Usually, I don't read or post comments on YouTube under President Obama's weekly addresses because they are filled with moronic, non-thinking statements - and really, who wants to be subjected on a Saturday morning to the fact that almost half the country's citizens are either brainwashed by the Fox News/Rush Limbaugh faction, or are complete morons, idiots and racists, or a combination of all of the above?
But after watching President Obama's innocuous address today regarding the remembrance of our troops on this Memorial Day weekend, I went against my better judgment and decided to see who could possibly disagree with the President on something as nonpartisan as "supporting the troops." That was my first mistake. The vitriol was palpable, you know, because there are those who insist on disagreeing with the President about everything. And so after reading a few comments from the Obama haters, I had to chime in and got into a debate with another commenter.
The following is what I can put together in hopefully the correct chronological order. I've also included links to references I made that aren't allowed in YouTube comments.
Broadway Carl: It's pretty amazing to see such ridiculously nasty comments regarding this particular video message. The hatred against this President astonishes me, even when he's making a statement about honoring the fallen on Memorial Day; a simple, mundane message that has been repeated by every President before our current one. And yet some will call this political exploitation. Those same idiots would also criticize him had he not made this type of statement. Q: How do you live with such hatred day to day?
Joey Juarez 1: To quote Queen Moochelle Obama, it sounds like for the first time in your adult life, you are proud of your country, Carl...and what is amazing is that this president will single-handedly bring this country to it's knees and you don't care at all about that...
BC: People like you say stuff like that all the time, joeyjuarez1, but you never have any facts to back it up. President Obama will "single-handedly bring this country to its knees"? How? By saving the auto industry? By destroying Al-Qaeda? By cutting taxes for 95% of all Americans? By stopping us from going over the financial cliff we were headed for? Prove it and stop talking in simplistic GOP/Fox News talking points. Don't just parrot what someone else says because you want to believe it, prove it.
JJ1: He "saved" the auto industry???? Dude, he threw tens of thousands of non-union auto workers under the bus! Now that $85 million dollar bail out is part of the $6 Trillion dollar debt that he's racked up "single-handedly"!! AND he brags about it!
BC: Auto bailout facts from 8/25/11 LA Times: "After a massive restructuring and several high-profile bankruptcies, a leaner, more aggressive auto industry is making a comeback, hiring workers and ramping up manufacturing plants. From a trough 2 years ago, Ford, General Motors, Chrysler and other auto companies have added almost 90K manufacturing jobs, a 14% increase, according to federal employment data."
Every economist agrees over one million manufacturing related jobs were saved.JJ1: Oh, wow...this dude...the LA Times?? The articles says "TAXPAYERS bailed out much of the U.S. auto industry. Now the CARMAKERS MIGHT be what saves the nation's economy from falling back into recession." Remove your blind Choombama cataracts and put your glasses on and learn to read and not "spin" the facts...what a liberal!
I'll pause at this point to point out that he's called me "dude" twice, referred to Michelle Obama as "Queen Moochelle," apparently in reference to the false meme that she's some kind of moocher, and now calls President Obama "Choombama." I don't even know what the fuck that means. But we continue:
BC: Yes, I used the conservative LA Times to make a point. And I did point out the article is 9 months old. But who made the decision? And if it was such a bad one, why is Romney trying to take credit for it when he originally wrote an op-ed titled, "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt"? And before you say that it was structured bankruptcies that he was in favor of, remember that there was no private equity flowing - even Bain passed on it. So the government was the only solution. Hell, even Bush knew that.JJ1: He destroyed Al-Qaeda (this from a man who didn't want them referred to as "terrorists")...he is sending 1.5 BILLION DOLLARS in military aid to the Muslim Brotherhood...and the terrorism continues...BC: If you're going to claim funds going to the Muslim Brotherhood, you should read up on these pesky little things called facts instead of Breitbart or Beltway Pundit.
From The Guardian: "US officials and lawmakers said Sec of State Clinton has determined that it's in the US national interest to allow $1.3 billion in military assistance to flow. She also certified that Egypt is meeting its obligations to the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty, which frees up an additional $200 mil in economic aid... All of the $1.3 billion in foreign military financing is obligated to pay U.S. defense and security companies for contracts they have to supply equipment and support for the Egyptian military."
So no, it's not going to the Muslim Brotherhood. Good try, though.
Need I mention Osama Bin Laden is dead? Maybe, but I didn't.
JJ1: There you go, leaving out facts to "spin" the article your way once again...the beginning of the article says: "The OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TOLD CONGRESS on Thursday it will waive democracy requirements to release up to $1.5 billion in aid to Egypt despite concerns that the country is backsliding on commitments it made to democratic governance and rule of law." Read and don't spin, stupid!BC: Continue reading, jackass. It's going to US contractors. "All of the $1.3 billion in foreign military financing is obligated to pay U.S. defense and security companies for contracts they have to supply equipment and support for the Egyptian military." Not the government, not the Muslim Brotherhood, the military.
My main point remains: the guy can't even commend the troops on Memorial Day without guys like you criticizing it as some ulterior motive. You'd think everyone would agree with something so nonpartisan, but no. Hate and fear trumps even thanking the troops.JJ1: Carl, buddy, you're missing the point...this guy has lied over and over and over again that when we see him on camera, when we hear his lying voice and false words filled with false promises, we can't help but scorn everything that comes out of his mouth...like one politician stated to Choombama 'YOU LIE!!!" and he continues to lie and you believe him...
BC: Joey, I'm asking you to show me what he's lied about. Give me one example where he's been caught in a red handed lie, you know, like Romney saying Obama has "doubled the deficit." Just give me a few examples if he's lied so much.
JJ1: So, Carl, do you REALLY think that Obama has our best interests at heart? Are you really buying into the lie that things are getting better? One only needs to look around and see what is really going on all around us...businesses closing down, multiple families living together to make ends meet, not being able to travel across town to see relatives because gas is too high, opting for no-name brand products at grocery stores, less out-to-eat evenings or "sharing plates" at restaurants...really?
BC: Yes, I do. Maybe it's not as fast as we'd like, but things are getting better. Unemployment is slowly coming down. The only reason it isn't lower is because public sector work is being slashed, you know, that "smaller government" stuff. We were losing 700,000 jobs a month 3½ years ago. Stock market is up 5000 points in the last 3 years. Retail and growth are up. Gas prices are down from this time last year and have dropped the last seven weeks in a row (not that any administration can affect gas prices directly, that's just another straw man argument).
JJ1: The WSJ: Number of the Week: Half of U.S. Lives in Household Getting Benefits - "As of early 2011, 15% of people lived in a household that received food stamps, 26% had someone enrolled in Medicaid and 2% had a member receiving unemployment benefits. Families doubling up to save money or pool expenses also is likely leading to more multigenerational households. But even without the effects of the recession, there would be a larger reliance on government."
The Census data show that 16% of the population lives in a household where at least one member receives Social Security and 15% receive or live with someone who gets Medicare. There is likely a lot of overlap, since Social Security and Medicare tend to go hand in hand, but those percentages also are likely to increase as the Baby Boom generation ages.With increased government spending comes the need to pay for it, and if taxes aren’t going to increase that means deficits. Nearly three-quarters of Americans blame the U.S. budget deficit on spending too much money on federal programs, according to a Gallup poll last year, but when the conversation turns to which programs to cut, the majorities are harder to find. For example, 56% of respondents oppose making significant changes to Social Security or Medicare.The more people who receive benefits, the harder it’s going to be to make cuts, and it’s never popular to raise taxes. In some respects that argues for letting a combination of tax increases and spending cuts that is set to automatically hit in 2013 take effect. There’s just one problem: the Congressional Budget Office says it would sink the economy into recession.BC: I agree with your entire last comment. So where is the lie? The CBO also says that Obama's current budget would decrease the debt by $2 trillion over 10 years, while Romney's would raise the debt $5 trillion over the same period. But it's Obama that's pointed to as spending like a drunken sailor when he's lowered the budget each of the last three years.
JJ1: The Food Stamp President
BC: So those people that you just used as an example of things not getting better, you'd cut off their government assistance until they get back on their feet?
JJ1: Senator Obama crossed the country promising that his campaign, and administration would be the most transparent in history. He promised that he wouldn’t allow lobbyists in his staff, or money in his funds. That was in 2007, as it stands today the President has accepted millions of dollars from lobbyists and special interest groups. The President even took it one step farther by appointing many of those lobbyists into positions of power and influence.
BC: I'm not entirely happy with it, but hey, it's politics.
"...another watchdog, Meredith McGehee of the Campaign Legal Center, praised Obama’s rules as “a good starting place” and urged patience in judging their efficacy.
“Any good set of ethics rules has the opportunity for waivers, but if the waivers become the rule, rather than the exception, then you have to look at whether the waivers are being sought too frequently or whether there’s a problem with the rule. I don’t think we’re at that point yet.”
I did fail to mention that, while not as transparent as we hoped the Obama administration would be, there's no doubt that they've been more transparent than any previous administration has been. I also didn't bring up the "No lobbyists" rule was defined as no one who'd been a lobbyist the previous two years - with few exceptions that continues to be the case. And while I may consider it a "promise broken," I wouldn't call it an outright lie. Lies are intentionally told to conceal something or to malign another. But I digress...
JJ1: "President Obama falsely claimed that no Republicans in the Senate voted for the payroll tax cut. “Virtually every Senate Republican voted against the tax cut last week,” he told reporters.
There's only one huge problem. The statement is completely false. According to the Senate Roll Call, twenty Republicans voted for the measure to proceed, including Idaho's Mike Crapo and James Risch. On the other hand, every Democrat but one voted against it."
BC: Don't try conflating the two separate bills (I know it's not you necessarily, but the author of the article you site).
S. 1917 (Middle Class Tax Cut Act of 2011) was a 51-49 vote. No Republican voted for it.
S.1931, which the author tries to confuse the reader with, could be more accurately described as ONLY 20 Republican Senators voted for it. It failed 20-78, which means 27 Republican Senators voted AGAINST it, with all the rest of the Democrats.
JJ1: Carl, vote for Obama in Nov 2012, ok...you are all too happy to do so...thank you for contributing to the ruin of the lives of the American people...we thank you so much...your blind eyes will never let you see...your drone mind will never change...continue to support this sheep in wolves clothing...not until all of American's cities turn into what Detroit is today will you fully understand what will happen if this man stays in office...good luck...
BC: I will, and you'll thank your lucky stars in avoiding a President Romney who says things depending on which way the wind blows any given day. Thanks for having the conversation though. I appreciate it. Good luck.
ShareThis