Obama "facts" circulating via e-mail

[Fantome]

I received the following e-mail more than once and I was hoping some of you would be interested in debating/de-bunking some of the so-called facts it contains.



Who's the Idiot??

If George W. Bush had doubled the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in just one year, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had criticized a state law that he admitted he never even read, would you think that he is just an ignorant hot head?

If George W. Bush joined the country of Mexico and sued a state in the United States to force that state to continue to allow illegal immigration, would you question his patriotism and wonder who's side he was on?

If George W. Bush had put 87,000 workers out of work by arbitrarily placing a moratorium on offshore oil drilling on companies that have one of the best safety records of any industry because one company had an accident, would you have agreed?

If George W. Bush had used a forged document as the basis of the moratorium that would render 87,000 American workers unemployed, would you support him?

If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a TelePrompTer installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?

If George W Bush had made a joke at the expense of the 'Special Olympics', would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of 'inexpensive' and 'incorrectly formatted' DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches,would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had stated that there were 57 states in the United States, would you have said that he is clueless.

If George W. Bush would have flown all the way to Denmark to make a five minute speech about how the Olympics would benefit him walking out his front door in Texas, would you have thought he was a self important, conceited, egotistical jerk.

If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

If George W. Bush had misspelled the word "advice" would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoes as proof of what a dunce he is?

If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?

If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?

If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

If George W. Bush had created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive?
Can't think of anything?
Don't worry.
He's done all this in 15 months --
so you'll have two years and nine months
to come up with an answer.

Every statement in this email is factual and directly attributable to Barrack Hussein Obama. Every bumble is a matter of record and completely verifiable.

LET'S SEE HOW MANY OF YOU FORWARD THIS...

[sundog66]

I know this is not the kind of reply you're looking for, but the sneaky thing about this list is that it doesn't contain any actual facts. It's just a collection of questions about hypothetical and counterfactual past situations, implicating but not entailing any facts about the current president. So before you waste your breath/finger movements on any "Obama didn't do that!"s, keep in mind that a technically correct response would be "Never said he did!"

[Richard Parker]

Fantome, can you really not see how this kind of stuff is only compelling to GOP partisans? Is this actually an e-mail you'd send to someone to persuade them?

[Fantome]

Originally Posted by sundog66

I know this is not the kind of reply you're looking for, but the sneaky thing about this list is that it doesn't contain any actual facts. It's just a collection of questions about hypothetical and counterfactual past situations, implicating but not entailing any facts about the current president. So before you waste your breath/finger movements on any "Obama didn't do that!"s, keep in mind that a technically correct response would be "Never said he did!"

Near the end of the email it's stated about Obama "He's done all this in 15 months." The people forwarding this know that every statement starting with "If George W. Bush had" is a claim that Obama did what follows.

Originally Posted by Richard Parker

Fantome, can you really not see how this kind of stuff is only compelling to GOP partisans? Is this actually an e-mail you'd send to someone to persuade them?

No, I wouldn't send it to anyone, but I would forward back intelligent responses from my fellow Dopers and I know some of the people I know that received this may be swayed by them and some of my friends that are Obama supporters would like to know the real facts.

[Pierrot Le Fou]

Originally Posted by Fantome

If George W. Bush joined the country of Mexico and sued a state in the United States to force that state to continue to allow illegal immigration, would you question his patriotism and wonder who's side he was on?

This did not happen.

[Pierrot Le Fou]

Originally Posted by Fantome

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches,would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic

The iPod had pictures and video from the Queen's visit to Virginia, not Obama's speeches.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/to..._your_Majesty/

[Snarky_Kong]

The debt went from like $13 trillion to $14 trillion, hardly doubled.

[elucidator]

The iPod had pictures and video from the Queen's visit to Virginia, not Obama's speeches.

So, he couldn't just e-mail the pictures? Has to squandor tax payer money on an I-pod? To pay off Steve Jobs, that Muslim computer guy? Connect the dot, people!

[GIGObuster]

First, the email was taken from The American Stinker Thinker:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/..._bush_had.html

At first glance this looks like a collection of half truths and misleading points. I will check the one closest to me:

If George W. Bush joined the country of Mexico and sued a state in the United States to force that state to continue to allow illegal immigration, would you question his patriotism and wonder who's side he was on?

Big whopper here, the point remains that Arizona is trying to override the federal government on how to deal with illegals, considering that the Republicans in Arizona are planning to do (The just elected -palling with neo nazis- leader of the legislature is on record that they are planning to bring to a vote proposals like removing the 14th amendment for anyone that is born in the US from illegal parents, so much for all that said that laws like SB 1070 were not the beginning of a slippery slope) suing the state to prevent items from SB 1070 from becoming law, is the least the federal government can do to reign over states that are considering passing truly unconstitutional legislation.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/05/ari...ka-dalmia.html

[SirRay]

This is fun, we can knock off 3 right away...

If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a TelePrompTer installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

Since President George was hardly the first president to use a Teleprompter (image of President Lyndon Johnson, I think the blue thing by the camera is the teleprompter), nobody really cares about that - of course, George could make verbal gaffs with or without Teleprompter help...

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved?

Sure I'd approve, but what if he had held hands with the Saudi King instead?

If George W. Bush had created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America, would you have approved?

According to wiki, President George W. Bush indeed had 32 Czars, and I really don't remember much sqawking about it during his administration - this may be an old list, as wiki has Obama at 39 now.

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by SirRay

Sure I'd approve, but what if he had held hands with the Saudi King instead?

Heck, Bush even kissed the Saudi King.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x99nt-LbNFM

[Shodan]

These kinds of things are only useful if you accept/reject the spin of one side as gospel. On the SDMB, this kind of thing is rejected out of hand as deceptive and dishonest. Unless it about Bush, which is, of course, quite different.

Regards,
Shodan

[Lightnin']

Originally Posted by Shodan

These kinds of things are only useful if you accept/reject the spin of one side as gospel. On the SDMB, this kind of thing is rejected out of hand as deceptive and dishonest. Unless it about Bush, which is, of course, quite different.

I thought this was Great Debates, not Do Anything To Get In A Partisan Dig.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Shodan

These kinds of things are only useful if you accept/reject the spin of one side as gospel. On the SDMB, this kind of thing is rejected out of hand as deceptive and dishonest. Unless it about Bush, which is, of course, quite different.

Now that we have your obligatory kick at hypothetical liberals in, do you have anything substantive to say?

This list overall relies on insinuations, exaggerations, and distortions to make a point. The things that I think Bush is rightly criticized for are literally matters of life and death: starting an unjust war, for example. To the extent that Obama has continued some of these policies, I think he deserves criticism as well.

But shit like iPodgate degrade our politics whether they're about a Republican or a Democrat.

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Shodan

These kinds of things are only useful if you accept/reject the spin of one side as gospel. On the SDMB, this kind of thing is rejected out of hand as deceptive and dishonest. Unless it about Bush, which is, of course, quite different.

Regards,
Shodan

If Barack Hussein Obama had invaded a country based on bad intelligence and cost 5,000 American lives in the process, would you support the war and label it part of the President's "Freedom Agenda?"

[joebuck20]

Originally Posted by Fantome

If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

I'd like to know what this is about. If he's referring to the Midwest floods of 2008, those happened under Bush's watch and only killed about a dozen people. If he's referring to the Arkansas or Tennessee floods this year those only killed about 20 and 31 people respectively (and aren't even really in the Midwest).
Katrina on the other hand killed close to 1,500 in the New Orleans area alone. And other than the disasters I've mentioned above I can't think of any other major floods that have happened in the U.S. the past few years, and certainly not anything comparable in scope to what Katrina did.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Shodan

These kinds of things are only useful if you accept/reject the spin of one side as gospel. On the SDMB, this kind of thing is rejected out of hand as deceptive and dishonest. Unless it about Bush, which is, of course, quite different.

Since we're in Great Debates-Cite?

[Implicit]

Originally Posted by sundog66

I know this is not the kind of reply you're looking for, but the sneaky thing about this list is that it doesn't contain any actual facts. It's just a collection of questions about hypothetical and counterfactual past situations, implicating but not entailing any facts about the current president. So before you waste your breath/finger movements on any "Obama didn't do that!"s, keep in mind that a technically correct response would be "Never said he did!"

Exactly. What is the point of refuting loaded questions like these?

The whole thing reads like "Has Obama stopped beating his wife yet?".

[joebuck20]

Originally Posted by Implicit

Exactly. What is the point of refuting loaded questions like these?

The whole thing reads like "Has Obama stopped beating his wife yet?".

If George W. Bush had fathered two children with a black woman....?

[gonzomax]

I loved the oil moratorium. The wells were evidently not inspected. They should have stopped the well drilling until inspection was done. That does not mean they all sit. Once one is inspected and found to be safe, it could continue. That means as they are determined to be safe, one after another they go back to work.

[BrightNShiny]

As far as I can tell, the gross debt when Obama took office was around $ 10.6T and it's about $ 13.8T now. That's not even close to doubling the debt. The statement is a lie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

I don't know who the following site is affiliated with, but the figures are in line with what I've seen bandied about before:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway

[BrightNShiny]

AFAICT, Mexico hasn't joined the US's lawsuit. It's submitted a "friend of the court brief." The US filed it's own lawsuit, so even if Mexico were to be added as a party, the US wouldn't be the one joining. But I can't find anything that says Mexico has been added as a party to the lawsuit in any case. I haven't really been keeping up on this item, so there may be other activity, but AFAICT, this statement is a lie as well.

http://www.aolnews.com/world/article...n-law/19527576

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10386190

[BrightNShiny]

Re: Obama thinking that Austrian is a language, here's the clip I found:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr7zhnctF4c

He says "I don't know what the term is in Austrian..." Meh. He didn't call it a language, and Austrian German is a dialect of German in any case. I have no idea if he actually thinks Austrian is a fully distinct language from German, or if he was using this as short-hand for a dialect, or if he was using it in the way I am when I say "I speak Texan." It's too vague to draw any conclusion.

[BrightNShiny]

Re: Number of Czars. There's no official definition of "czar" so the number is meaningless. Some positions get referred to as czar in the popular press and some don't, so I don't see how you can come up with an objective count.

However, if you just want to go by the criteria of a position not requiring Senate confirmation which was referred to in the popular press as a Czar, then here's the wiki list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...e_branch_czars

According to that list, Bush had 32 and Obama has 39. Big deal.

[BrightNShiny]

Originally Posted by Fantome

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

GM's CEO (Wagoner) was asked to resign (which he did) by the Obama administration as a pre-condition for receiving a second government bailout. Since the CEO was not fired, Obama didn't fire him.

Now, there is a question as to whether or not TARP funds could be used to bailout GM in the first place, since many people argue that TARP funds could only be used for financial institutions. The Bush administration, in the first auto bailout, however, used it's executive authority to declare that TARP funds were indeed available to bailout the automakers.

So, it was Bush who decided that TARP could be used for the auto bailouts. Now, if you want to argue that both Bush and Obama acted unconstitutionally by using TARP funds for the auto bailouts, that's one thing. But if you accept that Bush and Obama have the authority to use TARP funds in this manner, then it necessarily follows that Obama could refuse to dispense TARP funds without compliance by the receiving institution.

I'll categorize this one as a lie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects...s_and_timeline

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

This list overall relies on insinuations, exaggerations, and distortions to make a point.

Correct.

If George W. Bush joined the country of Mexico and sued a state in the United States to force that state to continue to allow illegal immigration, would you question his patriotism and wonder who's side he was on?

Obama's Justice Department did indeed "join" the Mexican government in legal opposition to an Arizona law. But calling that action intended to "force the state to continue to allow illegal immigration" is a highly questionable characterization. The law seeks to criminalize the presence in the state of illegal immigrants; the federal government contends that the law unconstitutionally intrudes on the federal sphere.

[BrightNShiny]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Obama's Justice Department did indeed "join" the Mexican government in legal opposition to an Arizona law. But calling that action intended to "force the state to continue to allow illegal immigration" is a highly questionable characterization. The law seeks to criminalize the presence in the state of illegal immigrants; the federal government contends that the law unconstitutionally intrudes on the federal sphere.

Let's be careful here. The statement isn't that Obama joined Mexico in condemnation or legal opposition, it says that Obama "joined and sued." If Mexico is not a party to the lawsuit, then it is not suing anyone, and if it were a party, it would be the one joining, not the US. Since, AFAICT, Mexico is not a party, then the Justice Department did not "join" with them in a lawsuit.

[Pierrot Le Fou]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Obama's Justice Department did indeed "join" the Mexican government in legal opposition to an Arizona law.

How did the Justice Department join with Arizona in the legal case? Here is the US's motion:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34998325/U...ary-Injunction

Mexico is not a co-plaintiff. Mexico was allowed to file a brief, but that does not mean the US and Mexico has joined together. When the ACLU files a brief in a terrorism case, it does not mean al Qaeda and the ACLU have joined together.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10386190

[Guinastasia]

Can't we establish a rule of thumb that "if it's in an e-mail forward, it's pretty much bullshit, no matter WHAT politcal slant it is?"

[MsRobyn]

Originally Posted by Guinastasia

Can't we establish a rule of thumb that "if it's in an e-mail forward, it's pretty much bullshit, no matter WHAT politcal slant it is?"

But but but... didn't you know that "rule of thumb" refers to the well-known fact that an Englishman could beat his wife with a stick no wider than his thumb?!?!!??? I know it's true because I saw it in an e-mail!!!1!!!

FWIW, I agree with you. If I get something that has FW: Re: in the header, it gets deleted, no questions asked.

[Really Not All That Bright]

If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?

I don't really give a shit if GM stock is in my retirement plan's holdings. I'm also unaware of any mechanism by which Obama gets to decide what stocks my retirement plan holds. "The unions" do not have a majority stake in GM. The largest shareholder is the Treasury, which holds 24% of GM stock. Nobody has a majority stake.

If George W. Bush had used a forged document as the basis of the moratorium that would render 87,000 American workers unemployed, would you support him?

No idea what this one is about.

If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to"Cinco de Cuatro"; in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

It wasn't the 5th of May. It was the 4th of May; Obama was joking about celebrating Cinco de Mayo a day early.

If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of 'inexpensive' and 'incorrectly formatted' DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

I would have disapproved of the Prime Minister's private secretary for not being able to find a goddamn region-free DVD player, that's for sure.

Relevant Snopes thread.

[conway]

Originally Posted by Lightnin'

I thought this was Great Debates, not Do Anything To Get In A Partisan Dig.

Hmmm...you must be new here.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Guinastasia

Can't we establish a rule of thumb that "if it's in an e-mail forward, it's pretty much bullshit, no matter WHAT politcal slant it is?"

Yes. If it's an email forward, it's pretty much guaranteed to be a mix of total bullshit, half truths, and biased commentary. It's also highly unlikely that a would-be debunker will be able to convince the sender of any of this.

[Bridget Burke]

Please give us the e-mail addresses of those who sent you this mess. Then we'll answer the debate directly.

(I'm joking. Surely the SDMB has rules against this!)

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by BrightNShiny

Let's be careful here. The statement isn't that Obama joined Mexico in condemnation or legal opposition, it says that Obama "joined and sued." If Mexico is not a party to the lawsuit, then it is not suing anyone, and if it were a party, it would be the one joining, not the US. Since, AFAICT, Mexico is not a party, then the Justice Department did not "join" with them in a lawsuit.

Originally Posted by Pierrot Le Fou

How did the Justice Department join with Arizona in the legal case? Here is the US's motion:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34998325/U...ary-Injunction

Mexico is not a co-plaintiff. Mexico was allowed to file a brief, but that does not mean the US and Mexico has joined together. When the ACLU files a brief in a terrorism case, it does not mean al Qaeda and the ACLU have joined together.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10386190

The word "join" here simply refers to joining forces, to the submission of an amicus brief pushing a particular view shared by Mexico.

[Cagey Drifter]

Just curious, has anyone ever seen a liberal email forward filled with obvious lies? Or a liberal email forward, period?

[Really Not All That Bright]

My friend e-mailed the other day to ask if I wanted her bedroom set.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Cagey Drifter

Just curious, has anyone ever seen a liberal email forward filled with obvious lies? Or a liberal email forward, period?

Liberals are too busy impregnating teenagers, taking drugs and spreading socialism to forward e-mails.



It's true - an e-mail told me.

[Snarky_Kong]

Originally Posted by Cagey Drifter

Just curious, has anyone ever seen a liberal email forward filled with obvious lies? Or a liberal email forward, period?

Is woo (auras, homeopathy, spirits) considered liberal?

[YogSosoth]

The only serious response the email deserves is to find whoever sent it to you and repeatedly punch them in the face with the facts. And fists.

[joebuck20]

Originally Posted by Cagey Drifter

Just curious, has anyone ever seen a liberal email forward filled with obvious lies? Or a liberal email forward, period?

During the Bush years, I'd get an occasional 9/11 truther e-mail written with a left wing slant.

[Mr. Moto]

Originally Posted by Pierrot Le Fou

The iPod had pictures and video from the Queen's visit to Virginia, not Obama's speeches.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/to..._your_Majesty/

The iPod had the videos and showtunes, but it did in fact include two of President Obama's speeches. I don't find anything terribly wrong with that - but people who state that the iPod did not include any of Obama's speeches are probably in error.

Link.

[Onomatopoeia]

Originally Posted by Cagey Drifter

Just curious, has anyone ever seen a liberal email forward filled with obvious lies? Or a liberal email forward, period?

I've wondered this myself. I presume there'd almost have to be, but I've never received or even heard of one.

[Mr. Moto]

Originally Posted by joebuck20

During the Bush years, I'd get an occasional 9/11 truther e-mail written with a left wing slant.

Not only that, but this mess of an argument cropped up from time to time on the boards, often pasted from some list somewhere. It was about as inaccurate and cherrypicked as this Obama email above.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Mr. Moto

Not only that, but this mess of an argument cropped up from time to time on the boards, often pasted from some list somewhere. It was about as inaccurate and cherrypicked as this Obama email above.

I can only seem to find it once on this board-what are the other times it appeared?

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Cagey Drifter

Just curious, has anyone ever seen a liberal email forward filled with obvious lies? Or a liberal email forward, period?

Yes. If you think liberals are too smart for this, you're kidding yourself. Here's the Snopes page for Bush-related emails. Here is their much, much shorter page for John McCain.

[Saint Cad]

Originally Posted by Onomatopoeia

I've wondered this myself. I presume there'd almost have to be, but I've never received or even heard of one.

I have, usually with fauxtography showing what an idiot Bush was. This one was given to us by a fellow teacher at a school meeting to demonstrate how stupid the President was.

[BobLibDem]

I personally have never received a liberal chain email. Certainly some may have existed in the Bush years. However, in terms of the volume and tone of the emails, it isn't even close. I receive probably on average 1-2 of these per week, accusing Obama of things that only the most gullible and/or dull witted people would believe. Don't fall into the trap of false equivalency, "both sides do it" or "MSNBC is just like FOX" because it isn't remotely true.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

Certainly some may have existed in the Bush years.

It's ridiculous that people are treating this as a conditional statement. It is unquestionably true that liberals sent chain emails during the Bush years. I linked to a whole bunch of them.

However, in terms of the volume and tone of the emails, it isn't even close. I receive probably on average 1-2 of these per week, accusing Obama of things that only the most gullible and/or dull witted people would believe.

Now this might be true, but we can't judge it based on one person's email list.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

The 9/11 Truther stuff was always fringe and never part of th liberal mainstream. The Obama birther/secret Muslim/ Antichrist/socialist stuff is part of the right wing mainstream and goes all the way up to elected officials.