I don't think it was.

More or less he said we made mistakes along with many others. He never apologized. Ask your friend and post an apology.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...e-americans-w/

For the entire story.

I didn't get my accusation from a friend. That's not an apology? Admitting that you are wrong?

Speech by President Obama, Rhenus Sports Arena, Strasbourg, France, April 3, 2009.[1]

So we must be honest with ourselves. In recent years we've allowed our Alliance to drift. I know that there have been honest disagreements over policy, but we also know that there's something more that has crept into our relationship. In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.
===========
President Obama, interview with Al Arabiya, January 27, 2009.[2]

My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect. But if you look at the track record, as you say, America was not born as a colonial power, and that the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there's no reason why we can't restore that.
========
resident Obama, address to the Summit of the Americas opening ceremony, Hyatt Regency, Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, April 17, 2009.[3]

All of us must now renew the common stake that we have in one another. I know that promises of partnership have gone unfulfilled in the past, and that trust has to be earned over time. While the United States has done much to promote peace and prosperity in the hemisphere, we have at times been disengaged, and at times we sought to dictate our terms. But I pledge to you that we seek an equal partnership. There is no senior partner and junior partner in our relations; there is simply engagement based on mutual respect and common interests and shared values. So I'm here to launch a new chapter of engagement that will be sustained throughout my administration.

The United States will be willing to acknowledge past errors where those errors have been made.
==========
President Obama, speech at the National Archives, Washington, D.C., May 21, 2009.[5]

Unfortunately, faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions. I believe that many of these decisions were motivated by a sincere desire to protect the American people. But I also believe that all too often our government made decisions based on fear rather than foresight; that all too often our government trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions. Instead of strategically applying our power and our principles, too often we set those principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford. And during this season of fear, too many of us--Democrats and Republicans, politicians, journalists, and citizens--fell silent.

In other words, we went off course. And this is not my assessment alone. It was an assessment that was shared by the American people who nominated candidates for President from both major parties who, despite our many differences, called for a new approach--one that rejected torture and one that recognized the imperative of closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay.
=================
Speech by President Obama to the Turkish Parliament, Ankara, Turkey, April 6, 2009.[7]

Every challenge that we face is more easily met if we tend to our own democratic foundation. This work is never over. That's why, in the United States, we recently ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. That's why we prohibited--without exception or equivocation--the use of torture. All of us have to change. And sometimes change is hard.

Another issue that confronts all democracies as they move to the future is how we deal with the past. The United States is still working through some of our own darker periods in our history. Facing the Washington Monument that I spoke of is a memorial of Abraham Lincoln, the man who freed those who were enslaved even after Washington led our Revolution. Our country still struggles with the legacies of slavery and segregation, the past treatment of Native Americans.

Human endeavor is by its nature imperfect. History is often tragic, but unresolved, it can be a heavy weight. Each country must work through its past. And reckoning with the past can help us seize a better future.
==========
Opinion editorial by President Obama: "Choosing a Better Future in the Americas," April 16, 2009.[8]

Too often, the United States has not pursued and sustained engagement with our neighbors. We have been too easily distracted by other priorities, and have failed to see that our own progress is tied directly to progress throughout the Americas. My Administration is committed to the promise of a new day. We will renew and sustain a broader partnership between the United States and the hemisphere on behalf of our common prosperity and our common security.
===========
Remarks by the President to CIA employees, CIA Headquarters, Langley, Virginia, April 20, 2009.[9] The remarks followed the controversial decision to release Office of Legal Counsel memoranda detailing CIA enhanced interrogation techniques used against terrorist suspects.

So don't be discouraged by what's happened in the last few weeks. Don't be discouraged that we have to acknowledge potentially we've made some mistakes. That's how we learn. But the fact that we are willing to acknowledge them and then move forward, that is precisely why I am proud to be President of the United States, and that's why you should be proud to be members of the CIA.
=============
President Obama, speech at the National Archives, Washington, D.C., May 21, 2009.[10]

There is also no question that Guantanamo set back the moral authority that is America's strongest currency in the world. Instead of building a durable framework for the struggle against al Qaeda that drew upon our deeply held values and traditions, our government was defending positions that undermined the rule of law. In fact, part of the rationale for establishing Guantanamo in the first place was the misplaced notion that a prison there would be beyond the law--a proposition that the Supreme Court soundly rejected. Meanwhile, instead of serving as a tool to counter terrorism, Guantanamo became a symbol that helped al Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause. Indeed, the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained.

So the record is clear: Rather than keeping us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security. It is a rallying cry for our enemies.

- October 2010. Gibbs apologizes for American experiments on Guatemalans in the 1940s. "This is — it’s tragic, and the United States, by all means, apologizes to all those that were impacted by this," Gibbs said at a news conference. "The president is slated to call the leader of Guatemala later today and personally express that apology."

- February 2012. In a letter to Afghan President Hamid Karzai, Obama apologizes for the burning of Korans by U.S. troops.

- May 2013. Obama apologizes and says Americans have a right to be angry after revelations that the Internal Revenue Service targeted conservative nonprofits several years previously.

- October 2013. Obama is forced to apologize to German Chancellor Angela Merkel after it is revealed that the NSA was tapping her cellphone.

- November 2013. Obama apologizes to people who had their health insurance canceled. "I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me," he said.

- November 2013. The president apologizes to Democrats who have come under fire for supporting Obamacare. "I feel deeply responsible," he said, "for making it harder for them rather than easier for them to continue to promote the core values that I think led them to support this thing in the first place, which is, in this country, as wealthy as we are, everybody should be able to have the security of affordable health care."

- December 2013. Obama apologizes for the Obamacare rollout in broad strokes. "I have acknowledged more than once that we didn’t roll out parts of this law as well as we should have," he said.

The president has also apologized to a number of individuals.

- He apologized for the firing of one-time USDA employee Shirley Sherrod early in his first term.

- In April 2013, Obama apologized to California Attorney General Kamala Harris after commenting on her appearance.

- Last February, he apologized to an art historian after casually insulting art history degrees.

- A few weeks ago, he apologized to an engaged couple for displacing their wedding so he could play golf.

Nor is it only the president who's had to say he's sorry.

- Earnest notes that Vice President Biden called to apologize to the leaders of Turkey and the United Arab Emirates for criticizing their relationship with Syria. Biden, Earnest said, "wishes that he had said it a little bit differently."

- White House adviser Dan Pfeiffer apologized to conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer in July 2012 for misrepresenting the status of a bust of Winston Churchill.

- Last fall, the first lady apologized for mispronouncing the name of Iowa Senate candidate Bruce "Bailey" Braley.

Google is your friend.

That's not an apology? Admitting that you are wrong?

I don't think admitting partial guilt means that you apologized.

In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.

I'm going to stop here because we will never agree. America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive. Unless he ends the statement by saying we apologize than an apology has not been given.

I'll respect you and the idea that you think it is implied.

This is from Wikipedia

"Mistakes were made"
The expression "mistakes were made" is commonly used as a rhetorical device, whereby a speaker acknowledges that a situation was handled poorly or inappropriately but seeks to evade any direct admission or accusation of responsibility by using the passive voice. The acknowledgement of "mistakes" is framed in an abstract sense with no direct reference to who made the mistakes. An active voice construction would be along the lines of "I made mistakes" or "John Doe made mistakes." The speaker neither accepts personal responsibility nor accuses anyone else. The word "mistakes" also does not imply intent.
The New York Times has called the phrase a "classic Washington linguistic construct." Political consultant William Schneider suggested that this usage be referred to as the "past exonerative" tense,[7] and commentator William Safire has defined the phrase as "[a] passive-evasive way of acknowledging error while distancing the speaker from responsibility for it".[8] A commentator at NPR declared this expression to be "the king of non-apologies".[9] While perhaps most famous in politics, the phrase has also been used in business, sports, and entertainment.


I see it as a diplomatic way of saving face and building bridges not walls as the Pope has asked us to do. I'm hopeful.

What follows is the definition [Wikipedia- another friend] of a non-apology. There different types of non-apologies including a"mistakes were made" type of non-apology.

He apologized by telling everyone that we were wrong. He can speak for himself, but not for America. He is a scumbag and even the scumbag Hillary wouldn't go around acting like a weak wimp like that poor excuse for a leader. Leading from behind! Nothing but a weakling. If you don't thing he was apologizing, then you are the only one in America that thinks that way.

And that is who he speaks for 98.79584% of the time!!

He and his wife are black activists in fantasy land.

Have you ever seen his approval rating on a daily basis?
Obama Approval Index History - Rasmussen Reports™

How can you say without any evidence or proof that Obama only speaks for himself? You can say you are wrong and it will not be apology. Or would it?

Over the years it is abundantly clear just by observing and listening to when and how he uses the words I, me or mine in his speeches. When there is credit to be taken or a bow (earned or not does not matter) he never takes the high ground and refers to America or the USA or the miltary....it is ALWAYS.....I have taken....I have done.....I have asked.....I gave the order.....

He has no understanding what so ever that he would get credit for the successes of America or USA or the military without having to interject himself into the accolade. A true leader knows and speaks accordingly. And a wanna be community organizer only knows self promotion.....you know a POLITICIAN.

What?

Obama has never had any type of leadership training, so he can't be expected to know how to lead. Some folks are natural leaders, but he is not one of them. He still doesn't understand that his "leading from behind" is not considered anything more than FOLLOWING. Obama has been groomed and led his whole life, so other than being a wannabe comedian, he is a total flop.

You are correct to say that it is obvious that he has no clue when he uses the I, me, my for everything that occurs. Most leaders will say We did this, or Our. They make it evident that it was a team effort, not a sole individual that accomplished something. He is no leader. And he barely fills the Manager role.

There is general theme on this board. It is make statements like Obama never uses the word "we", and always I me, but never back them up with actual video to support your comments.

In his last state of the Union address, he gave the items that he wanted to work on in his last year of presidency. I will work with Congress to get them done. He didn't say that he was going to do them by himself. "work with".

People are angry and frustrated so they say things they wouldn't say to their grandchildren. Who would want depressed grandchildren with no hope?

:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

That is hanging out there in the past along with hope, change and transparency;

:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Apparently, you haven't had a TV or Internet in the past seven years, or you wouldn't make such ludicrous statements. EVERY speech he has made in the past has been I, ME, MY... Where have you been? Even over seas, I heard his hubris in his constant taking credit for everything except the weather. He NEVER says we or us in his speeches, except when he says such things as "we need" to do this or that, meaning us and not him. And when he is apologizing, it is always "we" not him. Like he is apologizing for America, but he didn't have anything to do with whatever it is that he thinks we did.

Obama succinctly defined!

:BigApplause:

President Obama has a 53 percent approval rating. That is way higher than Crapweasel Bush had at the same time in office.

Congress has a 14 percent approval rating.

It is very easy to see that President Obama is far more popular than Congress - oh yes, a Republican controlled Congress.

:popcorn:

And the curb is 6 inches higher that the gutter!!! Fan-dam-tastic logic!!

Ah yes, the REPUBLICAN controlled congress, that the people elected after just a couple years of tyranny. There will be dancing in the streets when Obama is seen driving out of D.C. for the last time.

I was with you until I got to that statement.

Is there another way to respond on TOTV besides the Internet? Can you explain that to me?

Thank you. You apparently fit the statement precisely. Can I explain it? Sorry, but I doubt I have enough time before the short bus arrives to transport you.

[QUOTE=Guest;1204245]Some additional information: From BLS

Work Force in 2000 = 154,746,644

Employed Work Force NOW =151,307,667
Full-Time Employed = 123,396,244

Not Employed/Not in labor force = 93,765.812

Employed 123,396,244
Not working + 93,765.812
Total = 217,162,056

Total unemployed/not working = 43.1%

[QUOTE=Guest;1205490]Guess he wasn't far off when he said "half" were not working or not employed. Those figures don't reflect those working part-time.

[QUOTE=Guest;1205490][QUOTE=Guest;1204245]

Some additional information: From BLS

Work Force in 2000 = 154,746,644

Employed Work Force NOW =151,307,667
Full-Time Employed = 123,396,244

Not Employed/Not in labor force = 93,765.812

Employed 123,396,244
Not working + 93,765.812
Total = 217,162,056

Total unemployed/not working = 43.1%[/QUOT

The difference in the work force from 2000 to 2016 is 3,400,000. What was the amount of not employed/not in the labor force in 2000? You left that out. It was over 40%. The only thing that has change is the person running the country. To try and float out there that the unemployment rate is 43.1% is just plain nonsense.

Presidents in this country can't control what businesses do. The president has little control of getting the US out of a recession especially when the other party is doing everything it can to make sure that he doesn't succeed even at the cost of its citizens. Party first, citizens second. We should all feel so proud, and what we have created.

The Republicans didn't use the filibuster in Obama's first two years of his presidency. You can capitalize anything that you want, but that is a immature. You are of the misguided impression that the Democrats had a filibuster proof Senate. That wasn't the case.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/did...-for-how-long/

McConnell used the filibuster from day one of Obama's presidency. He is the king of the filibuster of that he has no equal.

The citizens in Mass. didn't want Romneycare either. They had enough signatures to get it on the ballot. The Mass. Senate stopped it from getting on the ballot. Given a chance, Romneycare worked in Mass. States that were in Republican control never gave Obamacare a chance to work.

Minimum wage was never meant for full time employment. Turning full time jobs into part time jobs was also never meant to be. Moving the majority of production jobs oversea because of cheap overseas labor was never meant to be, but that is where we are now. Increasing the minimum wage will get people off food stamps. Republicans keep throwing the number of people on food stamps as being a major problem; however, doing something that will help people get off food stamps is a bridge too far. Republicans would rather complain than fix a problem that exists in their minds.

Does anyone in their right mind think that Trump will be able to change anything? Obama was "hope and change". Trump is selling "change". Hope that anything in DC will change is now out of the question.

You haven't mentioned one single action above that has not been done with even more zest by the dems when in the same position.

For example the noteable job done by HArry Reid when he headed the senate. His sole purpose in life was to make sure anything he or Obama did not like never made it past his desk. How many hundreds of bills literally stopped at the inbox.

Don't be such a hypocrite and push to the background what your party did as well.

DID YA FORGET THEY ARE ALL POLITICIANS?

Of course you didn't. Politicians and their supporters are all hypocrites. Especially the crony, business as usual establishment.

And as far as yapping about who would vote for TrumP? A whole lot of voters who will not vote for the Clinton felon, liar, cheateing phony.

[QUOTE=Guest;1205730][QUOTE=Guest;1205490]No, I did not say that the unemployment rate in 2000 was 43.1%. I used that figure for today. And that is the figure based on those in the working force plus those not in the working force. The percentage was those no longer in the working force divided by the total. That gives you the percentage, in case you are questioning the math.
Regarding the total not working percentage in 2000, the numbers I got from BLS indicate 33.8%. Your math must be off a bit.

In 2000,

Living in poverty = 32,383,466
Food Stamps = 17,458,988

Now,

Living in poverty = 46,752,103
Food Stamps = 44,927,996

That's an increase of:
44.3% in poverty level
157.3% in food stamps

The president's policies, with the help of a Democrat controlled congress had a lot to do with the decline. You act like restrictive business policies do not have any affect employment and standard of living levels.

[QUOTE=Guest;1205803][QUOTE=Guest;1205730]There is the problem with the numbers that you are throwing out there. You are trying to imply that all of the changes occurred in the years 2009 to date. People no longer in the work force implies that they were there to begin with. There are of plenty of spouses that were never in the work force. "No longer" implies that they were once upon a time.

I am not calling you a liar. However, the saying goes "figures lie, and liars figure". The first class in Accounting we were asked, "How much is one and one?" The answer was whatever you want it to be.

Easing up the restrictions on Wall Street threw this country into the Great Recession. Dowd/Frank addresses the problems that caused the Great Recession, and the Republicans did everything they could to make sure Dowd/Frank couldn't be enforced. They didn't approve the first person to run the overseeing of Wall Street department of the government, which was Elizabeth Warren. How did that work out for them?

You act moving high paying production jobs overseas has nothing to do with employment, and the standard of living for working people. That hasn't occur from 2009 on. That has been in affect for decades.

What president policy has resulted in the increase in people on food stamps? Try as you may, the Republicans can't walk away from the policies implemented in "W's" term of office, that has a lot to do with what we are stuck with now. There is plenty of blame to go around for our present state, but the Republicans don't want to accept any part of it.

[QUOTE=Guest;1205959][QUOTE=Guest;1205803]Twist it any way you wish, but the facts remain that there is higher poverty and a record high food stamp list. You can twist all the other facts all you wish. They aren't my figures, but the BLS. I didn't make them up. You want to praise Obama, I won't. I see no reason to suggest that he did anything to help the recovery. As a matter of fact, this is the slowest recovery of any past recession or depression in history. It's on his watch. If you want to blame Bush, go for it. I'll blame Clinton, because a lot of it is his fault also. And Bush had a very good economy until the last two years of his second term,,,,,,,,with Democrat controlled congress. That should suggest something also.

Facts are still there....record food stamp recipients
High poverty level.

[QUOTE=Guest;1205973][QUOTE=Guest;1205959]Do you know what will happen in the next presidency? This is what will happen the highest poverty level ever, and the most people on food stamps ever. If the Republican candidate wins, he will blame Obama, because nothing bad ever happens on a Republican's watch.

I haven't praised anyone. Do you know what got America out of the depression? It was WWII. Until the wars in the 21 century, wars result in full employment.

"And Bush had a very good economy until the last two years of his second term with Democrat controlled congress. That should suggest something also." That is right it does suggest something, which is what I just stated nothing is ever the Republicans fault, or nothing that they will ever admit to.

The next thing you are going to tell me is the economic condition that "W" was handed was the same as what he past to Obama. You just will not accept the fact that all recessions aren't the same. Economic conditions are the same now as they were in the 70's, 80's, and 90's despite all evidence to the contrary.

[QUOTE=Guest;1206014][QUOTE=Guest;1205973]You do have it skewed. You are very mixed up and/or brainwashed by your ideology. Other than Obama, have you ever heard a new president blame his troubles and his failure on a previous president?

I'm not going to educate you. You seem like a smart enough person, even though you are so totally mislead.

Now that you defended Obama, how are you going to explain Hillary's troubles? Are you going to blame Bush for that also? Or, are you going to suggest that it is a vast right wing conspiracy? She is a criminal and a liar and a thief. Are you still going to vote for her?

[QUOTE=Guest;1206014][QUOTE=Guest;1205973]Because it REALLY doesn't matter who wins as long as it's one of THEIR guys.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...no matter the party.

[QUOTE=Guest;1206040][QUOTE=Guest;1206014]What do you want, a lottery for the position of president? Get a life and quit worrying about the great government conspiracy.

[QUOTE=Guest;1206102][QUOTE=Guest;1206040]It would be better than the current system. Two bought and paid for crooks paraded in front of us like they're "great people" we should look up to. They're lying thieves who should be hanging not running for office.

Your "government" is lying and stealing from you to the tune of $20 trillion, $20,000,000,000,000 and you tell me to "get a life, quit worrying about it".

OK then, who will? Or should we all just close our eyes, vote for their crook, and pretend everything is OK? Like you do...

[QUOTE=Guest;1206112][QUOTE=Guest;1206102]The point is, if you have no solution to the problem, why kill yourself worrying about it? Complaining about something, doesn't get it fixed. If you have an idea about how to fix something, do something about it. Otherwise, you are just wasting your time worrying and it's not healthy. I had a boss once, that told me not to come to him complaining about something unless I also brought a solution to him.

[QUOTE=Guest;1206126][QUOTE=Guest;1206112]I have the solution and it's real simple. Don't vote for ANYONE with a D or R after their name. You already KNOW they're crooked, a liar, the lesser of two evils...so STOP voting for them.

Vote Libertarian, vote independent, ANYONE but a know crook!

Our "leaders" are ALL corrupt, they ALL work for the corporations who put them there.

The REAL problem is you. You're convinced that any vote for someone other than their crook, is a wasted vote. No, the wasted vote is the vote for another crook, the lesser of two evils. If we'd just do our damn job and vote for the BEST candidate, we could fix things.

Your job isn't to guess who the winner will be and vote for him. Your job is to vote for the best man and MAKE him win.

[QUOTE=Guest;1206140][QUOTE=Guest;1206126]You need help. You have been on here time and again, trying to get people to vote for someone other than the Dem or Rep candidates. You have NO ONE to vote for other than them. As far as I am concerned, even if you had a Libertarian to vote for, I would not vote for him/her. As far as I am concerned, a Libertarian is no different than a liberal. So, you go ahead foaming at the mouth and waste your vote. It's your prerogative to do so. I know that only one of two will be elected. I want to have some say as to which one. I am not about to stand in line and vote for Howdy Doodie. So, go ahead and rant and rave about the "Ds" and the "R's" and the big conspiracy.