Democratic convention

  • Thread starter Thread starter scipio337
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
oldcelt said:
Reagan had a veto and did not use it. Further, the only President to slow the deficit rate was Bill Clinton and he had a Democratic Congress early in his term.

The numbers are there.

John
Click to expand...
Clinton budget majic came after Newt took over the house.
 
prodigalson2011 said:
That is a completely unfair comparison. Demonstrate one way in which D’ Souza resorts to dishonesty to make his case. Have you even read or seen either of the works I cited? My strong suspicion is that you haven’t.
Click to expand...
D’Souza’s film is made up, false, not a reflection of Obama’s thinking about the U.S. and the world. Here’s one review – there are a bunch of others.

movies.yahoo.com/news/fact-check-anti-obama-film-muddy-facts-072153385–politics.html
 
oldcelt said:
Has a real nice graph
Click to expand...
Wikipedia also has a real nice graph… of U.S. federal debt overlaid with partisan affiliation of the White House and Congress:



Clinton deserves very little credit for the momentary blip down, even though praise is lavished upon him by virtually all MSM. Federal tax receipts exploded due to the Y2K spendout and associated tech and internet bubbles. It had nothing to do with his policies; he just got lucky.

CNN’s Jack Cafferty and CBS’s Mark Knoller have noted that the US national debt in nominal dollars has increased more rapidly under President Obama than under any other U.S. president, and that it had increased by $4 trillion since the beginning of his term of office. Because debt is cumulative and generates interest, it has shot up dramatically in the past three years and is at its highest levels in about 70 years.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics provides the data that suggests Congress’ priorities are out of whack. Currently, civilian unemployment is higher than at any point in the post-war period save for a brief spike in the early 1980s when the Federal Reserve briefly used contractionary monetary policy to fight inflation. Already its clear that unemployment is falling much more slowly than it did in 1981. And when people get back to work, revenues will climb, and deficits will shrink on their own.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE_Max_630_378.png
 
Clinton deserves very little credit for the momentary blip down, even though praise is lavished upon him by virtually all MSM. Federal tax receipts exploded due to the Y2K spendout and associated tech and internet bubbles. It had nothing to do with his policies; he just got lucky.
Click to expand...
Naturally,

Oh, the bottom graph shows that Obama isn’t far off of Reagan’s performance regarding unemployment.

John
 
prodigalson2011 said:
For anyone who doubts Obama’s contempt for America, I urge you to go to your nearest theater and see 2016: Obama’s America (by Dinesh D’souza and the producer of Schindler’s List). Or, if you haver the time, read D’ Souza’s book “The Roots of Obama’s Rage.” Almost all of the points he makes come straight from the horse’s mouth. I defy anyone to deny the accuracy of his investigation. The conclusion is downright frightening. It’s not a slander piece either. I actually felt a deep swell of empathy for Mr. Obama, who has had a very unusual and painful life. D’ Souza seems to feel as much. Unlike Michael Moore, Dinesh does not take pot shots at the president’s personality or intelligence, and while some psychological conjecture is made, it is never derogatory and always well supported by corroborating statements from the president himself, as well as some of his close mentors (heads up: his association with Pastor Wright had nothing to do with religion or “black credibility,” but everything to do with the shared political ideology of Wright and Obama’s father. This is amply demonstrated in the film) and close personal friends and cohorts of his father (who Obama openly admits is his greatest inspiration). Tellingly, one of Obama, Sr.'s associates, who worked side by side with him for many years says Obama II’s policies are “exactly like those of his father.” We are then treated to some of the political writings of Sr., and sure enough, they line up perfectly with Jr.'s record. The more honest statement of the intended effect, however, is damning if unsurprising.

I can’t urge you enough: tell your friends, tell your family. Not only for his attack on religious liberty and support for abortion, but for the safety of this country and the free world, this man CANNOT be reelected.
Click to expand...
I concur,saw it last weekend. Sadly the one’s who would most benefit from this documentary most likely won’t bother to see it.😦
 
Riverton_Grammy said:
It was a great lineup.

And I thought it was remarkable that certain “news” networks cut away from coverage whenever any person from any minority group was speaking. Apparently they need to continue to show that the Republican party is strictly a party of old white men, even if that isn’t true.
Click to expand...
I found this to be so frustrating,yet not,surprising. While Suzana Martinez was speaking,i switched to oneof the mainstream channels and of coures ,rather than show her,they cut awayto a panel of the usual suspects including Diane Sawyer,Bob Schiffer,George Stephanapolis…blechhhhhhh:mad:
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
Sorry I haven’t read the book some of you folks worship, but I can claim to have read only one of his works, “What’s so Great about Christianity.” A decent and fine read, but I find him too much of a right wing ideologue to want to go further into what else he’s written.
Click to expand...
Snarky…
 
_Abyssinia said:
Cardinal Dolan in Charlotte: a looming disaster for democrats

catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=932
Click to expand...
I found this fascinating:

***One way or another—because he is treated rudely, as an enemy; or because he is treated politely, as a foreign dignitary—Cardinal Dolan’s appearance in Charlotte will help Catholic voters to notice that they are no longer “at home” in the Democratic Party. Like the cardinal they may be accepted as guests, but as long as the Democratic Party embraces the culture of Death, Catholic Democrats will be operating on alien territory.

Cardinal Dolan offered to attend the convention if his presence was wanted. The truth is that he is not wanted. But the Democratic Party has chosen to pretend, and that is a serious tactical error***

Interesting also that the writer didn’t mention the original kerfluffle when Cardinal Dolan made the offer, was rebuffed and then after perhaps some pressure, was re-invited. He’s right the Cardinal is not likely welcome, particularly if the Benediction speaks of human life and unborn babies. I suspect it will as he included this in the RNC Benediction.

As I said, hope he brings a gallon of Holy Water and prays for the many lost souls

Lisa
 
oldcelt said:
See above, BTW, McConnell made that statement in October 2010…expect to see it again soon…in a Democratic ad.

Joihn
Click to expand...
Honestly John, I fail to see why the comment is even inflammatory. Of COURSE as a Republican he wants ANY Democrat in the White House gone as soon as possible. How much hostility was directed at President Bush…Harry Reid called him “a loser” and Nancy P had many choice phrases.

We have a two party system and never the twain will meet. I think it would be silly and disingenuous if Republican in Congress pretended they didn’t want Obama gone, soon as possible.

Lisa
 
pete_29 said:
It looks like it’s more than a year behind to me.
Click to expand...
A key issue is that during recessions, Reagan, G. H. W. Bush and G. W. Bush increased government employment significantly, which reduced unemployment. During the Obama presidency, the number of people employed by the government has been reduced. A recent estimate is that overall unemployment would be lower by about one percent if government employment were increased by levels similar to such increases under Reagan.
 
Alan55 said:
D’Souza’s film is made up, false, not a reflection of Obama’s thinking about the U.S. and the world. Here’s one review – there are a bunch of others.

movies.yahoo.com/news/fact-check-anti-obama-film-muddy-facts-072153385–politics.html
Click to expand...
Are the bunch of others as lacking in evidence as the one cited? The one cited is opinion versus opinion. That does not demonstrate that D’Souza’s film is a falsehood, and a great deal is left out of the cited article. And, of course, it picks at one uber-leftist Obama association without disclosing that virtually every influence in Obama’s life was hard leftist, and many still are.

There were things in D’Souza’s film that I would have differed with. But bringing light to the indisputable fact that Obama’s background is overwhelmingly hard left is not one of them.
 
_Abyssinia said:
Ap undoes its own ‘fact check’ on D’souza’s 2016: Obama’s America

breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/08/28/The-AP-Undoes-Its-Own-Fact-Check-on-D-Souza-s-Obama-2016
Click to expand...
I was going to say that the “fact-checks” need to be fact-checked. 😛

They mostly take issue with Dinesh D’Souza’s opinions…that isn’t a fact-check. They even get some of their “facts” wrong. For example, when the movie shows the $16T debt, it shows a breakdown by president. Also, I don’t recall D’Souza “asserting” that Obama believes in the Hawaii separatist movement. He explained the anti-colonialism existant in Hawaii as part of what Obama grew up exposed to…along with his Communist mentor that the fact-checks don’t happen to discuss. (Hint: that is because they know that Obama’s mentor in Hawaii was an anti-American Communist)

Their comment on Osama bin Laden is laughable. D’Souza doesn’t have to mention the assasination of Osama. There are plenty of other actions by Obama that show a “sympathy to pro-jihadist Muslims.”

Finally, the Falklands?
The Obama administration once again has sided with Argentina – and by default, against Britain – in the ongoing dispute over the island chain at the center of a 1982 war.
In a move one British conservative analyst called “hugely insulting to Britain,” the Organization of American States earlier this week adopted a declaration calling for negotiations between the United Kingdom and Argentina over the “sovereignty” of the Falkland Islands. While the U.S. delegation did not speak in support of the measure,** it ultimately joined a consensus adopting it**.

Read more: foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/10/obama-administration-backs-argentina-over-uk-on-falkland-dispute/#ixzz25Ae7fctu
Click to expand...
🤷
 
Ridgerunner said:
There were things in D’Souza’s film that I would have differed with. But bringing light to the indisputable fact that Obama’s background is overwhelmingly hard left is not one of them.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I don’t share all of D’Souza’s opinions (e.g. not sure about the whole united muslim states idea), but he makes a very good case regarding Obama’s hard left background.
 
Alan55 said:
A key issue is that during recessions, Reagan, G. H. W. Bush and G. W. Bush increased government employment significantly, which reduced unemployment. During the Obama presidency, the number of people employed by the government has been reduced. A recent estimate is that overall unemployment would be lower by about one percent if government employment were increased by levels similar to such increases under Reagan.
Click to expand...
Look I find this hard to believe. Further that public employment increased under Obama, that was one of the big objections to him early on. Unemployment is minute in Washington DC and construction is booming there. I will agree that public employment then decreased but I have a hard time beliving there were or would be enough government employees to make that much difference in the entire country’s rate.

I was around during Carter and there was REAL unemployment. Not as bad as now because it didn’t seem as long term but Reagan turned it around all over the country. It was not led by increases in Federal employees.

Lisa
 
LisaA said:
Recently heard a note of irony that in watching the RNC someone might have thought it was the DNC because of the young and diverse group of speakers.
Click to expand...
Well, the diversity certainly wasn’t represented in the audience. That’s for sure.

Pretty white bread America.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top