![laliberty:
politicalprof:
This is chock-full of hilarity:
“3,000,000 new private sector jobs”? So Obama can take credit for private sector jobs (“saved” or “created,” which are strictly speaking not things a government can actually do), but the continued and elevated unemployment that is grossly counter to his projections and the fact that there are fewer people in the labor force must not be blamed on him?
“Smaller Government”? In what way is the costliest empire in the history of this hemisphere considered “Smaller Government”? $12.4 trillion in expenditures in four years is not smaller to anything no matter what metrics you use.
How does he take credit for “End[ing] the war in Iraq” when Obama actually wanted to remain in Iraq and was only forced to leave because the Iraqi leadership insisted on sticking to Bush’s Status of Forces Agreement timetable? In fact, despite ostensibly “ending the war,” he’s keeping a number of troops and other private forces in Iraq past the SOFA date.
“More deportations per year than Bush”? This is actually true. But is it something worth praising?
“Fewer regulations than Bush” But I thought Bush was the great deregulator who created the deregulation nightmare that caused the financial crisis? (For the truth on the causes, see here and here.)
“Unified the world against Iran”? In other words, he used saber-rattling and fear-mongering to agitate other countries into supporting pre-emptive acts of war against an as-yet non-aggressor. If Iran was the bad guy, why would he need to “unify the world” to recognize this?
“All “bailout money” returned, with interest” Actually, only just over half has been “returned,” and most of that with other borrowed funds from The Treasury or The Fed.
“Three new trade agreements” should instead read “three new ways politicians and corporate interests colluded with foreign governments to set up barriers for free people to trade and associate,” which is what all trade agreements amount to.
“Support’s (sic) states’ rights (sic) on medical marijuana” Putting aside the fact that states have no rights, this is simply false (see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here)?
Related: Obama Apologetics](http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lyfa42FwcJ1qb05two1_500.jpg)
This is chock-full of hilarity:
- “3,000,000 new private sector jobs”? So Obama can take credit for private sector jobs (“saved” or “created,” which are strictly speaking not things a government can actually do), but the continued and elevated unemployment that is grossly counter to his projections and the fact that there are fewer people in the labor force must not be blamed on him?
- “Smaller Government”? In what way is the costliest empire in the history of this hemisphere considered “Smaller Government”? $12.4 trillion in expenditures in four years is not smaller to anything no matter what metrics you use.
- How does he take credit for “End[ing] the war in Iraq” when Obama actually wanted to remain in Iraq and was only forced to leave because the Iraqi leadership insisted on sticking to Bush’s Status of Forces Agreement timetable? In fact, despite ostensibly “ending the war,” he’s keeping a number of troops and other private forces in Iraq past the SOFA date.
- “More deportations per year than Bush”? This is actually true. But is it something worth praising?
- “Fewer regulations than Bush” But I thought Bush was the great deregulator who created the deregulation nightmare that caused the financial crisis? (For the truth on the causes, see here and here.)
- “Unified the world against Iran”? In other words, he used saber-rattling and fear-mongering to agitate other countries into supporting pre-emptive acts of war against an as-yet non-aggressor. If Iran was the bad guy, why would he need to “unify the world” to recognize this?
- “All “bailout money” returned, with interest” Actually, only just over half has been “returned,” and most of that with other borrowed funds from The Treasury or The Fed.
- “Three new trade agreements” should instead read “three new ways politicians and corporate interests colluded with foreign governments to set up barriers for free people to trade and associate,” which is what all trade agreements amount to.
- “Support’s (sic) states’ rights (sic) on medical marijuana” Putting aside the fact that states have no rights, this is simply false (see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here)?
Related: Obama Apologetics
(via thediamondage)
