America's first half-White president

[jimpeel]

The important fact is that your claim that "no one knows anything about him" was a silly thing to say and completely debunked by Bish. Anyone that pays attention knows quite a bit about him.

Then why did two of the most politically informed and savvy commentators in America -- Tom Brokaw and Charlie Rose -- say the following in an interview:

Montage of the Charlie Rose Tom Brokaw interview.

ROSE: I don't know what Barack Obama's worldview is.

BROKAW: No, I don't, either.

...

ROSE: I don't know how he really sees where China is.

BROKAW: We don't know a lot about Barack Obama and the universe of his thinking about foreign policy.

...

ROSE: I don't really know. And do we know anything about the people who are advising him?

BROKAW: Yeah, it's an interesting question.

...

ROSE: He is principally known through his autobiography and through very aspirational (sic) speeches.

BROKAW: Two of them! I don't know what books he's read.

...

ROSE: What do we know about the heroes of Barack Obama?

...

BROKAW: There's a lot about him we don't know.

Watch the interview yourself.

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/9330

 

[jimpeel]

Jim, I didn't say any of those things. You are trying once again to setup a straw man argument. It's incredibly easy to recognize and shoot down straw man arguments and doing so is getting very routine and boring .

You said "Why would you say "like Carter's did" when you have the most recent Bush presidency that tanked much worse than Carter's?" in answer to my post on his presidency tanking like Carter's did. There was no "straw man" unless you are speaking of the one in "The Wizard of Oz". I answered in kind with facts that are public history.

You seem to be focused on economic measures for unknown reasons.

I'm focused on economic matters because that is the number one concern of Americans today. Note from the graph just what is lowest on their priorities.

http://people-press.org/report/485/economy-top-policy-priority

It wouldn't be a hard argument to make that current general economic conditions are at least as bad as in Carter's time and probably a good bit worse. Unemployment is certainly comparable as well.

How do you get "at least" from that? Seven and a half percent unemployment is not double digit unless you are unwilling to acknowledge the decimal. In that case, it would, of course mean that Carter's unemployment numbers were in the triple digits.

Interest rates are nowhere near 5% let alone the 21% of Carter's time.

Inflation is nowhere near Carter's 13.5%.

Hell, Reagan took over Carter's mess and he said "Government is not the solution. Government is the problem." He then slashed taxes and turned the economy around by letting people spend more of their own money in the marketplace.

By the time Reagan left office Interest rate, 9%, Inflation, 4.1%, Unemployment, 5.5%.

We'll see what Obama's numbers are when he leaves office.

Now we have a guy taking over Bush's mess, that is half as bad as what Reagan was faced with, and he says "Only government can solve these problems." He now wishes to raise taxes thereby taking capital out of the economy and letting Washington spend it on infrastructure projects that none of us will be able to afford to drive on.

The point is Bush has screwed up so bad and has such a huge list of failures and a much lower approval rating than Carter that it's the obvious choice when looking for an example of a presidency that tnked.

The only thing that you got correct in that statement was "a much lower approval rating than Carter".

 

[catocom]

those %ages add up to way more than 100%.
How you supposed to read that first chart?

 

[2minkey]

those %ages add up to way more than 100%.
How you supposed to read that first chart?

that kind of stuff is pretty common. it depends on how the survey questions were worded and how the data was lumped. people could have been asked to pick their five "top priorities" off a big list. so, of course, almost everyone is gonna pick, well, the top items.

think of the percentages as more of a relative weighting of importance than something that needs to add up to 100.

 

[catocom]

that kind of stuff is pretty common. it depends on how the survey questions were worded and how the data was lumped. people could have been asked to pick their five "top priorities" off a big list. so, of course, almost everyone is gonna pick, well, the top items.

think of the percentages as more of a relative weighting of importance than something that needs to add up to 100.

exactly
I have seen those kinda charts, and never liked um.

Better methods are out there.

That's why I only trust very selective, polls, stats, and other gathered data.

 

[Inkara1]

Yeah, the key word in the chart is A top priority, not the top priority.

 

[spike]

Then why did two of the most politically informed and savvy commentators in America -- Tom Brokaw and Charlie Rose -- say the following in an interview

Well shit, if those two said it it must be true! A lot of people know more about Obama than they do about McCain Jim. Information about his foreign policy stances is freely available on his website.

 

[spike]

You said "Why would you say "like Carter's did" when you have the most recent Bush presidency that tanked much worse than Carter's?" in answer to my post on his presidency tanking like Carter's did. There was no "straw man" unless you are speaking of the one in "The Wizard of Oz". I answered in kind with facts that are public history.

Right Jim, I said Bush's presidency tanked much worse than Carter's. Which it did.

You then proceeded to post the following.

"Are you then saying that:

The current economy is in double digit inflation -- like Carter's was?

The current economy is in double digit unemployment -- like Carter's was?

The current economy has 20% interest rates -- like Carter's was?

That is all news to me -- and the rest of the nation as well."

This is the very definition of a Straw Man argument Jim. Look here:

"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:


Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed."


Perosn A says "the Bush presidency tanked worse than Carter's(X)"
Person B says "Are you then saying that the current economy is in double digit inflation(Y)"
Person B attacks postion Y
Therefore X is false.


Are you following this yet? What you've done is a perfect example of a straw man argument. You do it all the time and they are extremely easy to shoot down.

I'm focused on economic matters because that is the number one concern of Americans today.

Awesome, then you'll note that we're in "Worst Crisis Since '30s, With No End Yet in Sight"

How do you get "at least" from that? Seven and a half percent unemployment is not double digit unless you are unwilling to acknowledge the decimal. In that case, it would, of course mean that Carter's unemployment numbers were in the triple digits.

"In fact, the annual unemployment rate while Carter was president never rose above 7.1 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Furthermore, annual unemployment rates were higher during the presidencies of Carter's predecessor, Gerald Ford (R), and his successor, Ronald Reagan (R)."

http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200611300003

"7.8 percent (1976), when Jimmy Carter defeated incumbent Republican President Gerald Ford, who replaced Nixon after he resigned; 7.5 percent (1980), a recession year when Ronald Reagan defeated Mr. Carter; 7.2 percent (1984), when Reagan won re-election in a landslide over Walter Mondale"

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/may/25/unemployment-and-presidential-elections/

Compound annual growth rates of real GDP under post-WWII Presidents, measured from inaugural year to inaugural year:

Kennedy-Johnson - 4.9%
Clinton - 3.5%
Reagan - 3.5%
Nixon-Ford - 2.9%
Carter - 2.7%
Ike - 2.6%
Bush II - 2.3%*
Bush I - 1.9%

www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls

The only thing that you got correct in that statement was "a much lower approval rating than Carter".

Actually you haven't shown a single thing I said to be incorrect. But if you actually want to use concerns of Americans as an indicator instead of trying to pick and choose some numbers we should be using the approval rating.

Instead you're trying to pick a couple random figures and make an illogvial leap to make them represent the whole of the presidency. Low interest rates are nice but they can also be indicative of a poor economy. What usually triggers the fed to lower the interest rate Jim?

 

[Cerise]

all that matters is how he will lead, which is yet to be seen...

Campaign promises may not mean anything to you, but how about Executive Orders?

Are you saying it doesn't matter to you what motivates him -- what is in his past, what he thinks is none of your business. Or why he feels that way?

Barack Obama has not released transcripts for his grades from Occidental College, Columbia University and Harvard Law. He has also not released his SAT and LSAT scores. No explanation has been offered for not releasing them.

I'm sure he has a perfectly good reason for not revealing any transcripts from his education .

But everybody knows about Bush's "gentleman's C's" don't we, 'minks?

Obama's Lost Years

But Mr. Obama is a case apart. His personal story, as told by him, made possible his rise from obscurity four years ago to possibly the White House. He doesn't have a long track record in government. We mainly have him in his own words. As any autobiographer, Mr. Obama played up certain chapters in his life -- perhaps even exaggerating his drug use in adolescence to drive home his theme of youthful alienation -- and ignored others. What's more, as acknowledged in "Dreams From My Father," Mr. Obama reconstructed conversations and gave some people pseudonyms or created "composite" characters.

Voters and the media are now exercising due diligence before Election Day, and they are meeting resistance from Mr. Obama in checking his past. Earlier this year, the AP tracked down Mr. Obama's New York-era roommate, "Sadik," in Seattle after the campaign refused to reveal his name. Sohale Siddiqi, his real name, confirmed Mr. Obama's account that he turned serious in New York and "stopped getting high." "We were both very lost," Mr. Siddiqi said. "We were both alienated, although he might not put it that way. He arrived disheveled and without a place to stay." For some reason the Obama camp wanted this to stay out of public view.

Such caginess is grist for speculation. Some think his transcript, if released, would reveal Mr. Obama as a mediocre student who benefited from racial preference. Yet he later graduated from Harvard Law School magna cum laude, so he knows how to get good grades. Others speculate about ties to the Black Students Organization, though students active then don't seem to remember him. And on the far reaches of the Web can be found conspiracies about former Carter national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, who became the candidate's "guru and controller" while at Columbia in the early 1980s. Mr. Brzezinski laughs, and tells us he doesn't "remember meeting him."

What can be said with some certainty is that Mr. Obama lived off campus while at Columbia in 1981-83 and made few friends. Fox News contacted some 400 of his classmates and found no one who remembered him. He had transferred from Occidental College in California after his sophomore year because, he told the Boston Globe in 1990, "I was concerned with urban issues and I wanted to be around more black folks in big cities." He got a degree in political science without honors. "For about two years there, I was just painfully alone and really not focused on anything, except maybe thinking a lot," he told his biographer David Mendell.

---Why has Obama refused to discuss the clients he served when he worked for the law firm of Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland in Chicago?

Nobody's business and again, IRRELEVANT!

It is everybody's business!!!! Do the words "Subprime Loans" mean anything to you????

"In a 1995 case known as Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank, Obama and his fellow attorneys charged that Citibank was making too few loans to black applicants and won the case. As one commentator noted in May 2008, legal “successes” such as this were probably responsible for the sub-prime mortgage crisis of 2007. That is, banks were not loaning to blacks whose credit was poor. When the law forced them to lend money anyway, the inevitable collapse occurred."

http://www.otcentral.com/forum/showpost.php?p=611161&postcount=1


Rezko ties?

Probably the only relevant question, yet still a legal grey area at best.

An attorney for convicted fundraiser Tony Rezko is listed as the owner and taxpayer for Barack Obama's Chicago mansion......

Why should he? One does not have to renounce something to disagree with it as a whole or in part.

Dictionary.com is your friend.

Aren't you in line with the "Goddamn America" crowd and blaming the government for 9-11? Oh, sorry. Not so much the "America's chickens have come home to roost" part but believing Boooosh! actually pulled the trigger on us?

Bush never renounced Islam either, at least publicly!

C'mon. They don't let you out much, do they?

Not entirely sure, but I think this is also a attorney client privilege issue.

Maybe this will help you be entirely sure:


Woods Fund, Annenberg Challenge, Obama, Ayers

And how exactly does that differ from Bush and Cheney?

Depends on your level of paranoia.

Wow, your post truly scares me!

Truly? Your acceptance of your ignorance is predictable.

 

[jimpeel]

those %ages add up to way more than 100%.
How you supposed to read that first chart?

Read the line just below the title which reads "Percent rating each a "top priority"". That is the percentage of those agreeing with that particular subject as being their "top priority".

 

[jimpeel]

Right Jim, I said Bush's presidency tanked much worse than Carter's. Which it did.

You then proceeded to post the following.

"Are you then saying that:

The current economy is in double digit inflation -- like Carter's was?

The current economy is in double digit unemployment -- like Carter's was?

The current economy has 20% interest rates -- like Carter's was?

That is all news to me -- and the rest of the nation as well."

This is the very definition of a Straw Man argument Jim. Look here:

"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

I keep telling you that you should read for comprehension; and you keep ignoring me. Look, I mean REALLY LOOK at what you just wrote above. You even repeated what I stated -- although you obviously didn't read it before doing the cut n' paste.

I ASKED A QUESTION, AN INTERROGATORY IF YOU WILL.

I asked Are you then saying ... with a list of interrogatories to which you answered:

Jim, I didn't say any of those things.

So you took an interrogative sentence and turned it into a declarative sentence and accused me of using a straw man argument which you apparently do not understand because your own definition -- another cut n' paste -- states:

... when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

I didn't ignore anything. I asked you if that was your position and you said "No". I substituted nothing.

What you have chosen to do is to ignore history by making a declarative statement that Bush's presidency tanked "MUCH WORSE than Carter's". What I presented were the actual facts that in Carter's term:

the interest rates were in excess of 20%;

the inflation rate was in double digits.

I incorrectly stated that the unemployment rate was also in double digits. It was at 7.5% when Carter left office in January 1981. Just poke in the years -- 1977 - 1981 -- in the spaces provided and hit "go".

In Bush's term:

the interest rate never exceeded 9.5%;

the inflation rate never exceeded 5.6%;

and the unemployment rate when he left office was 7.5%, the same as Carter.

"In fact, the annual unemployment rate while Carter was president never rose above 7.1 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Furthermore, annual unemployment rates were higher during the presidencies of Carter's predecessor, Gerald Ford (R), and his successor, Ronald Reagan (R)."

You might try this link instead.

In fact it rose above 7.1% several times during Carter's term and was at 7.5% when he left office in January 1981. Just poke in the years -- 1977 - 1981 -- in the spaces provided and hit "go".

Compound annual growth rates of real GDP under post-WWII Presidents, measured from inaugural year to inaugural year:

Kennedy-Johnson - 4.9%
Clinton - 3.5%
Reagan - 3.5%
Nixon-Ford - 2.9%
Carter - 2.7%
Ike - 2.6%
Bush II - 2.3%*
Bush I - 1.9%

I said INFLATION RATE not GDP.

Actually you haven't shown a single thing I said to be incorrect. But if you actually want to use concerns of Americans as an indicator instead of trying to pick and choose some numbers we should be using the approval rating.

Instead you're trying to pick a couple random figures and make an illogvial leap to make them represent the whole of the presidency. Low interest rates are nice but they can also be indicative of a poor economy. What usually triggers the fed to lower the interest rate Jim?

By that logic, Carter's term should have been the best in American history. The interest rate was 21.5% in December 1980.

 

[randomJACKASS]

MmmmK! Well Cerise, you just keep worrying and whining and moaning about Mr. Obama, but by all means, please tell us how that's werkin for ya?!? Let us know what progress you've made toward removing him from office too!?!

One of two things is going to happen for you. Either he will be a complete disaster, in which case it should pay dividends for your wing of our one party, or, he will be a smashing success, and your pooch will be screwed!

It's just sour grapes, and though you'll not admit it, a deep seeded fear that he will succeed!

Fearing that our legally elected president will succeed.....Pretty damn sick if you ask me! With citizens like you.....God help us all!

You pretend to love America, but you don't, you love living in fear, changing the constitution to suit your warped perception of reality, and you hate America. The sad part is that you really believe otherwise!

 

[H2O boy]

Fearing that our legally elected president will succeed.....Pretty damn sick if you ask me! With citizens like you.....God help us all!

ok, i can concede that. being as completely fair as i know how, i can see your point and agree with it

now what say ye about those who did the same for the recently departed president? those who openly wished for his failure? those who went out of their way to paint any event as a failure? who wished to have him arrested on bunked up nonsense simply for the sake of publicity or agenda promotion, like the citizens of two vermont towns did and some on here advocate/d?

or is that different?

a nation at war, and its citizens actively hoping for failure. God help us all indeed.

 

[spike]

I keep telling you that you should read for comprehension; and you keep ignoring me. Look, I mean REALLY LOOK at what you just wrote above. You even repeated what I stated -- although you obviously didn't read it before doing the cut n' paste.

I ASKED A QUESTION, AN INTERROGATORY IF YOU WILL.

I asked Are you then saying ... with a list of interrogatories to which you answered:

Jim, I didn't say any of those things.

Yes Jim, why on earth would you try to attribute a bunch of shit to me that you know I didn't say. You're question "Are you then saying" was bullshit as you can easily see what I actually did say.

You were trying for a straw man like you do all the time.

I didn't ignore anything. I asked you if that was your position and you said "No". I substituted nothing.

I stated a position and you tried unsuccessfully to turn it into something different and got caught immediately.

What you have chosen to do is to ignore history by making a declarative statement that Bush's presidency tanked "MUCH WORSE than Carter's". What I presented were the actual facts that in Carter's term:

No you've ignored history and the fact that that there's a much more recent pres in Bush that has tanked much worse than Carter's.

I incorrectly stated that the unemployment rate was also in double digits.

Yes you were certainly incorrect.

I said INFLATION RATE not GDP.

Yes I know you want to pick and xhoose what to compare but I'm not playing your game. GDP obviously favors Carter.

By that logic, Carter's term should have been the best in American history.

You obviously don't understand logic then. Because by that logic it's just not an important stat.

Approval rating is a nice stat though to see what Americans think of a president.

 

[randomJACKASS]

ok, i can concede that. being as completely fair as i know how, i can see your point and agree with it

now what say ye about those who did the same for the recently departed president? those who openly wished for his failure? those who went out of their way to paint any event as a failure? who wished to have him arrested on bunked up nonsense simply for the sake of publicity or agenda promotion, like the citizens of two vermont towns did and some on here advocate/d?

or is that different?

a nation at war, and its citizens actively hoping for failure. God help us all indeed.

Show me where I ever did? With Bush I never hoped for failure, but I sure got used to it and came to expect it.

Oh, and so far as my "conspiracy theory", well I never said what exactly I believe, but I did say the goverment has not told us all it knows and I am sure of that. Beyond that I am hesitant to speculate, being as I was not there and had no part in any decisions.

What I know for sure is that the Bush administration used all the polictical capital 9/11 afforded it to start a war with a nation that had nothing to do with it, based on faulty intelligence and it failed miserably. We should have put that money into Afghanistan and we might not be getting whipped as badly there as we are right now. Think we are winning in Afghanistan? The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff may beg to differ.

 

[randomJACKASS]

Even the Marines want out of Iraq.

 

[H2O boy]

Show me where I ever did? With Bush I never hoped for failure, but I sure got used to it and came to expect it.

[/URL]

i never said you did. but you certainly seem eager to defend yourself from the accusation. maybe you do walk like a duck...

i said what of those who do? i would like your take on them since we have your take on those who fear obama success

chill out dude. no need for the tinfoil hat. yet

 

[Cerise]

Oh, and so far as my "conspiracy theory", well I never said what exactly I believe, but I did say the goverment has not told us all it knows and I am sure of that. Beyond that I am hesitant to speculate, being as I was not there and had no part in any decisions.

What I know for sure is that the Bush administration used all the polictical capital 9/11 afforded it to start a war with a nation that had nothing to do with it, based on faulty intelligence and it failed miserably. We should have put that money into Afghanistan and we might not be getting whipped as badly there as we are right now. Think we are winning in Afghanistan? The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff may beg to differ.

You have already stated what you profess to believe.

http://www.otcentral.com/forum/showpost.php?p=621731&postcount=22

That wasn't a bunch or Arab terrorists. I know how badly you want, maybe need to believe it was, but its funny how planes have struck lesser buildings in the past but this is the first time in recorded history one fell because of it, and wonder of wonders it took down two and a spare nearby one. It was an evil miracle! Yes I am a "conspiracy theorist", in that I do not for a minute believe what the goverment wants us to believe about 9/11, but no, I am not going to argue it with you because there is no point. I only know that the official account is quite far from what really happened.

 

[Cerise]

It's just sour grapes, and though you'll not admit it, a deep seeded fear that he will succeed!

Fearing that our legally elected president will succeed.....Pretty damn sick if you ask me! With citizens like you.....God help us all!

No, no. I thought it was racial, not sour grapes.

You're reading something there that's not: I have never said I "fear" Zero will succeed.

 

[randomJACKASS]

You have already stated what you profess to believe.

http://www.otcentral.com/forum/showpost.php?p=621731&postcount=22

No I said what I believe it was not. No matter; so why bother me at all then? Why not just settle into your compound with your assault rifles, grab yer bible and wait for the government to come take you out?