How Obama Got Elected

NEW YORK/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. government agreed to prop up one of the world's biggest banks, Citigroup, with more than $300 billion (204 billion pounds) to avoid a collapse that could have wrought financial havoc around the globe......

....Aides said U.S. President-elect Barack Obama was also considering delaying a campaign promise to rescind tax cuts on high-income Americans, while the British government was set to announce a stimulus package including temporary tax cuts.


He's not even in the White House and campaign promises are already being broken - predictable isn't it?

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by gimme_some_truth

 

Sorry, but you don't set a timetable on when I should respond, or an agenda on what I should say.

Stop trolling.

Who set a time table? Not me. I never gave anyone a deadline. I waited to see if you were going to post any proof from a non biased and legit source to back up your claims. You didnt then and you STILL havent, and everyone knows that you wont in the future. As has been said, any reply from you that doesnt have that needed proof, will only be viewed by me and everyone else in this thread, as your failure to back up your claims with proof. Everyone can see that you are unable to do so.That is on you, and no one else. Its over jsobecky. No insult,accusation or off topic post from you will change the fact that it is over.

as for this accusation of making an agenda, its not on me to back up your claims, its not on anyone else to back up your claims, its on you. No one but you. Here on ATS, when people make claims they are expected to be able to back them up. You have failed to do so. You have no one to blame but yourself for your own short comings.

As for your accusation of trolling, That post you are reffering to was okayed and cleared by a mod(who wishes to remain anonymous). No trolling was involved. Im afraid you put your foot in your mouth on that one .

You have lost this debate.You are unable to provide proof from a non biased and legit source to back up your claims and there is a reason for that. Your claims are baseless. There is no non biased or legit site that will back up your claims. I will wait for your proof but untill such time as you do provide said proof from a non biased and legit source.... well I will check back from time to time, to see you not give the proof and to see you throw an insult or two.Just know that no matter what you say from this point on, you are unable to provide the proof nessacary to back up your claims and you have lost in the eyes of ATS. You have lost this debate no matter what insult you can throw my way.No matter what erronious accusation you make.The debate is over. this back and forth between us serves no further purpose untill such time as you do post that proof. The debate is over.As I said before, better luck next time



If at any point though you do turn up any proof from a non biased and legit source that backs up your claims, feel free to let me know, But untill then our conversation needs to end because it will only be unneccasary biccering and will only dectract from this thread. So yeah, if you get that proof let me know, then and only then we can continue.

[edit on 24-11-2008 by gimme_some_truth]

reply to post by plumranch



Its truly amazing how you put a blind eye to what the basic principles of history should teach us... ultimately we should learn from the past... the past of Bush shows he did run a business into the ground... so why can't you actually fast forward to 2008 and realize that he has been the man in charge for the last 8 years. If his experiences include failing as a Chief Executive Officer, and he's currently failing as President-in-Chief then all of that should speak for itself... if that truly doesn't correlate to history repeating itself in your eyes, I don't know if anything can save you from the fact that you have such an utterly clouded mind. Also I hope you don't neglect the fact that 6 of those 8 years Congress was under the Republicans control, they held the majority... Now with Obama, that's just ridiculous... how can you actually argue a losing record to a record of one that has no fiscal blemishes? Face the reality that he made the most money out of any campaign because he used the internet extremely wisely, and that he actually used that money to build a overwhelmingly successful campaign. Another way to look at it is in sports when you have no losses, weather you have any wins or not you are at .1000 winning percentage... Bush isn't even playing .500 ball and he's soon to be going down 2 below the .500 level... You keep betting on a guy thats a proven loser.. its your money and its your freedom.

Proof... LOL you see it every day brother!! Go outside and drive around town, count how many foreclosure signs you count in a day of exploring. Keep an eye on the houses with the for sale signs, try to keep an eye on them and see how long it takes for them to put on the 'purchased' sign. Now I've seen first hand what its like when financial institutions have no limits as to what type of loan packages they can slap together. These types of business practices where not even remotely done prior to the housing boom that started in 2003, in fact most loans like Neg Ams were being sold to many borrowers being told out right lies of how the monthly payments broke down. This problem was in every facet of the lending industry, everyone was a parasite looking for the next victim. Those people had no moral compass, those people didn't have anyone watching over them and this is what we are left to deal with. On the mass scale this type of trickery is extremely devastating, and its proving itself everyday. This type of situation has created havoc for normal citizens and the entire economy but like you said, what does it matter that he ran a company into the ground?

I remember back when the housing boom took off and he mentioned that home purchases hit record highs... 4-5 years later, he is reaping what he's sown. If the Republicans had control of 2 of the 3 branches of Government, then wasn't it there job to facilitate regulations and to maintain a free and FAIR market? If you say they are not to blame, at the very least they are proven to be incompetent and were far from minding the store. Now its not like we're facing any serious issues today, you know, the type that will alter the course of history... things are going real smooth and they couldn't be any better... right? You should actually decide to stop researching into something that has only lead you where you already wanted to go. Also you're really funky, you know that? You're a real odd ball. How someone from the right wing would go to a 'conspiracy' site claiming conspiracies against a leftist party, all while exhibiting bias... then for that person to actually try to defend Bush's policies at the same time... thats like so totally an oxymoron. Yeah a person who supports Bush is actually a conspiracy theorist all of a sudden... damn the world really has CHANGED. Are you still looking for those WMDs that Sadaam was hiding?

To all the self deluded ignorant masses here on ATS who continue to believe that Obama will bring "change" by all means watchi this 6 part video and come back to continue to spew the same vitriol over and over again:

20/20: The politically incorrect guide to politics

part 1


part2


part3


Part4


part5


part6


NOTE: Not only does the host as well as some of the pro's agree that the govt. does nothing but get in the way, but they also believe that you're being INCREDIBLY simple minded (yes, YOU ARE) by having the simple notion of "Since Bush was in office, it's his fault" instead of critically thinking and asking "Who is REALLY responsible?" You think Bush and the republicans are the only ones responsible for the shape the economy is in right now? Then you obviously fit into the pro's and the host's description of uninformed and simple minded people who know very little or nothing about our govt. So s**k on that.

Oh look, no surprise here..... didn't take but 2 seconds for this to turn into another political pissin contest.

Being Left/liberal/Democrat/Republican/conservative/right.. in my view is merely an Opinion. Ya'll are arguing over whether Chocolate tastes better than Vanilla (no pun intended). Go ahead though, keep fighting amongst yourselves, thats exactly the way they want to keep it. Gives you an outlet and keeps you under control........

Lemmings fighting lemmings......

Here's another gem for the "yes we can" crowd to watch and see where they fit in:



NOTE: I'm starting to agree that there should be some kind of test that people should pass before being allowed to vote. People like the ones in this video shouldn't vote period. Harsh? Maybe, but from these people's responses, it's almost as if they think voting for a new president is like buying a new pair of shoes or a new video game. They don't realize it's serious business.

[edit on 24-11-2008 by Question]

Originally posted by wazar
Oh look, no surprise here.....

didn't take but 2 seconds for this to turn into another political pissin contest.

Being Left/liberal/Democrat/Republican/conservative/right.. in my view is merely an Opinion. Ya'll are arguing over whether Chocolate tastes better than Vanilla (no pun intended). Go ahead though, keep fighting amongst yourselves, thats exactly the way they want to keep it. Gives you an outlet and keeps you under control........

Lemmings fighting lemmings......

I don't think that it is so much as a "republican v. democrat" contest, so much as it is an "ATS members that know they can't trust the govt. period, shaking the Obama cult followers and making them see that they've been hypnotized and misled."

If you've surfed this site often, you'd know that many ATS members here (that I know of anyway) don't support EITHER party. From what I've noticed in my time here, both parties get hated equally, that is until Obama won because apparently now that he's the first black president, somehow the Obamatrons think he should be "hands off" which is ridiculous and goes against everything that ATS is about.

Can't argue with a thing you said there Question

although I tend not to refer to them as "Obamatrons"......maybe for the (seemingly) educated Obama supporter.......to me, the majority seem like "Obamorons" lol. Just my opinion based on multiple observations.

In most conversations related to him I'm constantly reminded of the news reporter "getting reactions from the streets". Every time she tried to intelligently ask a supporter what it was that drew them in on a personal level to vote for Obama the response was "Cuz he's black!" and they'd all start dancing.

I don't purchase a damn thing based on it's color, let alone my president.



[edit on 24-11-2008 by wazar]

Push Poll.

The video and the Zogby Poll were propaganda pieces spun out by the same guy.

Example..The question concerning ...who said "I can see Russia from my house?" The respondant was asked to choose from the four candidates..Obama, Biden, McCain, Palin.

While ZIegler the sponsor of the poll claims "None of the above" was the correct response since Tina Fey said it, "None of the Above" was not one of the choices given.

Zogby Engages in Apparent Push Polling for Right-Wing Website
www.fivethirtyeight.com...

In connection with the YouTube clip, Ziegler describes that he "also commissioned a Zogby telephone poll which asked the very same questions (as well as a few others) with similarly amazing results." Partial results of the survey from among 512 Obama voters are reported on the website. It is not clear if voters for non-Obama candidates were screened out by the survey, or Ziegler has chosen not to report their results.

Most of the questions on the survey take the form of a multiple choice political knowledge test, stating a "fact" to the respondent and asking them which of the four major candidates (Obama, McCain, Biden, Palin) the statement applies to. Questions include the following:

"Which of the four [candidates] said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket?"

"Which of the four [candidates] started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground?"

"Which of the four [candidates] quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism?"

"Which of the four [candidates] won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot?"

As should be obvious, the veracity of several of these claims is -- at best -- debatable, yet they are apparently represented as factual to the respondent. It is not clear whether the respondent is informed of the "correct" response after having had the question posed to him.

Not all of the items in the poll are intended to apply to Obama or Biden. Several apply to Sarah Palin, although the items about Palin, while probably unflattering ("which of the four [candidates] has a pregnant teenage daughter?") are nevertheless apparently true. The exception is a "twist" question about Palin in which the respondent is asked "which candidate said that they can see Russia from their house?". Ziegler claims in the video that none of the four answers is correct because the statement was made by Tina Fay rather than Sarah Palin. (In her interview with Charlie Gibson, Palin said that "you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska", not that she can see Russia from her house.)

To my mind, this survey meets the definition of a "push poll", which the Random House Dictionary defines as "a seemingly unbiased telephone survey that is actually conducted by supporters of a particular candidate and disseminates negative information about an opponent." That (i) several of the items on the survey contain information which, in addition to being negative, is arguably also untrue; (ii) Ziegler brags that the survey includes a trick question to which no correct answer can be provided, and that (iii) apparently only Obama voters were targeted by the survey (although this is not 100 percent clear), also inform my opinion that the survey can fairly be described as a "push poll".

reply to post by gimme_some_truth

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by gimme_some_truth

 

Sorry, but you don't set a timetable on when I should respond, or an agenda on what I should say.

Stop trolling.

Who set a time table? Not me. I never gave anyone a deadline. I waited to see if you were going to post any proof from a non biased and legit source to back up your claims. You didnt then and you STILL havent, and everyone knows that you wont in the future. As has been said, any reply from you that doesnt have that needed proof, will only be viewed by me and everyone else in this thread, as your failure to back up your claims with proof. Everyone can see that you are unable to do so.That is on you, and no one else. Its over jsobecky. No insult,accusation or off topic post from you will change the fact that it is over.

Sorry, I've proven what I've claimed.

Your problem is that you continue to make accusations that are false and LIES. Like the claim that I said all Obama supporters were uneducated. That is a lie and you know it.

And you want me to defend the LIES you are spouting. Won't happen.

You are merely reveling in the attention you are getting. You will spout lies to continue getting attention.

I've already called you out on your lies. You ignore it.

The best way to stop you is to stop feeding you.

Buh-bye!

reply to post by Question


Excellent posts, Question. Starred.

Unfortunately, this info has been out there all along. Information that affects each and everyone of us.

I especially liked the quote in the 2nd part: "Business failure is just as critical as business success". The benefits of infusing new ideas and new blood into the market is critical. But our politicians continue to bail out their friends and donors failed managers.

Your closing statement was right on target. That is one of the main reasons that Obama was elected.

[edit on 24-11-2008 by jsobecky]

To interview a few people who are obviously not too bright and then extrapolate from there to suggest that they reflect the 54,000,000 million of us who voted for Obama is deeply offensive and insulting.

It reflects more on your intellect that you would buy into such tripe than ours.

reply to post by grover


grover, nobody is saying that. What we are saying is it applies to a large portion of the winning margin.

Originally posted by grover
To interview a few people who are obviously not too bright and then extrapolate from there to suggest that they reflect the 54,000,000 million of us who voted for Obama is deeply offensive and insulting.

It reflects more on your intellect that you would buy into such tripe than ours.

The same scenario could be filmed for McCain supporters.

Trust me - I know - I currently live in Arizona.

reply to post by jsobecky


A large portion? Really?

You insult your fellow citizens and discount their votes with such nonsense.

There are idiots everywhere... some post on threads like this one. But given the issues and interest this election cycle had... this year's voters were far more engaged than you give them credit for... whether they voted for Obama or not.

Don't insult your fellow Americans by suggesting that the only people who were truly informed reflect your opinions...

because that is the implication.

reply to post by grover


grover, can you honestly say that many voter were politically informed? Seriously.

If some take that as an insult, that's too bad. Take a look at the videos. Some Obama voters actually thought Sarah Palin was his running mate, and that that was just fine with them.

If you start to delve deeper, into the issues and policies, it soon becomes apparent that many voted purely out of emotion, not facts. The lack of knowledge out there is truly frightening.

reply to post by jsobecky

What we are saying is it applies to a large portion of the winning margin.

You cannot back up that statement based on a few video clips. Not by a long shot.

Aren't Blacks only approximately 14% of the population ?
Didn't Obama get elected by winning a higher number of Electoral votes ?

On the other hand , looking at how McCain was blinking incessantly, he was just

too old to be president. Especially with the life expectancy of men being at 72 years.

He should be enjoying his 70's , kicking back, playing golf and enjoying the Arizona weather with his 13 cars !!

If I had a wife as rich as his , I certainly would !



[edit on 24-11-2008 by nh_ee]

Also I hope you don't neglect the fact that 6 of those 8 years Congress was under the Republicans control,

reply to post by Drawing Distractions


The roots of the subprime problem go back much further than the Bush Adm. The CRA or Community Reinvestment Act was enacted in 1979. A Democratic idea designed to help low income people buy housing. Great idea, right! Help out the minorities and the poor?

Read through my CRA reference and you will see that the Democrats saw to it that the act was strengthened many times through the years with the last modification in 1995 and 1999 at the insistance of Clinton. Banks faced audits and penalties if they didn't give these high risk loans to the poor. As a result these loans proliferated, were bundled, sold all over to retirement plans, banks, foreign investors. They were insured by AIG to make them look AAA, great investments right? The poor couldn't afford their mortgage payments expecially after Katrina ruined their house! They walked away, forfeited their own credit rating and left banks holding the mortgages. By the millions, then billions then trillions. That is where we are today. Total financial collapse. All because of the politically correct effort by the Dems to put the low income people into housing whether or not it was good for them in the long run.

It's easy to take the short sighted view, the partisan view that it is due to Bush. But by the same logic, why not blame Pelosi and Reid, they have held the power in the Congress for the last 2 years and their approval rating is 10%. Why didn't they do something?

Anyway there were huge legislative mistakes made. The Media has never really gotten to the bottom of the problem and put blame where blame is due and the cancer is still alive and growing. The cause of the problem is still in place. Heads needed to roll but nothing has been done and nothing will get done as the culprits will not investigate and blame themselves. That isn't how it works.

For all of you who voted for Obama based on the issues and were well informed, good for you. You should be sincerely proud of yourself, you are not the majority. Go talk to your friends, relatives, neighbors, and ask them about Obama, why they voted for him, what he stands for, what he's done, his voting record. You will find that the majority don't know. Is this a reflection of the ignorance of the masses? Hardly. It's a result of the media being entirely biased (towards Obama, but that's not the point) to propaganda instead of issues and history.

Obama ran the most successful campaign in history. He made himself into a product, and it worked, the public bought it. I'm in college, surrounded by Obama supporters. I have a healthy interest in politics and so have spent a lot of time over the past year talking with Obama supporters. Most of them just have no idea why they're voting for him. I say this having spoken with a lot of people covering a wide range of demographics and viewpoints.

This isn't a statement about democrats, but Obama supporters, notice the difference. Those who I talked to who were well informed about Obama were not the fanatics. They weren't the ones who went to the rallies, covered their car in stickers, and handed out pamphlets. They were the ones who honestly believed Obama was the better candidate based on issues, history, and policies. To those people, my sincerest congratulations for your candidates win.