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.
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:
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.
Re: Obama thinking that Austrian is a language, here’s the clip I found:
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.
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:
According to that list, Bush had 32 and Obama has 39. Big deal.
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.
Correct.
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.
How did the Justice Department join with Arizona in the legal case? Here is the US’s motion:
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.
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.
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.
No idea what this one is about.
It wasn’t the 5th of May. It was the 4th of May; Obama was joking about celebrating Cinco de Mayo a day early.
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.
Hmmm…you must be new here.
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.
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!)
The word “join” here simply refers to joining forces, to the submission of an amicus brief pushing a particular view shared by Mexico.
Just curious, has anyone ever seen a liberal email forward filled with obvious lies? Or a liberal email forward, period?
My friend e-mailed the other day to ask if I wanted her bedroom set.
Liberals are too busy impregnating teenagers, taking drugs and spreading socialism to forward e-mails.
It’s true - an e-mail told me.
Is woo (auras, homeopathy, spirits) considered liberal?
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.