Town Square

Post a New Topic

2008: Hope & change - 2012: hypocrisy & change of positions

Original post made by jimf01 on Apr 16, 2012

We have a President who rode in to office on a the phrase hope and change. Now, as a video shows us, we have hypocrisy. Web Link
We do have change, just not the type his voters were seeking perhaps. Higher unemployment, higher deficits, higher taxes. Seems sometimes the only lower is his golf score.
We had a President who took strong positions on many issues during (and prior to) the 2008 campaign, on many of those issues, the Obama admin has changed positions, simply for political expediency.
Web Link

Comments (55)

Posted by Jim's Alter Ego, a resident of another community
on Apr 16, 2012 at 6:35 pm

Or let me put it another way, folks. The (removed) festival at the fair grounds was a bust. Bad scheduling to put it in conflict with a NASCAR race. Could have had Sarah Palin come and blather, as her schedule is very open these days.

More importantly, everyone knows that Obama has done a better than decent job and that Republicans are incapable of fielding a credible candidate to oppose him. Instead, therefore, I shall use these pages to rail against the black guy in office.

Yours truly, Jim's Alter Ego


Posted by axe man, a resident of Happy Valley
on Apr 16, 2012 at 8:05 pm

It's getting bad for BHO, even David Axelrod came out and endorsed Romney this weekend!
Web Link
“The choice in this election is between an economy that produces a growing middle class and that gives people a chance to get ahead and their kids a chance to get ahead and an economy that continues down the road we're on."


Posted by Jim's Alter Ego, a resident of another community
on Apr 16, 2012 at 8:11 pm

Poor Jim just can't get his computer to work without giving himself away. Besides that, there's always the predictable lie. To wit: "It's getting bad for BHO, even David Axelrod came out and endorsed Romney this weekend!"

But I guess when you support a pathological liar for president, it's because he reminds you of yourself.


Posted by Sonya, a resident of Canyon Oaks
on Apr 16, 2012 at 8:13 pm

"......everyone knows that Obama has done a better than decent job.....". High praise indeed. Almost jimmy carter territory.....jimmy is actually relieved he won't be targeted any more as the worst president ever. At a minimum, he's the worst half white president, since you think race is a determining factor.


Posted by Sonya, a resident of Canyon Oaks
on Apr 16, 2012 at 8:15 pm

Obama is a pathological liar? Must be proud to add that to his resume and long list of accomplishments since 2008.....what accomplishments were those again?


Posted by dublinmike, a resident of Dublin
on Apr 16, 2012 at 9:19 pm

dublinmike is a registered user.

Okay, let us use Jimf01's rationale. They elect Bush, Jr. and conservatives are dissatisfied. So, we should follow their lead again?

Face it Jim (and let's be honest), President Obama was not someone you would have voted for in the beginning, i.e, Democrat, and, therefore, someone you have been waiting for these past 3 years to attack again.

Let's face it, Part II, Republicans have had control the House of Representatives thereby creating an Obstructionist congress. He never had a chance to get to the second inning.

Part III, the bale out of Wall Street started with Pres. Bush Administration. He inherited the mess.

And, it goes on & on. No apologies, just reflecting on the things people like you don't bring up.

Bless our mess, and I would rather be here than some where else. At least we have the opportunity to express our thoughts without the secret police knocking on our doors.

p.s. Sonya, you need to do a little more research.


Posted by Tri-Valley Patriot, a resident of Del Prado
on Apr 16, 2012 at 9:29 pm

You just wait until President Romney saves us from this Obamanation! Bye bye, Obamacare! Bye bye deficit-creating tax cuts for the poor! Bye bye Planned Parenthood! Helloooooo jobs!


Posted by Jim's Alter Ego, a resident of another community
on Apr 16, 2012 at 9:36 pm

Nice try with the different names, Jimbo! Fact:

April 16th, 2012 CNN Poll

If the election were held today would you vote for Barack Obama or Mitt Romney:

Obama: 52%
Romney: 43%

Read it and weep, Jimbo. Not exactly Jimmy Carter numbers. More important, the country isn't as racist as you wish it were. Have you thought about starting up a KKK branch in your neck of the woods? You'd have a good base with the handful of losers that showed for your fairground fiasco this past weekend.


Posted by Uh, a resident of Downtown
on Apr 16, 2012 at 11:28 pm

"Bye bye Planned Parenthood! Helloooooo jobs!"

You realize that by getting rid of Planned Parenthood, you'd just be putting more people out of jobs right...?


Posted by sonya, a resident of Canyon Oaks
on Apr 17, 2012 at 8:05 am

Mike, I've done my research and am breathing a sigh of relief things aren't worse...after all, obama had control of the house and senate for this first two years in office and the damage culd have been much worse. From the left's perspective, you've gotta be thinking, why didn't our dear leader do more to steer the country towards his vision of utopia during those two ineffective years. Either way you look at it, he's had his chance and failed. Time to move on.


Posted by Facts, a resident of Danbury Park
on Apr 17, 2012 at 8:09 am

Jim's alter ego,

Better take a look at some other polls for more accurate info. Gallup and Rasmussan both have Romney beating Obama head to head by 4% and 2% respectfully. Looking further and maybe more importantly Republicans are beating Democrats by 46% to 36% in the Rasmussan poll for congress. Most poll services are predicting that the Republicans with take overwhelming control of the House and will take control of the Senate. The more the deficit grows and the less Obama does about it the more he will fall behind.


Posted by FACTS, a resident of Danbury Park
on Apr 17, 2012 at 8:11 am

Romney is also shown leading in the polls against Obama in the swing states of Pennsylvannia, Ohio, North Carolina, Florida, and Virginia.


Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community
on Apr 17, 2012 at 8:35 am

jimf01 is a registered user.

Like the troll commenters above tossing insults at me, this guy shows what happens when a liberal doesn't like the conservative argument, and has nothing intelligent to say in reply

Web Link


Posted by SteveP, a resident of Parkside
on Apr 17, 2012 at 8:52 am

SteveP is a registered user.

Liberals typically argue based on emotion and so you get this type of outburst, with either name calling or expletives that would make their mothers cringe. It's embarassing to watch, when logic escapes them...you can literally see their veins pop out in their necks as they realize their positions have no basis in reality. Sad, really.
It's a wonder more people haven't figured out yet that liberals resemble spoiled, undisciplined children.


Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill
on Apr 17, 2012 at 9:24 am

"We do have change, just not the type his voters were seeking perhaps."

Well, let's just see what the voters have to say in November, shall we? Many on the conservative side have been saying that Americans were all fooled by Obama and that now that everyone knows the "real Obama" he will be voted out of office in the next election. We'll see, but at this point I don't think that things are going to turn out that way. What are all of you far-right conservatives going to say when Obama gets re-elected? Seems like you don't have any excuses left. You won't be able to say anymore that people were fooled into voting for him because they didn't know the "real Obama". We will have had Obama as President for four years. I just don't think that you can wrap your mind around the fact that the majority of Americans both know Obama and are willing to vote for him.


Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill
on Apr 17, 2012 at 9:38 am

Steve and Jimf01, your posts really baffle me. You make it sound like you value "intelligence" and "logic" but then when your far-right conservative wing picks Presidential candidates do you pick people who personify "intelligence" and "logic"? No, you pick characters like Palin, Bachmann, Gingrich, etc.. What gives? The Democratic party gives us a Harvard-educated law professor as candidate. Is he not intelligent enough for you? Not logical enough? You have someone better? Nope, not yet you don't.


Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community
on Apr 17, 2012 at 10:22 am

jimf01 is a registered user.

Sam - I can certainly wrap my mind around it, and that is why I make an effort, and this posting is part of that, to show the voters what they really got with this President. Because many people listen only to the mainstream media and the campaign, who tell them lies.

Why didn't Obama pass legislation when he had a majority in both houses of Congress, and follow through on a few of the campaign promises listed in the article I linked? Why didn't Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, the Congressional Democrat leadership in 2009-2010, negotiate with Republicans to attract the few Republican votes they needed? They certainly were able to do that when they needed to pass the health care legislation (that may well be partly or fully struck down as unconstitutional very soon).

My hope is that people will learn something, but we get replies from people like dublinmike, a good Democrat who claim the Republicans have created an obstructionist Congress, when (in addition to the fallacy of his statement that Sonya pointed out) it is Harry Reid in the Democrat majority Senate who will not even pass a federal budget!

In addition, we are looking at an electoral college count, and if you think, as you put it, "the majority of Americans both know Obama and are willing to vote for him" is going to do the trick for you, you had better think again. Majority vote counts for nothing in the end.


Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community
on Apr 17, 2012 at 10:30 am

jimf01 is a registered user.

It IS getting REALLY bad for BHO when even one of his staunchest supporters in Congress, Barney Frank (after announcing his retirement), tells the press the Democrats "paid a terrible price for health care. I would not have pushed it as hard. As a matter of fact, after Scott Brown won, I suggested going back."
Frank correctly analyzes that the Democrats lost a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate in exchange for the passage of Obamacare.
Many Democrats feely admit that they lost a number of seats in the House in 2010 for the exact same reason.
And for what? The entire thing may soon be struck down by the Supreme Court.
Web Link


Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community
on Apr 17, 2012 at 10:39 am

jimf01 is a registered user.

Sam - your next post falls down on lack of truth, and pushes in to troll territory, but here goes: When did anyone "pick" Palin, Bachmann, Gingrich, etc..

Many conservatives supported these people, to be sure.

The Republican Party, if anyone, is responsible for "picks". The candidacy of a Gingrich is pretty much a result of a rich guy with political ambition throwing his hat in the ring, no one "picked" him.

Now, a Barack Obama, on the other hand, that is a 'pick'. You also push a mistruth calling Obama a professor, he was a lecturer for a brief time, he was never a professor.

As for Mitt Romney being better, well I do value intelligence and logic, but instead we will have to rely on the American voters to "pick" in November.


Posted by Jim's Alter Ego, a resident of another community
on Apr 17, 2012 at 10:45 am

It seems Jimbo, in his thoughtless zeal, forgot to mention a few accomplishments of the Obama admin:

Overhauled the food safety system;

Approved the Lily Ledbetter "Equal Pay" for women rule;

Ended "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" discrimination in the military;

Passed the Hate Crimes bill in Congress;(which infuriated Jimbo)

Appointed two progressive women to the U.S. Supreme Court including the first Latina;

Pushed through the Affordable Health Care Act, outlawing denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions, extending until age 26 health care coverage of children under parent's plans, steps toward "Medicare for All;"

Expanded the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) health care for children;

Pushed through a $789 economic stimulus bill that saved or created 3 million jobs and began task of repairing the nation's infrastructure;

Overhauled the credit card industry, making it more consumer friendly;

Established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and used a recess appointment to keep it on track in the face of GOP attempts to derail it;

Also outmaneuvered GOP in naming two members of the National Labor Relations Board blocked by the Republicans in their attempt to shut down the NLRB;

Won two extensions of the debt ceiling and extensions of unemployment compensation in the face of Republican threats to shut down the U.S. government;

Pulled troops out of Iraq and began draw down of troops in Afghanistan.

Stood up before the American people and told them he doesn't think about Osama bin Laden any more -- erm, well actually that was the clown who occupied the office before Obama who stated that.

Oh, and there are hundreds more. Thanks Jimbo! Keep up the good work! By the way, I was one of the 17 people who showed at your tea party bbq on Saturday at the fair grounds. I was the one wearing the tinfoil hat and waving the little $8 flag your wife sold to me.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Apr 17, 2012 at 11:26 am

Stacey is a registered user.

And the NLRB has suffered for quite a long time for lack of members, hasn't it? Good thing the board held all those pro forma sessions to prevent Bush from making recess appointments, not that it stopped Obama. I wonder, who benefited the most from all the two-member NLRB decisions? I'm sure Jim's Alter Ego simply forgot to mention it.


Posted by Jim's Alter Ego, a resident of another community
on Apr 17, 2012 at 11:54 am

Yes, better to have shut down the agency, which is what Bush effectively did with his appointment of Mitch McConnell's honeybunch, Elaine Chou as Secretary of Labor. Her qualifications? Zilch. Her accomplishments? Raised a lot of campaign money for her hubby. From the above list, that's where you choose to go? Wow, that's pretty unimpressive.

Aren't you supposed to be cooped up in your self-constructed prison of excluded viewpoints? It must have been exhausting posting yourself as author and sentry to defend your embarrassment of words. So, aside from the embarrassment, how did that work for ya? Ah, well, though even your twin sister KR didn't give you uptake, you managed to suck old reliable steve into your web of petulant self delusion. Let's all follow Stacey's lead: Stop the bullying! Ban the liberal trolls and all others who laugh at her viewpoints!

Kudos to Lou, who once again wins this month's Mr. Mittens award. Absolutely delicious. There lived a boy ... who is truly humbled.


Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill
on Apr 17, 2012 at 12:24 pm

Jimf01 said: "Why didn't Obama pass legislation when he had a majority in both houses of Congress, and follow through on a few of the campaign promises listed in the article I linked?"

I don't know. Why didn't Bush solve all of the problems that he had to deal with when he was President AND the Republicans had control of both Houses? Why was it left to Obama to fix the economy and conclude not just one, but two separate wars? Why was it left to Obama to initiate health care reform? Why didn't Bush do something? Health care costs have clearly been spiraling out of control for quite some time and most everyone seemed to agree that the status quo was unacceptable but nothing ever happened.

The difference between you and me is that while I see problems when either the Democrats or Republicans have near-total control, you have joined in with the likes of Steve and other similarly minded people who think that only Democrats have problems and that everything would be rosy if we all voted Republicans into office. Haven't we been down that road before? Yeah, we've been there, done that.


Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill
on Apr 17, 2012 at 12:39 pm

Jimf01 said "Sam - your next post falls down on lack of truth, and pushes in to troll territory, but here goes: When did anyone "pick" Palin, Bachmann, Gingrich, etc.. Many conservatives supported these people, to be sure. The Republican Party, if anyone, is responsible for "picks". "

Jimf01, I don't want to play games with semantics and the definition of "pick", so let me rephrase: Palin, Bachmann, Gingrich and other Republican candidates enjoyed fairly wide support among conservative Republican voters. In terms of intellect, education, and logical reasoning powers, none of them can match Obama. I say this as an independent. If you, Steve, and others think that Palin, Backmann, and Gingrich rise to the level of Obama in terms of intellectual prowess, you're deluded. So I find it interesting how so many conservatives criticize liberals for being "stupid" or "emotional" or "illogical" but then turn around and support Republican candidates such as the ones I mentioned above. Today's Republican party seems to have a distinct anti-intellectual bent to it. It's become the party of "Joe the Plumber".

As for Obama's university position, you're right. He was a lecturer, not a professor.


Posted by Abe, a resident of another community
on Apr 17, 2012 at 1:15 pm

Sam, you're not quite correct. Obama was a 'Senior Lecturer' which counts as being a professor at arguably the world's finest law institution, the Univ of Chicago. He was not tenured, nor was he tenure track. He was offered a tenure track position numerous times, and at one point declined the offer of 'Tenured Professor' (as he had bigger fish to fry). See the Univ of Chicago's formal statement:

UC Law School statement: "The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined."

At any rate, I agree with you that it is so very ironic that the morons on the right insist that Obama is dumb and has never held a real job.


Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community
on Apr 17, 2012 at 1:18 pm

jimf01 is a registered user.

Brilliant reasoning Sam. We can determine Obama's intellect, education, and logical reasoning powers by a Harvard law degree, and what else?

Obama will not show his transcripts from any college he attended. Obama will also typically never, ever, give a speech which he is not reading from a teleprompter. How do you use the available information to determine that our current President is of superior intellect?

I have seen Newt Gingrich, to pick one name you offered, expound on multiple subjects in long speeches without a teleprompter or notes, and show himself to be of great intelligence.


Posted by Abe, a resident of another community
on Apr 17, 2012 at 1:23 pm

See, for example, the moron who just posted above me.

p.s. One does not become president of the Harvard Law Review, as Obama was, without being in the top 10% of one's class.


Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community
on Apr 17, 2012 at 1:26 pm

jimf01 is a registered user.

So then, why would a former president of the Harvard Law Review not be willing to show his transcripts? What possible reason would there be for that?


Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community
on Apr 17, 2012 at 1:31 pm

jimf01 is a registered user.

Why would a superior intellect and brilliant professor of law at arguably the finest law school in the word say this, "Ultimately, I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress"

Only to be forced to retract it just a few days later, albeit by a proxy statement from Attorney General Holder?


Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community
on Apr 17, 2012 at 1:36 pm

jimf01 is a registered user.

This same President took a starkly different view on overturning another law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.
President Obama stated the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and will not have the Department of Justice pursue a defense in the court system.
It was originally passed by huge bipartisan votes of 342 to 67 in the House and 85 to 14 in the Senate.

So here we have a so-called Constitutional scholar wanting to have his cake and eat it too. The disparity in the president's conflicting positions is glaring and can only lead one to believe it is for political expediency that he talks out of both sides of his mouth.

Remember this when it comes time to vote for the next leader of this nation.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Apr 17, 2012 at 1:39 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Jim's Alter Ego,
Ah, you mistakenly believe that I care about Bush. No, instead let's laugh at your need to pad your list, trying to trump up the naming of two new members to the NLRB as an accomplishment after SCOTUS ruled that it needed a quorum. Try taking a dump when you don't have to go. Now that'd be an accomplishment!

Let's pick another, more substantial item from your list: Obamacare. It is far more than outlawing the denial of children's pre-existing conditions and such a reform didn't even need to be bundled. Obamacare should have been the expansion of a minimum coverage national health insurance program funded by taxes, aka: "Medicare for All". There's no constitutional question about the government's power to tax. But oh, Obama pushed on passing healthcare legislation at the absolute worst time to do it: right after the economy went bust, when all the anti-tax Republicans were in a tizzy. Yep, no chance there for a tax. Just a questionable law that tries to create a tax without it being called a tax to satisfy certain right-wing political ideologies. "Medicare for All" would have been an accomplishment!

I can't pass up mentioning another Obama "accomplishment" that you forgot to list: the creation of yet another political favor system that allows the granting of a waiver from Obamacare taxation on cadillac health plans by whichever political party happens to head up the helm that day. Obama has been busy handing out those exemptions, hasn't he? I bet you can't wait to see who the other party favors. I'm sure it will be equally detrimental to the general welfare of the US, but a great chance for you to complain about the other party. Because politics in the US today isn't about doing what is right for the American people, it's about doing what is right for your buddies. But you knew that already.


Posted by Abe, a resident of another community
on Apr 17, 2012 at 1:44 pm

What does he have to gain by showing them to soft-headed ones like yourself who don't know the difference between Harvard or UnivofChicago from WEST GEORGIA COLLEGE where Gingrich was banished as an incompetent?

Obama was a superior student, just as he's been a superior president. Why don't you wage your silly little boy's campaign against Romney for refusing to divulge his tax returns? Obama has revealed his for the past 12 years. What kind of silly goof are you anyway? Are you a troll planted by the left to make the right look even more ridiculous than they usually do?

For Obama to have his intelligence questioned by the likes of yourself is like Einstein being questioned by a toad. People take you about as seriously as they took the tea party meeting over the past week-end -- you know, the one you were pushing with all your phoney names and to which no one showed. How did that work for you, by the way?


Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community
on Apr 17, 2012 at 1:50 pm

jimf01 is a registered user.

Wouldn't he just put all the detractors to shame by disclosing the info? That's what he has to gain.

What does he have to lose? That's the real question. But you are afraid to answer real questions without tossing insults. Try not acting like a child.


Posted by Abe, a resident of another community
on Apr 17, 2012 at 1:59 pm

One really must talk down like a child to match your intellect. Obama revealed proof of his birth in Hawaii. And where did that get him with the intellectual softheads like yourself?

Unlike yourself, Obama is not interested in putting his detractors to shame. He has consistently risen above that kind of partisanship -- one of the reasons he will be re-elected.

So, Romney refuses to release his tax info, and you're concerned about the President of the Harvard Law Review's law school transcripts? Makes sense to ... no one.

Again, how did that tea party bbq work for ya?


Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill
on Apr 17, 2012 at 2:39 pm

Jimf01 said: "Brilliant reasoning Sam. We can determine Obama's intellect, education, and logical reasoning powers by a Harvard law degree, and what else? Obama will not show his transcripts from any college he attended. Obama will also typically never, ever, give a speech which he is not reading from a teleprompter. How do you use the available information to determine that our current President is of superior intellect?"

LOL! I can understand why Obama or any other public official should release his tax returns or his birth certificate to the public. But school transcripts? I dunno. So you want to see his college transcripts? How about his junior high and high school transcripts, too. Want to see what his kindergarten teacher thought of him, too? Give it a break.

As for his use of a teleprompter, I don't have to remind you of the first President to make frequent use of a teleprompter, do I? Why don't you or other extreme conservatives level any criticism against the "Great Communicator" Ronald Reagan for his use of the teleprompter? A bit of hypocrisy there, no? Actually, I think that the use of a teleprompter by a President, whether Reagan or Obama, is a good idea. Embarrassing international incidents can be caused by a President's slip of a tongue or poor word selection. When possible, working from a script and choosing pre-selected words makes a lot of sense. Score one for the Gipper!

As for Obama's ability to think on his feet without a teleprompter, we've seen him do that in the Presidential debates. He's more than capable of holding himself up in debates against any candidate that the Republicans have been able to throw against him.

Finally, as for Gingrich's ability to give speeches without notes or a teleprompter, you've seen how Gingrich occasionally puts his foot in his month with a poorly chosen word or sentence. Would you really want to see a President Gingrich give speeches off-the-cuff without the use of a teleprompter or carefully vetted script? IMHO, no President should give off-the-cuff speeches if at all possible - and certainly not any character like a GIngrich or a Biden.


Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill
on Apr 17, 2012 at 2:42 pm

Abe said: "Sam, you're not quite correct. Obama was a 'Senior Lecturer' which counts as being a professor at arguably the world's finest law institution, the Univ of Chicago."

OK, thanks for the correction.


Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community
on Apr 17, 2012 at 3:04 pm

jimf01 is a registered user.

Sam - You diverted from the question, how do you use the available information to determine that our current President is of superior intellect?"
You don't know what kind of grades he got, and you rarely hear him speak off the cuff. Debates are a collection of soundbites, and the candidates are highly coached ahead of time. So he out-debated John McCain. BRAVO! Good show, man.

And we know what has happened when Obama got off the 'carefully vetted script'
Obama thought that Austrian was an actual language.
Obama thought there are fifty-eight states in the Union.
Obama said that Hawaii was part of Asia.
Obama didn't know that Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chávez was first elected during the tenure of President Clinton, not President Bush, whom he blamed for Chávez's ascension.
Obama thought ten thousand of people died in Kansas tornadoes back in May, 2008.
Obama honored "fallen heroes" on 2008's Memorial Day, stating "and I see many of them in the audience here today."
Obama once spoke about his uncle, who supposedly "helped liberate" the Auschwitz concentration camp. Except that the Americans didn't liberate that camp. The Russians did in January of 1945.
Obama repeated his Auschwitz blunder by later speaking of his grandfather, who fought in Patton's army. He also then noted that his grandfather heard the stories of fellow troops who "first entered" the Treblinka concentration camp. Except that Treblinka was never liberated.
Obama didn't know that, with re-election, he only serves a maximum of eight years.
Obama thought that a bomb -- one -- fell on Pearl Harbor that fateful day in December of 1941.
Obama thought he served on the Senate Banking Committee ... even though he never served on the Senate Banking Committee.

Obama claimed that Winston Churchill once stated "We don't torture" to supposedly back up his policy differences with former President Bush in the War on Terror. Except that, there's no record of Churchill ever saying that, but there are records of the British MI19 torturing German POWs from 1940-1948 in what was known as the "London Cage."

And one when he was trying to stay on the script:

Obama didn't know what a "corpsman" is, pronouncing it "corpse-man."

And the hits just keep coming. Down in South America this week, The Telegraph (UK) notes that President Obama made an "uncharacteristic" gaffe by referring to the Falkland Islands as the Maldives."


Posted by Abe, a resident of another community
on Apr 17, 2012 at 3:15 pm

Okay. I'm convinced! Boy, this Obama is really a dumb guy isn't he? Whew! Thanks, Jim, for gracing this site with your superior intellect.


Posted by not quite, a resident of Birdland
on Apr 17, 2012 at 4:18 pm

Actually, that's not even Jim's "superior intellect," it's merely plagiarized from a website!
Web Link


Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill
on Apr 17, 2012 at 4:20 pm

Jimf01 said: "Obama thought there are fifty-eight states in the Union....Obama didn't know what a "corpsman" is, pronouncing it "corpse-man."

Please, I don't know what far conservative rag you're getting all your info from. As for the two specific items above, let's start with the first one: I saw the Youtube clip where he mentioned "58 states" (did you?). As I recall, in the video clip he was talking about his hectic travel schedule visiting nearly all the states of the US. He said something like visiting all the states except for the two non-contiguous states, so 50-2=48. But instead of saying "48" he said "58". A slip of the tongue. What, you're going to condemn him for that? You've never made a similar slip of the tongue? You think that Reagan and both Bushes have never made similar or greater slips of the tongue. Get off of it. Your pettiness knows no bounds.

As for not knowing how to pronounce "corpsman", sorry. I didn't know how to pronounce it, either. I, with all my college education, would have pronounced it "corpse-man", too. I've never come across the word. How often does one read, write, or speak the word corpsman in one's life? For me, up to this morning, the numbers were zero, zero, and zero. I'm sure that most anyone with a military background knows how to pronounce the word and see it in print, but to ridicule someone because they're not familiar with a word that is only used within the military is - again - rather petty of you.


Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community
on Apr 17, 2012 at 4:32 pm

jimf01 is a registered user.

Sam - 'twas you who brought up "use of a teleprompter by a President", and then extolled Obama's ability to think on his feet without a teleprompter.
I'd say it is pretty stupid to say don't ridicule someone because they're not familiar with a word that is only used within the military, when that someone is the commander-in-chief!

I will not continue an argument built on a fake premise, not unless you are willing to answer, how do you use the available information to determine that our current President is of superior intellect?"

You don't know what kind of grades he got, and you rarely hear him speak off the cuff.


Posted by jimf02, a resident of another community
on Apr 17, 2012 at 4:37 pm

Here's a gaffe for ya: "The Tea Party event is going to be the biggest political event in California this year!"

Sure it is.

I'm guessing that jim's prediction of an Obama defeat will be just as on-the-money.

Hmm...which makes me think--with that many WAAAYY off-base predictions, maybe jimf01 is really that pastor who keeps predicting the end of the world every 3 months? Anybody know if that guy is from Tracy too?


Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill
on Apr 17, 2012 at 7:18 pm

Jimf01: "I'd say it is pretty stupid to say don't ridicule someone because they're not familiar with a word that is only used within the military, when that someone is the commander-in-chief!......You don't know what kind of grades he got, and you rarely hear him speak off the cuff."

So you think that as Commander-in-Chief Obama should know that a "corpsman" is an "enlisted medical specialist for the United States Navy" and he deficient if he doesn't? (I had to look up that definition, BTW.) Sorry, but I'm an ex-military brat and I never heard the word "corpsman" in all my years growing up. (Guess we don't have "corpsmen" in the Air Force.)

As for Obama's transcripts, with people like you around I now realize why he doesn't release them. What point would be served releasing those documents to people like you who are merely determined to find fault in anything and everything that he does? I can't imagine you looking at the transcripts and saying "Hey! I was wrong! Obama is a pretty bright guy after all!" No, you'll find something to nitpick or claim that the transcripts were doctored or make some other such ridiculous claim. I wouldn't release my transcripts either if I were in his place with all of the "birthers" and other nut-jobs running around these days. It would only lead to another circus sideshow.


Posted by Jim's Alter Ego, a resident of another community
on Apr 17, 2012 at 9:34 pm

Stacey asks for sympathy: "Try taking a dump when you don't have to go. Now that'd be an accomplishment!" I'm quite certain you know quite a bit about this, Stacey!

Her most recent effort? The embarrassing little snit of petulant censorship she instituted in response to others finding her views laughable.

My, does she not take her self-appointed role as PW Forum propagandist a wee bit too seriously? "Ban the unregistered trolls who pull back the curtain while I am attempting another of my great life's accomplishments!"


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Apr 17, 2012 at 10:50 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

JAE,

You don't look censored. Obama didn't get us Medicare for All, did he? That's a failure.


Posted by Jim's Alter Ego, a resident of another community
on Apr 17, 2012 at 11:32 pm

No, he didn't get medicare for all. He got what he could, which is far more than what the GOP "offered." You're one smart cookie to point that out. And smart enough, too, to not defend Elaine Chou as sham Labor Secretary. No instead, you grasp whatever straw you think might work. Here, that Obama's health care legis didn't go far enough; that he settled for less as a matter of political expedience. No kidding? That's your critique?

Do you realize how silly you've made yourself look over the past few days? I mean, truly, even more than usual. No face-saving for you here, I'm afraid. Even your evil twin, gossip-mongering sidekick has been too embarrassed to lower herself yet even further, if possible, in your defense. I suppose I should close off, as it's no doubt time for you to pick up your dolls and march on home with a petulant look about you. Ah, alas, if ONLY everybody registered on this forum, just like you -- feet stamping up and down -- the girl with a first name of Stacey.


Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill
on Apr 17, 2012 at 11:54 pm

Jimf01 said: "Sam - 'twas you who brought up "use of a teleprompter by a President", and then extolled Obama's ability to think on his feet without a teleprompter."

Oh, and finally, Jimf01, you're wrong (again). You're the one who first brought up the President's use of a teleprompter. If you forgot, a re-examination of the posts above should refresh your memory.


Posted by jimf02, a resident of another community
on Apr 18, 2012 at 6:00 am

I really don't see the point in continuing to discuss this with jimf01 until he releases his birth certificate, tax returns, and academic records to us. First, for all we know, he might not even be a Pleasanton resident. What if he lives miles and miles away and only posts here to disrupt our Community of Character? What if he's not really Taxed Enough Already? We have no proof of this! What if he's not very intelligent? Again, I've seen no real evidence of it on this site.

Oh, and can one of you Tea Party Professors show me where to find George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, or Ronald Reagan's academic records? I know this has been required of all the white presidents, too, and I'm sure it's mandated by the Constitution, but for some reason I can't find them. That's why I'm voting for Romney--he's not hiding his academic records, his tax returns, or even his birth certificate!


Posted by Patriot, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 18, 2012 at 12:55 pm

Looks like it may be a close race.

Web Link


Posted by Mitt's dog, a resident of another community
on Apr 18, 2012 at 1:03 pm

These types of polls are meaningless. This will be an electoral battle in a few key states. Highest likelihood is the winner of Pennsylvania takes it.
This ABC story seems to capture the current conventional wisdom Web Link


Posted by stevep, a resident of Parkside
on Apr 19, 2012 at 9:09 am

Mitts dog....based on your hokey name and the fact you have no interest in the polls of likely voters, maybe this little distraction is up your alley:
"...in President Obama's best-selling memoir, "Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance," the president recalls being fed dog meat as a young boy in Indonesia..."
Web Link
Man's best friend indeed.......what's next, cannibalism?


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Apr 19, 2012 at 10:26 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Ho ho, "he got what he could". Outlawing denial of coverage for children with pre-existing conditions could have been gotten without sticking it into the largest piece of legislation under his presidency, putting it together with the questionable individual mandate. I made this point already.


Posted by jimf02, a resident of another community
on Apr 21, 2012 at 6:57 am

Looks like ol' jimbo's fled the scene. Curious that a request for reciprocal transparency made him scamper like an undocumented immigrant at a Jan Brewer rally. There really can't be any lingering doubts now that jim has a lot to hide from truth-loving patriots like the rest of us.


Posted by Abe, a resident of another community
on Apr 21, 2012 at 3:46 pm

More facts to send all the GOP nutjobs scampering:

Relative to national economic trends, states that increased spending enjoyed on average:

0.2 percentage point decrease in the unemployment rate
1.4 percent increase in private employment
0.5 percent real economic growth since the start of the recession

In contrast, states that cut spending saw on average

1 percentage point increase in the unemployment rate
2.1 percent loss of private employment
2.9 percent real economic contraction relative to the national economic trend
We could debate whether the Republicans (and some Democrats) pushing these policies see rising unemployment as a good thing as opposed to just not caring since it doesn't touch their families. But there's no way to seriously argue they're trying to reduce unemployment and put people back to work.

Source: Center for American Progress


Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community
on Apr 23, 2012 at 11:04 am

jimf01 is a registered user.

Adam Hersh, the liberal economist who works for the George Soros funded Center for American Progress simply ignores a common truth in statistical analysis, "Correlation does not imply causation". There is no correlation to data from other recessions included here. That's because data from other recessions make this recovery look quite weak indeed.
Anyone old enough to remember knows that unemployment went higher, interests rates were WAY higher, and the recession that faced Ronald Reagan in the early 80's was much deeper, and the recovery that was underway three years later was much stronger.
Here 's another quote from Adam Hersh last year when he was coming up with this info:
Adam Hersh, an economist with the liberal-leaning Center for American Progress, recently ran a calculation to see when, at the current pace, the nation would regain the number of jobs lost during the great recession. The answer was 2037. "Look, we have a huge employment crisis," Mr. Hersh said. Web Link

What has changed in a year on jobs? Very little. But the Democrats are practiced at manufacturing claims to back up their positions. Practiced at it, just not real good at it.
Web Link

But hey, by all means, please do have the Democrat President run on his economic record. The American people will judge this admin on it, whether he tells the truth or not.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Understanding Early Decision in College Admissions
By Elizabeth LaScala | 1 comment | 2,277 views

New heights for NIMBYs
By Tim Hunt | 31 comments | 1,480 views

Weekly, TV30 to host Pleasanton mayoral, city council candidates' forum
By Gina Channell-Allen | 2 comments | 1,004 views

Earthquake Insurance
By Roz Rogoff | 4 comments | 810 views