18 Crazy Right-Wing Myths About Obama, Debunked

[Sean Renaud]

Do you really? Can't you allow for a bit of sincere optimism? Presidents are as vulnerable to it as the rest of us. And, after all, it's not as if we were talking about any really outrageous optimism here, on the "Invading Iraq will pay for itself!" scale.

It's not sincere optimism. He knows how people are and there was a reason why so many people had those McMed plans. He had to know there would be people who'd be pissed. And in the end it doesn't matter which the fact itself was wrong. For me it's part of the same equation of was Benghazi caused by a video or a planned attack. Does it really matter why you're shooting at me once you start shooting at people?

 

[unregistered]

 

[Colonel Hogan]

18 Crazy Right-Wing Myths About Obama, Debunked

Author: Bruce Lindner January 13, 2014 1:37 pm

1) Obama takes too many vacations.
FACT: As of August 16th of 2013, Obama had taken 92 days of vacation vs 367 for George W. Bush.

Rational response: Nobody really cares.

2) Obama has divided the nation.
FACT: Obama has done more to unite this nation than any president since Lincoln. But he’s up against a phalanx of 21st Century separatists, racists and neo-fascists, some of whom have openly proposed seceding. Here… let me hold that door for you. Besides; who’s dividing the Republican party into right wing and ultra-far right wings? Is Obama doing that too? Nope. Look in a mirror Teabigots.

Rational response: This doesn't count.

http://www.sentryjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/torchMob.jpg

Besides, the first statement of your meme makes an assertion, and then, rather than back it up with "unifying accomplishments," you simply whine about the hardships he was up against. Did the separatists, racists and neo-fascists precede him here or did their ranks swell in response to Obama's policies? Did he never intend to unify the very divisive elements you've itemized because they were too entrenched in their ideology? If that is the case, then the only matter were arguing about is how low he set his own bar for unification.

And no one holds him responsible for divisions within the Republican Party. Stop being stupid.


3) Obama’s policies are bankrupting America.
FACT: Reagan added $1.9 trillion to the debt. Bush Sr. added an additional $1.5. Clinton added $1.4. Dubbya added $6.1. Obama has added less than $3.0, the bulk of which was to offset the effects of the Bush recession. Who holds that debt? China; $1.2 trillion. Japan; $900 billion. The Fed; $1.6 trillion. The public; $3.6 trillion. Government trusts; $1.9 trillion. Social Security; $2.7 trillion. So nice try, but no Kewpie doll for you

Rational response: So, by your own figures, Obama's contribution to the debt, compared to the four preceding Presidents, was second only to G. W. How much louder would you like to keep shouting that out? And what point are you trying to make about who holds what amount of the outstanding debt? If the United States ever defaults on its debt obligations, it will matter very little, if at all, WHO it defaults TO.



4) Obama’s a socialist.
FACT: Hardly. Obama’s economic and social policies are to the right of Kennedy’s, Eisenhower’s, Nixon’s, and even some of Reagan’s. If Obama’s a socialist, then Eisenhower, who had a 91% top tax rate, was a Republican Marxist.

Rational response: It wouldn't be so bad if he was just a Hawaiian socialist, it's that Kenyan socialism that's so hard to swallow. In other words, absurd charges really don't need equally absurd defenses.



5) Obama lied about keeping your present healthcare insurance.
FACT: Lying and being wrong are two different things. Obama turned out to be wrong, but he didn’t lie. He appeared before the cameras 28 times, repeating the exact same words — “If you like your present policy, you can keep it,” knowing full well he was being recorded each time. If you believe any president would deliberately set himself up like that, then Fox News is indeed the place for you.

Rational response: Lying and being wrong are two different things. Bush turned out to be wrong about WMDs in Iraq, but he didn’t lie. If you believe any president would deliberately set his Secretary of State up like that before the United Nations Security Council, then MSNBC is indeed the place for you.



6) Obama’s weak on foreign policy.
FACT: Osama bin Laden, the man who murdered 3,000+ Americans on 9/11 is dead. Muammar Khaddafi, the man who blew 300+ Americans out of the sky is dead. More al Qaeda terrorists were taken out under just Obama’s first three years than during the entire 8 years of Bush’s “War on Terrorism,” where we somehow managed to wind up in Iraq; a country that offered asylum to zero terrorists. ‘Nuff said.

Rational response: But Bush is the only CiC you and your buddies wish to prosecute for "war crimes." And had GW amassed the record anywhere near that of our current President (a record I happen to fully endorse, btw) you and your buddies might very well have prevailed in at least conducting the "show trial" you desperately wanted. Proving once again that only Democrats can wage war with the degree of non-partisan support that Republican Presidents ought also to be able to expect.



7) Obama has taken sides with the Arabs against Israel.
FACT: “I think that from my point of view as defense minister they (American/Israeli relations) are extremely good, extremely deep and profound. I can see long years, um, administrations of both sides of political aisle deeply supporting the state of Israel and I believe that reflects a profound feeling among the American people. But I should tell you honestly that this administration under President Obama is doing in regard to our security more than anything that I can remember in the past. In terms of the support for our security, the cooperation of our intelligence, the sharing of sorts in a very open way even when there are differences which are not simple sometimes, I’ve found their support for our defense very stable.” ~ Ehud Barak, former Prime Minister of Israel

But what would he know?

Rational response: Another stupid charge not worth defending.



8) America is less safe under Obama than ever before.
FACT: 3,000 Americans killed by al Qaeda on 9/11, when George W. Bush was president. Zero successful al Qaeda attacks on America under Obama. Do the math.

Rational response: And zero successful al Qaeda attacks on America under Bush AFTER 9/11 as well, but Bush is the only CiC you and your buddies wish to prosecute for "war crimes." And had GW amassed the record anywhere near that of our current President (a record I happen to fully endorse, btw) you and your buddies might very well have prevailed in at least conducting the "show trial"....



9) Benghazi is Obama’s 9/11.
FACT: There were 13 attacks on American embassies during the Bush years, resulting in some 100 deaths. But Fox News and their reich-wing cohorts has never mentioned them. Benghazi is something that happened to us, not something the administration did. I’m sorry you haven’t gotten the memo, but Benghazi is just another Fox non-story. Same with the IRS “scandal.”

Rational response: Excuse me, but where were the New York Times and the Washington Post when the Bush administration fiddled while embassy personnel died? Meanwhile, the fact that you mention Benghazi and the IRS scandal in the same context demonstrates that you understand that context perfectly well. How the administration responded to Benghazi with lies and cover-ups and how it responded to the IRS political-based targeting with more of the same is very much "something the administration did."

That's why it's called "scandal."



10) ObamaCare is Obama’s 9/11.
See #9.

Rational response: Oh, no. There is no comparison here between Benghazi and Obamacare. If the former is something "that happened to us," then the latter is definitely something "the administration did." There is no comparison between scandal and incompetence, and "incompetence" may not be the right word since Obamacare will end up doing exactly what it was intended to do -- sabotage the healthcare system so much that "single payer" looks good by comparison.

From a conservative perspective, that strategy is also beyond "scandalous," of course, which is why it's so tough to get a handle on the proper descriptive label.



11) Sandy Hook was Obama’s 9/11.
See a shrink.

Rational response: You should see a shrink for including an act which no politically prominent actor ever accused the President of having responsibility.


12) Solyndra!
FACT: Solyndra was a $500 million loan that didn’t pay off. How much is $500 million? That’s how much the Bush administration spent every 18 hours on the Iraq War for five years – an expense no Republican ever complains about. And what was our reward? 4,500 Americans killed, at least 100,000 Iraqis killed, another 2 million Iraqis driven from their homes, the emergence of the Shia awakening, and our reputation in a shambles. Thanks Republicans. And you’re upset about half a billion spent on Solyndra.

Rational response: Blatantly irrational comparison. The wisdom of a government sponsored business loan to a start-up environmental company is not rationally justified by a cost comparison to an overseas war lasting five years.

It is an argument that should embarrass you every time you read it. I suggest removing it from your writing portfolio.



13) Iraq is falling to al Qaeda due to Obama’s policies.
FACT: Had we not invaded Iraq in the first place, a war Obama opposed 12 years ago, we wouldn’t be seeing Falluja falling to al Qaeda. And who was it that wrote the timetable for our Iraq exit two years ago? Oh, yeah; the Bush administration. You might just as well blame Obama for Bush’s recession. Oh, wait — you do that too!

Rational response: Had we not invaded Iraq in the first place, Saddam Hussein would still be running the country. Your preference is duly noted.



14) Obama’s policies are anti-business.
FACT: The Dow Jones when Clinton entered office in January 1993 was at 3,300. When he left office in January 2001: 10,662. Dow Jones when Bush left office in January 2009: 9,034. Dow Jones today: 16,437. The Dow has more than doubled in just the first five years of the Obama administration. Yes…. Businessmen just hate that.


Rational response: Your broker is holding on line one. He has several "buying opportunities" for you in this fundamentally sound economy of seven percent plus unemployment and a monetary supply propped up by the Fed with no advice and/or consent from the President whatsoever.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-hy1x_3h6yJs/Tqlsiuv2h0I/AAAAAAAAAQw/vxIv1MM1874/s1600/002-eTrade-baby-with-iPad.jpg



15) Obama’s policies have resulted in massive unemployment.
FACT: When George W. Bush stumbled into office in January 2001, he inherited a 4.3% unemployment rate from Bill Clinton. When he left office 8 years later, the unemployment rate was 9.7% and rising fast. As of today, that number is 6.7%, no thanks to the Republicans in Congress who’ve done everything within their power to sabotage the recovery.

During the eight years under George W. Bush, his policies created just 1 million jobs (with another 2 million in the military). Since Barack Obama was sworn in five years ago, 7.6 million jobs have been created, and there are still three years left in his term. So, nice try.

Rational response: Your broker wants to know if you'd be interested in opening an E-Trade franchise.

http://nicedecors.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/modern-furniture-desin-by-babies-crib-1-e1280953480531.jpg



Phuck it! This is too exhausting. If the warmth of "Lindnershit" exceeds the smell then, by all means, embrace it. Smear it in your hair, FFS.

 

[coastal-boy]

Operation Wide Receiver started under the Bush Admin....I wonder what that program did and if it was used to model F&F?

People that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Accounting tricks. There is public debt and intragovernment debt. Clinton took the social security excess and applied it to the public debt, giving the appearance that the public debt went down while ignoring the fact that the intragovernment debt went up. The total debt went up.

When you say "applied," I don't think you mean what some people might assume you mean, namely, that Clinton actually moved excess SS revenue to actually reduce the public debt.

As you REALLY said, he just used governmentspeak to create that illusion. After all, what fun would it be to have a government job if you weren't allowed to confuse people?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

And with Hogan half the time I won't even check, I'll ask him to explain to me why I'm wrong.

 

[mark_j]

Excess is Excess no? I mean if I understand this properly we had a surplus in a fund of money owed to ourselves in the future. Funds being fungible Clinton decided to put that money where it made him look good but the money was still there no?

Never-mind the fact that the SSI trust actually has no money in it now, right? Let's just ignore that SSI is now an unfunded liability that is due, by the latest from the CBO, to run out of money by 2032.

Who cares that the politico du-jour used that money to play an accounting trick to make himself look better right? All in the name of politics correct? When in fact Clinton did nothing to reduce the deficit other than play an accounting trick to make it look so. Robbing from Peter to pay Paul is never a good idea.

Or didn't they teach you that in basic economics?

 

[Sean Renaud]

Never-mind the fact that the SSI trust actually has no money in it now, right? Let's just ignore that SSI is now an unfunded liability that is due, by the latest from the CBO, to run out of money by 2032.

Who cares that the politico du-jour used that money to play an accounting trick to make himself look better right? All in the name of politics correct? When in fact Clinton did nothing to reduce the deficit other than play an accounting trick to make it look so. Robbing from Peter to pay Paul is never a good idea.

Or didn't they teach you that in basic economics?

He did reduce the deficit. That's never been in question, so did Obama.

As for the SSI the trust is nice but since the SSI is actually paid for by people in the present because saving money for the SSI is a terrible plan and it cannot run out of money unless we literally run out of workers that's not really something to be worried about.

 

[mark_j]

He did reduce the deficit. That's never been in question, so did Obama.

As for the SSI the trust is nice but since the SSI is actually paid for by people in the present because saving money for the SSI is a terrible plan and it cannot run out of money unless we literally run out of workers that's not really something to be worried about.

That theory only works as long as there are more workers paying into the system than is going out to retirees. The ratio used to be somewhere like 6 or 7 to one, now it is more like 2 to one.

So what happens when the ratio is one to one or worse one to two? Is it sustainable then?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Never-mind the fact that the SSI trust actually has no money in it now, right? Let's just ignore that SSI is now an unfunded liability that is due, by the latest from the CBO, to run out of money by 2032.

Who cares that the politico du-jour used that money to play an accounting trick to make himself look better right? All in the name of politics correct? When in fact Clinton did nothing to reduce the deficit other than play an accounting trick to make it look so. Robbing from Peter to pay Paul is never a good idea.

Or didn't they teach you that in basic economics?

Do you not realize that it makes no sense to predict that a trust fund that "has no money in it now" will, in fact, "run out of money by 2032"?

Or didn't they teach you that in basic economics?

Speaking of basic economics, maybe you could help us understand the impact of "unfunded liabilities." At what point does an unfunded liability become fiscally irresponsible? Or does its mere existence at any point always make it so?

 

[Sean Renaud]

That theory only works as long as there are more workers paying into the system than is going out to retirees. The ratio used to be somewhere like 6 or 7 to one, now it is more like 2 to one.

So what happens when the ratio is one to one or worse one to two? Is it sustainable then?

Incorrect. For starters it's not a theory it's a plain and simple fact. SSI does not work primarily by saving money for the future (it has a Trust made up of the "excess" but that's what it is, excess) it works by people working today giving directly to people who need it today.

What happens when the ratio is one to one or one to two? It really depends on the available technology. There was a time when everybody had to work or they didn't eat, it wasn't about compassion or cold heartedness, it was a simple fact. It took one worker to produce enough food for one person to live. That time has long since passed however.

 

[leftie]

Can't speak for any of the US domestic issues but, re: 6. Obama's weak on foreign policy

Knocking off Bin Laden is a largely irrelevant way to prove his success in foreign policy as most foreigners viewed it as a US domestic issue, which just happened to be carried out in Pakistan (in fact, while no-one mourned Bin Laden, the idea that the US can and does fly into another country and knock off almost anyone they don't like was viewed as scary/impressive).

Your blogger would do better to point out that unlike Bush jnr. and Clinton, the US has elected a President the rest of the world actually quite likes and also takes seriously.

 

[miles]

I stopped reading at separatists, neo-fascists, and racists. There wasn't any reason to continue past that.

A better article would be 18 Obama Myths, Deflections, and Lies.

 

[phrodeau]

I stopped reading at separatists, neo-fascists, and racists. There wasn't any reason to continue past that.

A better article would be 18 Obama Myths, Deflections, and Lies.

Better than what? The article that you didn't read?

 

[jeninflorida]

Right off the bat #16 is a liberal perpetuated myth. Fast and Furious was not a poorly conceived program left over from the Bush administration.

PS: Your source is a demonstrable liar.

This thread not only highlights the left wing insanity but also the stupidity!

These obama people have never had a real job

 

[RobDownSouth]

Look at all the fringe-right squealing in this thread!

 

[dan_c00000]

Right off the bat #16 is a liberal perpetuated myth. Fast and Furious was not a poorly conceived program left over from the Bush administration.

PS: Your source is a demonstrable liar.

This statement got rated false, however, according to politifact:

A program similar to Fast and Furious did go forward under the Bush administration in 2006 and 2007. That program, called Operation Wide Receiver, also attempted to track suspicious weapons. Allowing gun sales to go forward even when the ATF had probable cause to believe the sales were unlawful has come to be known as "gun walking."

You'll also note that it also says "Another similar program, called Operation Wide Receiver, did happen during the Bush administration, and a recent inspector general’s report criticized both operations as ineffective and seriously flawed."

So there is actually some truth to what Obama said. So you're in fact wrong again. Try being a little less racist next time.

 

[unregistered]

 

[RobDownSouth]

The differences are reported here:

THE 5 BIGGEST DIFFERENCES BETWEEN OPERATION FAST AND FURIOUS AND OPERATION WIDE RECEIVER
Jun. 26, 2012 2:50pm Jason Howerton

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...fast-and-furious-and-operation-wide-receiver/

REASON #1: OPERATION WIDE RECEIVER: ITE-WHAY ESIDENT-PRAY....OPERATION FAST AND FURIOUS: EGRO-NAY ESIDENT-PRAY

 

[koalabear]

REASON #1: OPERATION WIDE RECEIVER: ITE-WHAY ESIDENT-PRAY....OPERATION FAST AND FURIOUS: EGRO-NAY ESIDENT-PRAY

Fatty use your lawnjockey tab for highlighting.

 

[jeninflorida]

Caution....rob the fat man is going down....swallowing...i mean swinging

No one touch da welfare...fatty needs new shoes

REASON #1: OPERATION WIDE RECEIVER: ITE-WHAY ESIDENT-PRAY....OPERATION FAST AND FURIOUS: EGRO-NAY ESIDENT-PRAY

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Can't speak for any of the US domestic issues but, re: 6. Obama's weak on foreign policy

Knocking off Bin Laden is a largely irrelevant way to prove his success in foreign policy as most foreigners viewed it as a US domestic issue, which just happened to be carried out in Pakistan (in fact, while no-one mourned Bin Laden, the idea that the US can and does fly into another country and knock off almost anyone they don't like was viewed as scary/impressive).

Nooooo. It's super relevant.

That mofo was the epitome of enemies for our glorious country. The previous head honcho did not take him out but loudly proclaimed the "Mission Accomplished."

Obama came in on Day One and told his people that we are getting this motherfucker. Lo and behold, we got that motherfucker. All due to his command. The right wing will never get over their bitch cakes getting pulled on this. Never, ever evvvaaah.

That, my dear fellow, is real foreign policy. And it will be ever thus.

 

[jeninflorida]

Look at all the fringe-right squealing in this thread!

Then become a man, get off welfare

 

[jeninflorida]

Come on Dan, honestly have you ever had a job?

This statement got rated false, however, according to politifact:

A program similar to Fast and Furious did go forward under the Bush administration in 2006 and 2007. That program, called Operation Wide Receiver, also attempted to track suspicious weapons. Allowing gun sales to go forward even when the ATF had probable cause to believe the sales were unlawful has come to be known as "gun walking."

You'll also note that it also says "Another similar program, called Operation Wide Receiver, did happen during the Bush administration, and a recent inspector general’s report criticized both operations as ineffective and seriously flawed."

So there is actually some truth to what Obama said. So you're in fact wrong again. Try being a little less racist next time.

 

[joelafayette]

.....