US presidential election

[TLSS_N]

Funding for the "Center on Budget and Policy Priorities," i.e. CBPP, comes from the Democracy Alliance, which was set up by George Soros and Tim Gill. Most everyone here's probably heard of Soros. Tim Gill's "Gill Action Fund" provides political support (CASH) to politicians and political parties conditioned on their support of LGBT rights, and that of course means the Democratic party. In other words, your graphs say what they were paid to say. They are "based on" CBO numbers, but CBPP is known to adjust those numbers to suit their interpretations and forecasts. Just because you can produce a jpg of a chart doesn't mean it's accurate. Your source has an agenda.

Thank you! Glad to see I am not the only dog in this fight

@B.C.It's not a damned conspiracy theory, we are not talking alluminati here, I've produced a video here, and if you doubt the video I have a challenge for you, pull up the white hose link, open irfanview alone and then copy the image from the pdf into irfanview, same results with a less powerful program! That document's as legitimate as a flying pig! I guess the facts are too good for you, everything has to be right vs. left. Another thing, I want an absolute answer on this, what problem is this miracle budget supposedly fixing? The invisible debt, or the visible debt? I am sure you will attempt to dodge the question like so many before you.

Edit: Forgot about this, forgive me Here you go!

 

[BlueStar]

You're seriously still a birther? Jesus H Christ.

The pdf file offers no evidence of forgery, as anyone who actually knows anything about the format will tell you

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/29/expert-says-obamas-birth-certificate-legit/

Although I'm sure Adobe and Fox are in the tank for Obama as well. Hell, I'm probably a government agent paid by George Soros to discredit you on the Internet.

If you had any genuine desire to find out, you could make a pdf file using a similar set up yourself, run the same 'tests' and see that it came back with the same 'proof' that you faked it and, because it was you that made it, you would know that was incorrect first hand, without any doubts that the person telling you this has some kind of evil agenda. But we both know you have no desire to do that, because the truth is not something you have genuine interest in, and it would mean you couldn't just claim I was using 'biased sources', which you're about to do in your next post.

 

[TLSS_N]

You're seriously still a birther? Jesus H Christ.

The pdf file offers no evidence of forgery, as anyone who actually knows anything about the format will tell you

http://www.foxnews.c...tificate-legit/

Although I'm sure Adobe and Fox are in the tank for Obama as well. Hell, I'm probably a government agent paid by George Soros to discredit you on the Internet.

If you had any genuine desire to find out, you could make a pdf file using a similar set up yourself, run the same 'tests' and see that it came back with the same 'proof' that you faked it and, because it was you that made it, you would know that was incorrect first hand, without any doubts that the person telling you this has some kind of evil agenda. But we both know you have no desire to do that, because the truth is not something you have genuine interest in, and it would mean you couldn't just claim I was using 'biased sources', which you're about to do in your next post.

As I stated earlier, it's the same result as the video I posted earlier.



Also

 

[emigre]

 

[TLSS_N]

You have allot of fun trolling around here, don't you?

 

[BlueStar]

It could just be a matter of me believing a multitude of Adobe users and you some tin foil hat wearer with a youtube account, but the fact is the steps the video goes through do not demonstrate it's fake, so the fact you follow those steps and get that results means nothing. Adobe products have been automatically layering and using OCR on imported info for quite some time. They were doing it before the birth certificate was posted and they still do it now. You can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts.

There at least seems to be consensus amongst nearly all on the right, even ex-birthers, that this is now a lost battle and one that did a considerable damage to their cause. But the GOP just can't seem to shake the last dregs of this lunatic fringe attached to them like a limpet, and it's that which means Obama's set for another four years (unless some far right terrorist nut murders him). And I'm sure people will still be opening pdf's in notepad when there's only a few months left of his second term and discovering that his birth certificate isn't real and it's actually made up of SQUARES! And they'll still be incredulous when people sigh and roll their eyes rather than taking to the streets in a rage.

 

[emigre]

You have allot of fun trolling around here, don't you?

Excellent response to a reasonable claim. If Obama wasn't mixed race and would there be so much batshit insanity over his birthplace? Honestly it seems apparent to me, a good amount of opposition to the Obama administration is based on irrationality than legitimate political reasoning.

 

[TLSS_N]

It could just be a matter of me believing an Adobe technician and you some tin foil hat wearer with a youtube account, but the fact is the steps the video goes through do not demonstrate it's fake, so the fact you follow those steps and get that results means nothing. Adobe products have been automatically layering and using OCR on imported info for quite some time. They were doing it before the birth certificate was posted and they still do it now. You can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts.

There at least seems to be consensus amongst nearly all on the right, even ex-birthers, that this is now a lost battle and one that did a considerable damage to their cause. But the GOP just can't seem to shake the last dregs of this lunatic fringe attached to them like a limpet, and it's that which means Obama's set for another four years (unless some far right terrorist nut murders him). And I'm sure people will still be opening pdf's in notepad when there's only a few months left of his second term and discovering that his birth certificate isn't real and it's actually made up of SQUARES! And they'll still be incredulous when people sigh and roll their eyes rather than taking to the streets in a rage.

Discredit, discredit ,discredit, is that all you people can do? Hell, that's all you seem to be able to do bluestar, just as stubborn as ever. 98% of the media panders to the democratic party in this country, what does that tell you? There is no difference between a compliant media and a state owed media. It's the liberal way, mock torment and discredit. I've been right before, and I know I am right now. Mock me all you want, I know the truth, and will continue to sing it until the day I die.

You have allot of fun trolling around here, don't you?

Excellent response to a reasonable claim. If Obama wasn't mixed race and would there be so much batshit insanity over his birthplace? Honestly it seems apparent to me, a good amount of opposition to the Obama administration is based on irrationality than legitimate political reasoning.

Nice try mega troll, not gonna work.

 

[emigre]

Ah you are part of the irrational Right wing lobby.

 

[TLSS_N]

Ah you are part of the irrational Right wing lobby.

Just one more post added to my account, going to bed... night.

 

[BlueStar]

I also think you need to read further down that wnd article and wade through their spin. As he says himself in his clarification "what I see about how the PDF is built does not prove any falsification."

Everything he said on the original article about the layers and OCR being absolutely no indication of forgery is true and at no point does he imply otherwise later. After being harassed by birthers and accused of working for Obama because he once commented on an amazon page about a book about Obama, he's clarified that these layers etc don't prove authenticity, as the article may imply (after all, EVERYTHING can be forged.) But they certainly don't prove or even slightly indicate any nefarious activity. So the fact you can see them by looking at the pdf, again,means absolutely nothing.

Discredit, discredit ,discredit, is that all you people can do?

What? You dedicate your entire life to discrediting Obama and anyone who doesn't think he's the anti-christ.

Hell, that's all you seem to be able to do bluestar, just as stubborn as ever.

Oh, I'm sorry, I should just accept anything you tell people as truth even if it comes with zero evidence and is demonstrably false. To do otherwise is being 'stubborn'.

98% of the media panders to the democratic party in this country, what does that tell you?

It tells you you pull statistics directly out of your ass.

There is no difference between a compliant media and a state owed media. It's the liberal way, mock torment and discredit. I've been right before, and I know I am right now.

You will believe any lie you are told, as long as it backs your established world view. I could go and invent a juicy story about Obama, global warming, the gays and the liberal media today, post it on Free Republic tomorrow and see you post it as gospel on here by Thursday.

Mock me all you want, I know the truth, and will continue to sing it until the day I die.

"The media is lib'rul, this I know, because my radio tells me so..."

 

[Gahars]

Nice try mega troll, not gonna work.

Wait, you claim that the media only aims to discredit... and yet, when Emigre raises a legitimate point, you try to discredit him through petty insults.

Hypocrisy, thy name is The Living Shadow.

 

[Hanafuda]

Funding for the "Center on Budget and Policy Priorities," i.e. CBPP, comes from the Democracy Alliance, which was set up by George Soros and Tim Gill. Most everyone here's probably heard of Soros. Tim Gill's "Gill Action Fund" provides political support (CASH) to politicians and political parties conditioned on their support of LGBT rights, and that of course means the Democratic party. In other words, your graphs say what they were paid to say. They are "based on" CBO numbers, but CBPP is known to adjust those numbers to suit their interpretations and forecasts. Just because you can produce a jpg of a chart doesn't mean it's accurate. Your source has an agenda.

Thank you! Glad to see I am not the only dog in this fight

No offense but we're not even close to being on the same side. But I keep coming back to counter Lacius because I've been a democrat for probably longer than he's been alive and I do not like the hard-left socialist turn the party has taken recently. On the last page Lacius said, "The Republicans in general have moved so far right in this country that Romney could also be considered a right-wing extremist." I can tell you, having the benefit of being around for the 70's, 80's, and 90's, that this is absolutely not true. It is the leadership of the democratic party whose ideology has shifted dramatically, and many democrats over 40y.o. these days are only voting democrat for local and state candidates because they do not support the national party's (DNC) platform.

If Obama wasn't mixed race and would there be so much batshit insanity over his birthplace? Honestly it seems apparent to me, a good amount of opposition to the Obama administration is based on irrationality than legitimate political reasoning.

I agree with this. But it is also possible to be opposed to Obama being president without being a birther, and without being a racist. I supported Hillary in the 2008 nomination process and I'm still a registered dem though I'm starting to lean libertarian, simply because their strict constitutionalist philosophy of fiscal responsibilty with social liberty is closer in line with how I'm thinking these days.

It is worth mentioning, however, that democrats did sue in Federal court to disqualify McCain over his birthplace as well. If McCain had won the 2008 election, I do believe there would still be democrats out there still saying he wasn't a 'natural born citizen' either. Heck, there are still plenty of democrats who are still livid over the 2000 election and the Supreme Court's decision that stopped the recounts in Florida.

 

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

Excellent response to a reasonable claim. If Obama wasn't mixed race and would there be so much batshit insanity over his birthplace? Honestly it seems apparent to me, a good amount of opposition to the Obama administration is based on irrationality than legitimate political reasoning.

Oh? I think that statement went a touch overboard. The opposition that I have encountered among people here is hardly "irrational," and has nothing to do with his race. His administration is largely based on collusion and fear of the Christian right, and he has allowed the most reactionary policies in general to solidify under his watch; the Wall Street bailout and Bradley Manning's treatment, for example. He has broken most of, if not all, all of his promises for greater social reform. At this point he is even far worse than his predecessor, little more than a friendly face to cover up the rapacity of US imperialism abroad.

Obama is a shameless bourgeois politician and a scoundrel. Such an opinion is based on his political history, not his racial heritage. That is, at least, the opposition I've encountered.

 

[Lacius]

Funding for the "Center on Budget and Policy Priorities," i.e. CBPP, comes from the Democracy Alliance, which was set up by George Soros and Tim Gill. Most everyone here's probably heard of Soros. Tim Gill's "Gill Action Fund" provides political support (CASH) to politicians and political parties conditioned on their support of LGBT rights, and that of course means the Democratic party. In other words, your graphs say what they were paid to say. They are "based on" CBO numbers, but CBPP is known to adjust those numbers to suit their interpretations and forecasts. Just because you can produce a jpg of a chart doesn't mean it's accurate. Your source has an agenda.

The numbers I have provided are accurate. If you have data that contradicts it, feel free to post it. But these are very specific numbers with little room for interpretation. Your claim that the graphs say what they were paid to say is baseless. Likewise, the CBO is nonpartisan and concurs with these numbers. The following is from the CBO and is just the difference in the debt focusing only on one variable (the Bush tax cuts):

I'm happy to argue the debt and the deficit (and the effect each of the candidates for president would have on them), but please, if you're going to question the numbers, provide some evidence. Until you do, these charts by the CBO and CBPP can be considered accurate. You're basically saying "the CBPP has an agenda so they can't be right." Your logic is flawed, especially in the absence of contradictory evidence. You argue there's a bias and that the data provided by the CBPP is misleading, but this argument against the CBPP's assement has proven to be false (it argues that the projections through 2011 were flawed due to things like failing to include the effects the tax cuts would have on the economy [which no reputable economist thought would occur]), and we can see that the CBPP projections through 2011 were accurate. Here's more data (CBO, etc):

But I keep coming back to counter Lacius because I've been a democrat for probably longer than he's been alive

Looking at this thread objectively, you don't appear to be doing a very good job countering me. No offense intended. And I don't see how our ages are relevant.

and I do not like the hard-left socialist turn the party has taken recently. On the last page Lacius said, "The Republicans in general have moved so far right in this country that Romney could also be considered a right-wing extremist." I can tell you, having the benefit of being around for the 70's, 80's, and 90's, that this is absolutely not true. It is the leadership of the democratic party whose ideology has shifted dramatically, and many democrats over 40y.o. these days are only voting democrat for local and state candidates because they do not support the national party's (DNC) platform.

I'm not going to argue that the Democratic party has remained constant over the years, but I get the feeling you don't know exactly what it means to be socialist, because the Democrats are not. If you could provide some evidence, that would help me understand your thinking. As for the Republicans, it is quite apparent. We're talking about birth control as an issue again, the Tea Party specifically focused on replacing moderates with conservatives in the 2010 elections, etc. Issues like amnesty for illegal immigration, cap and trade, individual mandates, etc. were all Republican ideas originally. Now they have taken a hard-right turn. Even Reagan likely would be too liberal by today's standards for Republicans.

Discredit, discredit ,discredit, is that all you people can do?

The information you are providing is not credible. Likewise, the burden of proof is on you to show that Obama was not born in the United States. All you have shown is that any generic birth certificate can be edited using Adobe software in 2012. Why, specifically, is Obama's birth certificate a fake? Also, to what end? Did his family decide they would run him in a presidential election so they planted newspaper birth announcements, etc. when he was a baby? Let's just say there's a reason why all your conspiracy evidence is limited to shady conspiracy websites and YouTube. Even your precious Fox News thinks this debate is pointless.

I've been right before, and I know I am right now. Mock me all you want, I know the truth, and will continue to sing it until the day I die.

Can you prove it, let alone support it? This kind of statement shows me that you live in a bubble of your own facts. It does not matter how much evidence is shown to you. You will continue shouting "Obama wasn't born in the United States" despite the evidence, which means you are an illogical person.

 

[The Catboy]

Ok, seriously people? Still a debate over if Obama was born in a America? You know if he is still in office and wasn't kicked out, then he was born in America. There end of discussion.

 

[Hanafuda]

The following is from the CBO and is just the difference in the debt focusing only on one variable (the Bush tax cuts):

No, it isn't from the CBO. It's from thinkprogress.org, and it reflects "the author's calculations", again "based on" data from the CBO and ITEP (another 'progressive' group).

As for your demand for evidence to the contrary, I've already explained my opinion that there is no objective reporting to be had. Everyone's got their charts and pie-graphs to show what they want everyone else to believe is the truth, all based on the same allegedly objective data. Ever hear the one about "lies, damned lies, and statistics?" I'm sure "the Heritage Foundation" has a few very credible looking graphs that purport to disprove your graphs ... they're bullshit too.

That said, even if we take your graph as truth, note that with or without the Bush tax cuts, publicly held debt as a percentage of GDP was steadily declining until 2009, and then steeply climbs.

Anyway, I already agreed with you pages ago that the so-called "Bush tax cuts" should have been repealed in the first year Obama took office. But they weren't, even though the democrats held a majority in both houses of Congress. Why didn't they do that? Oh that's right, because the Republicans might've filibustered the extension of unemployment benefits for people who'd already used theirs up. Oooooh, scary. I'll say it one more time ... they should have let them filibuster. But, the democrats' majority in the House is long gone and its pointless to debate that now I guess. Though if the democrat-controlled Senate would've passed a budget even once in the past 3 and 1/2 years, maybe those "Bush" tax cuts that they can't seem to be able to stop could've at least been fought over some, instead of just letting them continue. As far as I'm concerned, not even fighting it = same as voting for it to go on.

Finally, as for the veracity of the data in that graph ... it shows the debt growing and growing in the years to come, all due to those durn "Bush tax cuts." But your graphs, nor thinkprogress.org or any other of your sources, even begin to consider that LESS SPENDING could also keep the debt from growing.

I'm happy to argue the debt and the deficit (and the effect each of the candidates for president would have on them), but please, if you're going to question the numbers, provide some evidence.

ugh.

Looking at this thread objectively, you don't appear to be doing a very good job countering me. No offense intended. And I don't see how our ages are relevant.

You can go on believing that.

 

[Lacius]

I've already explained my opinion that there is no objective reporting to be had. Everyone's got their charts and pie-graphs to show what they want everyone else to believe is the truth, all based on the same allegedly objective data.

Numbers are numbers, friend. For example, you take the Bush tax cuts, you subtract them from the deficit, and it is easy to see how big a part they play in the deficit problem. The CBO and numerous other nonpartisan groups agree that the numbers are accurate, and arguments to contrary barely exist. Your non-objective reporting is conservatives unfairly saying "Obama has raised the debt more than any other president" when that is not true. If you do not think these numbers are objective or reflect the truth, please, find me some evidence. Your idea that the numbers "might reflect a bias" could be said of anything ever said in the history of the world, even the facts.

That said, even if we take your graph as truth, note that with or without the Bush tax cuts, publicly held debt as a percentage of GDP was steadily declining until 2009, and then steeply climbs.

The debt balloons starting in 2008 due to both recovery measures and the actual economic downturn.

Anyway, I already agreed with you pages ago that the so-called "Bush tax cuts" should have been repealed in the first year Obama took office. But they weren't, even though the democrats held a majority in both houses of Congress. Why didn't they do that? Oh that's right, because the Republicans might've filibustered the extension of unemployment benefits for people who'd already used theirs up. Oooooh, scary. I'll say it one more time ... they should have let them filibuster. But, the democrats' majority in the House is long gone and its pointless to debate that now I guess. Though if the democrat-controlled Senate would've passed a budget even once in the past 3 and 1/2 years, maybe those "Bush" tax cuts that they can't seem to be able to stop could've at least been fought over some, instead of just letting them continue. As far as I'm concerned, not even fighting it = same as voting for it to go on.

As I've already said, I kind of agree with you. Because of the Republicans' filibuster, there were only two scenarios: extend unemployment and help the economy while also extending the Bush tax cuts and increasing the debt without any positive effect on the economy, or don't extend unemployment and see a negative effect on the economy while allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire and decreasing the debt without any effect on the economy. Both scenarios can be successfully argued. Obviously, the best option would have been extending unemployment while also letting the Bush tax cuts expire, but it was physically impossible to do that due to the filibuster. Since you're on the side of the second option, I am going to just say that helping the economy is probably a bigger priority than deficit reduction, especially in the midst of a double-dip recession. Not extending unemployment might have pushed the economy over the edge. Again, I see your point, and from a purely debt point-of-view, the Democrats should have just let them filibuster the unemployment and let the tax cuts expire.

Major edit: I forgot to mention that your option of letting them filibuster would have let all of the Bush tax cuts expire, including those on the lower and middle class, and that would have had a negative effect on the economy. Democrats tried passing an extension on just those, but the Republicans killed it. So yes, your idea would have decreased the debt substantially over time. However, the economy would have been hit two-fold.

Finally, as for the veracity of the data in that graph ... it shows the debt growing and growing in the years to come, all due to those durn "Bush tax cuts." But your graphs, nor thinkprogress.org or any other of your sources, even begin to consider that LESS SPENDING could also keep the debt from growing.

Obama's proposed budget cuts spending as well. It's essentially a bipartisan effort (although the Republicans refuse it get on-board because it raises taxes on the rich through letting the Bush tax cuts expire and various other means).

I'm happy to argue the debt and the deficit (and the effect each of the candidates for president would have on them), but please, if you're going to question the numbers, provide some evidence.

ugh.

I'm sorry providing evidence is so annoying for you?

 

[J3LL0]

I like Ron Paul. He seems to stick with what he says.

 

[smile72]

Funding for the "Center on Budget and Policy Priorities," i.e. CBPP, comes from the Democracy Alliance, which was set up by George Soros and Tim Gill. Most everyone here's probably heard of Soros. Tim Gill's "Gill Action Fund" provides political support (CASH) to politicians and political parties conditioned on their support of LGBT rights, and that of course means the Democratic party. In other words, your graphs say what they were paid to say. They are "based on" CBO numbers, but CBPP is known to adjust those numbers to suit their interpretations and forecasts. Just because you can produce a jpg of a chart doesn't mean it's accurate. Your source has an agenda.

Thank you! Glad to see I am not the only dog in this fight

No offense but we're not even close to being on the same side. But I keep coming back to counter Lacius because I've been a democrat for probably longer than he's been alive and I do not like the hard-left socialist turn the party has taken recently. On the last page Lacius said, "The Republicans in general have moved so far right in this country that Romney could also be considered a right-wing extremist." I can tell you, having the benefit of being around for the 70's, 80's, and 90's, that this is absolutely not true. It is the leadership of the democratic party whose ideology has shifted dramatically, and many democrats over 40y.o. these days are only voting democrat for local and state candidates because they do not support the national party's (DNC) platform.

If Obama wasn't mixed race and would there be so much batshit insanity over his birthplace? Honestly it seems apparent to me, a good amount of opposition to the Obama administration is based on irrationality than legitimate political reasoning.

I agree with this. But it is also possible to be opposed to Obama being president without being a birther, and without being a racist. I supported Hillary in the 2008 nomination process and I'm still a registered dem though I'm starting to lean libertarian, simply because their strict constitutionalist philosophy of fiscal responsibilty with social liberty is closer in line with how I'm thinking these days.

It is worth mentioning, however, that democrats did sue in Federal court to disqualify McCain over his birthplace as well. If McCain had won the 2008 election, I do believe there would still be democrats out there still saying he wasn't a 'natural born citizen' either. Heck, there are still plenty of democrats who are still livid over the 2000 election and the Supreme Court's decision that stopped the recounts in Florida.

The only difference is Obama was born in Hawaii, McCain was born in Panama (not a state or a territory).