obamas laws failed, because they kept adding bad laws to good laws. Like how they tried to add the dream act to don't ask don't tell.

But despite this, I am happy McCain didn't win, and I think Obama will do a better job than Romney.
 
I expected someone might attempt a point by point response... but I figured it would be from some ultra liberal die-hard defender of the president. However, in your criticism, you seem to indicate you mostly agree with my assessment of the film, but disagree with me on individual points, and have less problem with the video's existence. I probably should just let it go at that. However, I do feel a desire to respond to several of the criticisms.

The stock market crash was not in 1986, it was in 1987. It was not because of macro-economic situation but due to programme tradings. Only the 70's is comparable to this recession, and by most objective measure, this recession is worse, there's no point claiming otherwise. WWII and the Marshal Plan gave the US advantage that saw its rise to become the biggest economic power. Don't try to claim to that it was a burden. You can make criticism of Obama without having to go against the facts.
I was simply making the case that the economy is cyclical, and it rises and falls. This is nothing new. This was not the depression, this was not the trouble of the wartime economy. It rivals closely several other panics such as the 73 recession. I personally feel the economic crisis was over hyped by this administration, even before coming into office they kept using the term the worst financial crisis since the depression, to both lower the standards of his performance, and to attempt to take credit for the recovery that was bound to happen. Am I wrong? Has he not been attempting to do such?

You're right about the Marshall Plans ultimate impact, however, at that time after winning the war, we had become that dominant economic power already. The trouble was we were in debt, too. That debt sat like a weight under the US economy, but it had been dwindling until recent administrations. Prior to WWII, and the subsequent Marshall Plan money we had never had large scalle peacetime debt to deal with, and since they it has for some reason become an acceptable proposition, which it should not be.

It's one thing to run up a small temporary debt for a sudden need. It's an entirely other to keep adding debt on top of debt with no end in sight. One could argue by all the funds the government has spent, and by the addition of so much debt right now currently we are in a worse situation as a result, not a better one. (Just today I heard David Axelrod going on about a new spending program the administration is gonna try and push through... enough is enough).


The recovery Act seems to have been a flop for the most part.
Both TARP and ARRA seem to have been huge wastes of government money, not focused on the true source of recovery. However, this President wants to deflect most of this on Bush, and not take credit for the true expense he cost the US Taxpayers. Both Bush and Obama are responsible here for panic spending. To say that something had to be done in the crisis does not say any action is then acceptable.

False. Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010: Information Center

Maybe you and I disagree about what the middle class is... Those are all small pittance relief measures to low-income families. Most people in those income groups fail to take advantage of those tax breaks as well, since they can't afford decent tax preparation, and just quickly file EZ forms. That's also in 2010. In 2008 during the campaign and in 2009 when he came in he wanted to raise tax rates across the board, including raising the 10% bracket back to 15% as it was under Clinton. He changed his mind and conceeded to Republicans on extending the Bush tax cuts, fearing they may have been seen as a source that the economy wasn't recovering. Realistically his tax plan is tax the rich feed the poor -- the Robinhood approach. Unfortunately in the Robinhood approach there was a tyrrant government unjustly taxing everyone, while the king was away. In this scenario Obama is that tyrrant, and no king is going to come save us from him.


The free market would have taken GM apart if the industry could even survive that. It freaked them so much, Ford was begging for government help for its competitors. Ford was lucky it had money going into the crash, so it only accepted government "loans", instead of an actual "bailout". If you think GM should be gone, then fine. If not, be thankful there was a bailout. Same with the banking industry. The constitution was not violated since GM and Chrysler agreed to the bailout.

That's the myth they want you to accept. The reality is something different. GM could have filed for bankruptcy, restructured internally and recovered just the same (if not faster). Instead, they wasted initial TARP funds, and took advantage of additional TARP funds, but still failed to grasp the restructuring aspect. That's a flawed business model. Flawed business models are supposed to collapse. Not get government backing to ensure permanent existence. The permanent existence of a failing market will always be a hinderance now to the US government. Yes, it is a major violation of the US Constitution, regardless of what GM felt about it. The US Government has no right to take over ownership of a private corporation in the US Constitution, and its even strictly forbidden in one article. It also can't stand in a free market based system because it gives the government a conflict of interest in matters involving the auto-industry or any other economic factor which effects their ownership of GM. The SEC was created to prevent this from going on in the private sector, they should also have stepped in to challenge the illegality of such an ownership model, and prevented the deal from occuring.


The same place the Republicans think they will get it to cut taxes for everyone, keep the military at the same size, and previous to the pullout, to stay in Iraq and a surge in Afghanistan for some, followed by a moon base. The US healthcare system is screwed either way.

Republicans don't have a monopoly on "right", and many have not lived up to their conservative values. However, this video was not about illustrating the ineffectivity of spending over budget, it was lauding the president for doing so. If you want to throw both Republicans and Democrats under the bus for their job of balooning the debt as high as it is, I'm there with you. If you want to point fingers, and ignore the problem it does no one any good. This President is the one who is currently responsible for what is going on, the buck was supposed to stop there. In and election year difference to his blatant mis-use of government funds and spending over budget is dangerous. This ought to be the focal point of the election, not birth control or Rush Limbaugh, or even Joe the Plumber. On the Republican side they seem to be correctly bashing their candidates wreckless spending proposals. The moon base idea cost Gingrich all the momentum he thought he gained in SC. Romney, the most fiscally sound of all the candidates has the commanding lead in the race.


Most people are just happy there's a withdrawal at all. It's Guantanamo that he will have to face up to his failed promise.
But there hasn't been a withdrawal from Afghanistan, and it seems worse right now than it has since we first went in. Guantanamo will be something he faces criticism about, but the Republicans don't want it closed, so they won't run on that. They will run on the misguidedness of the mission in Afghanistan, and Obama hanging those troops out to die, i mean dry, without a clear objective at the moment. However, ultimately, this President will likely get the criticism that he went back on campaign promises and just adopted Bush's policies when he took office, and that Reps are glad he came around to it.


No other President made the call to have a SEAL team raid a compound in Pakistan to kill Bin Laden that we know of. Obama did. Give him credit where credit's due. But he would be wise to not overplay that hand and lessen its impact.
You're kidding, right? Clinton shot missiles at entire compounds in Sudan and Afghanistan trying to get him twice. Bush did the same on 3 occasions. Bush sent an entire army over there to oust the Taliban which supported him, and put the troops in the position to be able to gather the intel on Osama's whereabouts. They made 2-3 noteable air strikes to bomb compounds they believed he was at. Now, this the video made the claim "If he was wrong, his Presidency would've been over". That's the most gross misstatment of any political event I have ever heard. 1) his presidency would've gone on either way, 2) the American people who elect him weren't gonna be upset at an attempt to try and kill Osama. Obama wants to claim this strike was a tough call, it really was a no brainer. He also wants to take ALL the credit for it, when it was the culmination of years of effort to track and kill this guy and to displace al-qaeda as a major terror network which could threaten the stability of the "civilized" world (whatever that means). However... have you seen the video?

No, it's science. Punishing scientists for researching on the embryonic stem cells line they deemed suitable to their research by withholding federal funding because of religious beliefs was a stupid policy, and it was right to overturn it. Science should never be subjugated to irrational religious beliefs. Ethical questions should be addressed openly and objectively. When embryos are destroyed every day, it make no sense to think that it can't be used for stem cells research.
No one punished scientists... Just funding for a controversial piece of research was stopped... and rightfully so...

Scientist always want to purport these huge potential discoveries from stem cells. However, in reality, the science behind stem cell research has been around for about a century, and the only real treatment we have from it is to assist in bone marrow transplants for people with lukemia. This government funding wasn't going to make or break anything.

There's nowhere in the constitution that says "The federal government should be the biggest lender of venture capital". If these things people say really are viable, then there would be a market for them. Thus, they should be able to survive in the free market, without taxpayer money. Tax payer money is not meant to go to things like funding open-ended stem cell research.

Now, when you say science should never be subjected to irrational religious beliefs, I agree. That's not the case here. This was that open ethical debate which needs to be had. However, if the government is actively funding it, then the debate is not being held. It's granted as accepted by all. That's hardly the case.

This is yet another divisive social issue which the government is meant to either stay straight down the middle on, or sit it out.

Stopping federal funding for stem cell research was actually one of Bush's finest moments. He actually debated both sides on the issue, and in the end went right down the middle on it. It stepped on both sides toes, but it was the right call. The government is meant to mitigate potential conflict, not create it. Siding with one side over the other does not accomplish that end.

Right to lifers want all stem cell research banned. Liberal scientists want complete federal funding dumped into it in large quantity. Bush chose not to ban it, but to stop federal funding for it, allowing research to continue if there was a market enough for it. That's the way government ought to work in such matters.
 
Sure, if you have no criticism of the bills, it's Obama taking "shameless credit". All spending bills are passed by the legislature, never stop anyone from blaming the Presidents for them.
That's not true. The President has the power to draft legislation for bills. It's one thing if the President drafts the bill, gives it to a congressman to submit, and Congress approves it, and then he wants to become the showpiece for it. It's another if the hard work of legislatures were the origin of the bill, and they put the further work to get it to pass, then the guy who signed it into law wants to take that credit from them as his work. Most times if the bills are attributed to others, they give the accompanying names credit.

I never said there are no criticisms of the bills, it just makes it seem like these bills were his ideas (which might be used as a rationale for keeping him in office), but they arent. He's a puppet head. The truth is, this president has few if any truly original ideas. He is just a mouthpiece for more liberal thinkers that influenced him, Saul Alinsky, Derrick Bell, etc. and the more liberal movers and shakers like Rahm Emanuel. The bills he has signed were more the work of Nancy Pelosi and common place Democratic pols, who with control of both houses and the executive branch ushered in a new era of wreckless spending not matched before.

As far as taking responsibility, again, the buck is supposed to stop there. This was a common refrain I heard from liberals bashing Bush for increased spending. Now suddenly the president doesn't have the power of veto? Oh, wait he still does, and could...

The Republican-controlled house should have tried to impeach him then, but political theater was the order of the day.
So says the video anyway... :roll:

They are attempting to do so with HR 107.

So the world comes down to Afghanistan?
I didn't say they come down to Afghanistan... those anti-US rallies aren't just in Afghanistan. However, if Bush's War was in Iraq, this president said we should focus on Afghanistan, and the situation is worse off now than it was under Bush. Point is still, US is hated worldwide, regardless of what country you're in, even with our allies.

Being President, nominating the nominee, get Congress to approve them.
Exactly my point... His great stoke of genius was a supreme court justice stepping down, and then fulfilling his duty of nominating a replacement... wow great job there Obama, what a wonderstroke of brilliance. (I think you missed the sarcasm. Adding your own adds nothing to this, unless you feeled necesarily compelled to respond to absolutely every point)

You should see the graph again.
I have... here it is;
File:UsJobs 200709 201112.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Except, in the video, for the months after the innauguration, they "conveniently" put a blue rectangular box which covers the bottom of the lines where we were losing huge amounts of jobs under Obama.

However, this is what it originally looked like;
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/d/d0/20120223213134!UsJobs_200709_201112.jpg

Notice the difference? Like I said, it's been changed to look more beneficial to the president.

It was also shown at an angle and with the pace in the video to make it seem job additions are skyrotting at such resounding rates... (even to the point that the screen closed in on the positive numbers so they took up the entire screen, so compartively they looked as equal to the losses).. when theyre really just stagnantly recovering slowly to 2007 levels. They also showed it slowly for the economic downturn under Bush to overemphacize that.

Also, for perspectives sake, it would be nice to have the graphic extended to see in comparison with similar economic recovery periods for a comparative...

Simple - when they made a profit. Having a government as a shareholder doesn't change the basic accounting.
No, but there's a serious ethical quandry which they don't seem to care about. $35B of taxpayer money is the majority stake owner of your organization, which the national debt is growing faster than ever before. You'd think they'd responsibly buy the stock back, slowly. However, they're shamelessly the socialist industry Obama wanted to create. However, their reports of record profits pale to those organizations like Ford, Toyota and Honda, which made their own recovery, and are still just as competitive.

(One might also point to the appropriate market reductions on Toyota and Honda for the sudden disproportionate government recalls against them after the government bought ownership of their competitor, as well as Ford's production delays from problems experienced by Japanese part manufacturers in the wake of the Tsunami as not competiting on the same level for that small period where they claim these temporary profits.)

And this criticism just show what a small person you are. Seriously, who cares what prop was put on stage?
One that knows in a time of economic downturn, when a president is wasting sooooo much money on his personal image, it goes further to the point that he has no idea what the true priorities of the country are, and believes in the socialist propaganda mentality, and throwing government money at a problem until enough is given that something happens.

You have to ask that? If you haven't got that from the title and the source, it doesn't say much for your intelligence.
You're really not good at picking up sarcasm, are you? Might actually speak to the level of your intelligence...

Since you're no where "in-between" how would you know whether it sway them or not? Politicians of all stripe spend millions of dollar on these ads for a reason.
I'm more in between than just about anybody you could point to. I have voted for Democrat, Republican, 3rd Party, Independent, and written in many candidates.

For president 92 I wasn't old enough to vote but was a fan of Clinton (D) and actively campaigned for him, in 96 Dole (R), in 2000 I voted Nader (G), in 2004 I wrote-in Nader (WI), and in 2008 I wrote in Romney (WI). For Governor I voted Harshbarger (D) in 98, in 2002 I voted Romney (R), in 2006 I voted Mihos (Ind). 2 Dems, 2 Reps, 2 write-ins, 1 3rd Party, and 1 Ind. That's as diverse a voting record as you will find, which truly represents my centrist views.

However, you would be right not to call me a "swing" voter, since I'm not gonna get wrapped up by some propaganda peice on any candidate and change my views.

Politicians of NO stripes have done something like this before. This is as extravegant a piece as has ever been concocted, by a President who knows he is in real trouble for re-election.

I forgot to add, my thoughts were on how much Goldsbie looks like a twit, and how Rahm Emanuel just gives off the appearance of evil...
 
Back
Top Bottom