Wouldn't that be awesome if he didn't approve his own message - We'd be so confused

>> ^bareboards2:

Some of it is hogwash, but all political ads have some hogwash.


This is terrible justification.

Mr. President, if you sat down in certain peoples' living rooms, you'd be shot simply because you're black.

I love that he calls out trickle down for the bullshit that it is.

Why did he not do this the first 4 years? He had full control of the house and senate.

1. completely, utterly vague. Chances are, Exxon will still receive their subsidy.

2. mostly unrealistic. america is #1 energy hog and neither technology advancements nor more drilling here will solve that or feed that gluttonous thirst. we are dependent on foreign energy, which is partly why we have 450 military bases around the world. We need to reduce need, and to do that, we need to re-examine our role in the world as pure consumers.

3. Vague. While education is of the highest necessity, throwing a job training program at it ain't gonna help. The system, which is based on the idea of an assembly line, needs to be revised, and teaching needs to be valued as a higher profession.

4. Pay a little more? The rich need to pay a whole fuckload more. A thriving economy is based on a fluid, interdependent economic web, not a trickle down hierarchy.

clean coal ha?

>> ^Kalle:

clean coal ha?


Yah that sounds like oxymoron to me.

I appreciate that it's a positive campaign ad rather than an attack ad, for that I give big upvote.

>> ^bobknight33:

Why did he not do this the first 4 years? He had full control of the house and senate.


Your math is pretty far off the mark. Maybe you'd have benefited from those extra math and science teachers?

Democrats had control for the first two years of his term, but he does not control all Democrats, they can choose their own vote, and they often fought him on issues. After the first two years Republicans controlled house and senate and chose to spend every ounce of their political muscle fighting every one of his initiatives instead of trying to forge some kind of middle ground.

Ok you got me. Obama has been office for 3 years 6 months. Your too smart for me.

The Democrats still have full control of the senate and lost control of the House.

Quick sucking Obama juice. Its going to you head.

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

>> ^bobknight33:
Why did he not do this the first 4 years? He had full control of the house and senate.

Your math is pretty far off the mark. Maybe you'd have benefited from those extra math and science teachers?
Democrats had control for the first two years of his term, but he does not control all Democrats, they can choose their own vote, and they often fought him on issues. After the first two years Republicans controlled house and senate and chose to spend every ounce of their political muscle fighting every one of his initiatives instead of trying to forge some kind of middle ground.

Sad, isn't it? You feel not only informed enough to vote, but informed enough to push your opinions on others, and yet you're less informed about American politics than foreigners.

Either that or you were intentionally lying to mislead people, which I suppose these days just makes you a Republican.

>> ^bobknight33:

Ok you got me. Obama has been office for 3 years 6 months. Your too smart for me.
The Democrats still have full control of the senate and lost control of the House.
Quick sucking Obama juice. Its going to you head.
>> ^Drachen_Jager:
>> ^bobknight33:
Why did he not do this the first 4 years? He had full control of the house and senate.

Your math is pretty far off the mark. Maybe you'd have benefited from those extra math and science teachers?
Democrats had control for the first two years of his term, but he does not control all Democrats, they can choose their own vote, and they often fought him on issues. After the first two years Republicans controlled house and senate and chose to spend every ounce of their political muscle fighting every one of his initiatives instead of trying to forge some kind of middle ground.

>> ^bobknight33:

Your too smart for me..



I love irony

The election choice is between the successful business man and economics major versus the liberal lawyer and bombastic plagiarist. Choose wisely, especially if you work in the private sector which isn't doing fine by the way.

"Cutting the growth of tuition in half" ...

Erm, does that mean cutting down on education or does it mean something much more sensible?

>> ^TangledThorns:

especially if you work in the private sector which isn't doing fine by the way.


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/07/02/877235/-Accelerating-the-recovery

Look again! Job growth has been slow because of a loss of public sector jobs, not a lack of recovery in private sector jobs.

4. cut the deficit... ACH!!!!

Enough with the Austerity Club talking points. There is nothing wrong with running a deficit, that is how government sparks an economic recovery. Wanna see what it looks like when you run zero deficit during an economic crisis? Just take a look at Spain and Greece with the German noose around their necks and pocketbooks. Or for a less extreme example, see Britain's very, very modest recovery since the Tories put in their deficit reduction plans in the middle of a crisis.

I wish I was American so I could vote for Obama.

Yeah, "Clean Coal" is a sham.

Anyway, against Romney it's a lay down misere.

...and I just found out that 'lay down misere' is only used in Australia and New Zullund. It's a gambling term for a 'sure thing': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lay_down_misere

Too many lies and distortions on this page to worry about, from who really pays the taxes to the "failure" of Reaganomics versus Obamanomics.

Bottom line: tired of this socialist oppressor, who now "will do" what he claims "worked" the first four fugazi years.

All right, I'm joking, I'm really, secretly mad cause he's half-Black I didn't get my free sail phone.

If only...

>> ^criticalthud:

2. mostly unrealistic. america is #1 energy hog and neither technology advancements nor more drilling here will solve that or feed that gluttonous thirst. we are dependent on foreign energy, which is partly why we have 450 military bases around the world. We need to reduce need, and to do that, we need to re-examine our role in the world as pure consumers.

Well said. There are number of things that would reduce the power consumption right away. Refine the stupid pollution control that favors higher consumption in vehicles (lower consumption = more pollution per gallon when it should be mileage vs pollution.. now you can make a car that goes 10MPG but "pollutes" less), invest in public transport, invest in renewal sources.. You got huge amounts of land empty that could be used for solar farming, long coastlines to harvest wave energy, enough thermal activity to take energy from there (allthou thinking that USA is drilling to the core frightens me, you people have never been could at moderation...).

It seems to be that the thinking goes: This (particular) renewable source is not enough so we don't do it at all. But step by step, it would start to play a major part in the big picture. And there's endless supplies of solar energy, 250 W/m2 in average taking cloud cover and sun angle in to account.

>> ^bobknight33:

Why did he not do this the first 4 years? He had full control of the house and senate.


Yeah, that's totally true if you don't really think about it or do any research into facts.

You got that right. So many, I had to cut most of your post.

If we need the government to help improve conditions, then it makes no sense to point the finger at the guy who signs legislation and assign him the blame for the fact that the Congress can't be bothered to pass anything for him to sign. It's that simple. If you think it makes sense, you have partisan blinders on you.

But it's clear from the tone of your post that you're not interested in the truth or actual facts. Maybe if you just call him socialist and fascist and tyrannical a few more times it will magically become true and you won't look so spectacularly misinformed.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Too many lies and distortions on this page

It's a solid ad. It takes the high ground which is what you have to do as an incumbent.

@PostalBlowfish

I misread a word when I first read your post above, and I LOVED IT.

I read "malinformed" instead of "misinformed."

Malinformed is my new favorite made-up word.

>> ^bobknight33:

Ok you got me. Obama has been office for 3 years 6 months. Your too smart for me.
The Democrats still have full control of the senate and lost control of the House.

No. The Democrats had "full control" (filibuster proof majority) for perhaps 5 months, but even that is debatable because it depends on support from independents.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/did-the-democrats-ever-really-have-60-votes-in-the-senate-and-for-how-long/

Bobknight is either a liar or ignorant. I've seen him posting about politics here for quite a while and I have yet to read anything that's anywhere near reality.>> ^bobknight33:

Why did he not do this the first 4 years? He had full control of the house and senate.

If we need the government to help improve conditions, then it makes no sense to point the finger at the guy who signs legislation and assign him the blame for the fact that the Congress can't be bothered to pass anything for him to sign. It's that simple. If you think it makes sense, you have partisan blinders on you.

>>> Obes' own party rejected his budgets, so I guess they're the obstructionists. Also, the libs have--and have had--majorities to pass any legislation they damn well please. So why wait? Raise taxes and cease "tax cuts for the rich" right now! Let's see some truth in advertising.

>>> Since you profess to enjoy facts, here's the full list of Obamacare tax hikes coming. This IS the same guy who wants to "help" the middle class, right? By making their tax burden heavier? That's sure to boost the economy.

But it's clear from the tone of your post that you're not interested in the truth or actual facts. Maybe if you just call him socialist and fascist and tyrannical a few more times it will magically become true and you won't look so spectacularly misinformed.

Bring some facts to the table about any aspect of this failed president and we'll begin.




>> ^PostalBlowfish:

You got that right.
>> ^quantumushroom:
Too many lies and distortions on this page

The truth has a well known liberal bias, eh?

OH MY GAWD!!!

I sent my "new word" to The Stranger, and Dan Savage blogged about it!!!!! Yippee!

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/09/29/word-of-the-day-malinformed

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Hey that's awesome. Congrats.>> ^bareboards2:

OH MY GAWD!!!
I sent my "new word" to The Stranger, and Dan Savage blogged about it!!!!! Yippee!
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/09/29/word-of-t
he-day-malinformed