# Obama "facts" circulating via e-mail **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 27, 2010, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-facts-circulating-via-e-mail/562040 "2010-11-27T02:51:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2010, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-facts-circulating-via-e-mail/562040/21 "2010-11-27T19:45:29Z")
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. > **[National debt of the United States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt)** > > Bowles–Simpson Commission > 2007–2008 financial crisis 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](http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway) ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2010, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-facts-circulating-via-e-mail/562040/22 "2010-11-27T19:55:47Z")
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. > **[AOL - News, Politics, Sports, Mail & Latest Headlines](https://www.aol.com/news/)** > > Get breaking news and the latest headlines on business, entertainment, politics, world news, tech, sports, videos and much more from AOL > **[Mexico challenges Arizona's immigration law](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10386190)** > > Mexico tells a US federal court that Arizona's new immigration law is unconstitutional and discriminatory against Mexican citizens. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2010, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-facts-circulating-via-e-mail/562040/23 "2010-11-27T20:01:25Z")
Re: Obama thinking that Austrian is a language, here’s the clip I found: [![]( " - YouTube") ](https://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. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2010, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-facts-circulating-via-e-mail/562040/24 "2010-11-27T20:14:31Z")
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: > **[List of U.S. executive branch czars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars)** > > In the United States, the informal political term "czar" or "tsar" is employed in media and popular usage to refer to high-level officials who oversee a particular policy. There have never been any U.S. government offices with the title "czar", but various governmental officials have sometimes been referred to by the nickname "czar" rather than their actual title. > The earliest known use of the term for a U.S. government official was in the administration of Franklin Roosevelt (1933–1945), during... According to that list, Bush had 32 and Obama has 39. Big deal. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2010, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-facts-circulating-via-e-mail/562040/25 "2010-11-27T20:27:09Z")
> [@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. > **[Effects of the 2008–2010 automotive industry crisis on the United States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_2008-2010_automotive_industry_crisis_on_the_United_States#Federal_Government_bailout_process_and_timeline)** > > Beginning in the latter half of 2008, a global-scale recession adversely affected the economy of the United States. A combination of several years of declining automobile sales and scarce availability of credit led to a more widespread crisis in the United States auto industry in the years of 2008 and 2009. > Following dramatic drops in automobile sales throughout 2008, two of the "Big Three" U.S. automakers – General Motors (GM), and Chrysler – requested emergency loans in order to address im... ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2010, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-facts-circulating-via-e-mail/562040/26 "2010-11-27T20:31:15Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2010, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-facts-circulating-via-e-mail/562040/27 "2010-11-27T20:56:27Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f475e1/32.png) [@Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pierrot_Le_Fou)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2010, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-facts-circulating-via-e-mail/562040/28 "2010-11-27T21:06:00Z")
> [@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: > **[U.S. v. Arizona - Order On Motion For Preliminary Injunction | PDF | Arizona...](https://www.scribd.com/document/34998325/U-S-v-Arizona-Order-on-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction)** > > This order addresses the United States' motion for a preliminary injunction against Arizona's SB 1070 immigration law. It finds that several provisions of SB 1070 are likely preempted by federal law, including requiring officers to check immigration... 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. > **[Mexico challenges Arizona's immigration law](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10386190)** > > Mexico tells a US federal court that Arizona's new immigration law is unconstitutional and discriminatory against Mexican citizens. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2010, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-facts-circulating-via-e-mail/562040/29 "2010-11-27T21:08:44Z")
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?” ---
**Author:** ![MsRobyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/90ced4/32.png) [@MsRobyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsRobyn)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2010, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-facts-circulating-via-e-mail/562040/30 "2010-11-27T23:36:24Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2010, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-facts-circulating-via-e-mail/562040/31 "2010-12-01T16:49:59Z")
> [@](#): > > 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.](http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=50927) ---
**Author:** ![conway](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ec9cab/32.png) [@conway](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/conway)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2010, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-facts-circulating-via-e-mail/562040/32 "2010-12-01T16:54:41Z")
> [@Lightnin](#): > > I thought this was Great Debates, not Do Anything To Get In A Partisan Dig. Hmmm…you must be new here. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2010, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-facts-circulating-via-e-mail/562040/33 "2010-12-01T17:23:42Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2010, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-facts-circulating-via-e-mail/562040/34 "2010-12-01T17:43:46Z")
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!) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2010, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-facts-circulating-via-e-mail/562040/35 "2010-12-01T18:07:28Z")
> [@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. > [@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-S-v-Arizona-Order-on-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction](http://www.scribd.com/doc/34998325/U-S-v-Arizona-Order-on-Motion-for-Preliminary-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. > > [Mexico challenges Arizona's immigration law - BBC News](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. ---
**Author:** ![Cagey\_Drifter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@Cagey\_Drifter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cagey_Drifter)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2010, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-facts-circulating-via-e-mail/562040/36 "2010-12-01T23:44:56Z")
Just curious, has anyone ever seen a liberal email forward filled with obvious lies? Or a liberal email forward, period? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2010, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-facts-circulating-via-e-mail/562040/37 "2010-12-02T00:34:10Z")
My friend e-mailed the other day to ask if I wanted her bedroom set. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2010, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-facts-circulating-via-e-mail/562040/38 "2010-12-02T01:09:38Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Snarky\_Kong](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a183cd/32.png) [@Snarky\_Kong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snarky_Kong)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2010, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-facts-circulating-via-e-mail/562040/39 "2010-12-02T01:25:18Z")
> [@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? ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2010, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-facts-circulating-via-e-mail/562040/40 "2010-12-02T21:04:32Z")
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. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-facts-circulating-via-e-mail/562040.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-facts-circulating-via-e-mail/562040.md?page=3)