CONTEMPTIBLE Record of obama LIES...

[BDBoop]

I remember Douglas Brinkley ( one of the Presidenti*al Historians that meets with PBO ) saying on c-span that shortly after the President entered the WH he had several historian over for dinner and in a private moment, Mr Brinkley asked him what he thought of the country's situation ...Preside*nt Obama told him " It is far worse than we thought "

I suspect none of us really knows how bad it was because bush's entire 8 years took place in locked rooms.

Its also quite amazing that President Obama has accomplished as much as he has. Check my sig for extensive lists (and feel free to list the R's accomplishments. LOL)

There are things that the president has done (or not done) that I disagree with but he could have done a hell of a lot more if the R's had not pledged, to a person, to take him, and their own country, down.

Not to mention that some of the op is downright incorrect and dishonest.

it is pretty deranged.

but to be expected from wanna be kkk'ers, birfers and general nutbars.

Off by a minute.

 

[BDBoop]

Okay, the last two were simultaneous. I'm not your sock.

 

[Jackson]

Let me remind you of several other core busted promises by Obama – shattered vows right from the horse’s presidential mouth, according to the National Review and other watchdog and news agencies:

- “The first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That’s the first thing I’d do” (spoken on the campaign trail in 2008).

- “Today I’m pledging to cut the deficit we inherited in half by the end of my first term in office” (spoken at the opening of Fiscal Responsibility Summit on Feb. 23, 2009).

- “We will launch a sweeping effort to root out waste, inefficiency, and unnecessary spending in our government, and every American will be able to see how and where we spend taxpayer dollars by going to a new website called recovery.gov” (spoken in a speech on Jan. 28, 2009).

- “There is no doubt that we’ve been living beyond our means and we’re going to have to make some adjustments. Now, what I’ve done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut” (spoken during the third presidential debate on Oct. 15, 2008.

- “We are going to ban all earmarks” (spoken at a press conference on Jan. 6, 2009).

- “Instead of allowing lobbyists to slip big corporate tax breaks into bills during the dead of night, we will make sure every single tax break and earmark is available to every American online” (spoken on campaign trail in June 2007).

- “Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase – not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes” (spoken in September 2008 at a town-hall meeting in Dover).

- “ will eliminate all income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year. This will eliminate taxes for 7 million seniors – saving them an average of $1,400 a year – and will also mean that 27 million seniors will not need to file an income tax return at all” (from Barack Obama presidential campaign fact sheet in 2008).

- “[My plan] will not help speculators who took risky bets on a rising market and bought homes not to live in but to sell” (spoken to an audience in Phoenix on Feb. 18, 2009).

- “Lobbyists won’t work in my White House” (spoken on his Iowa bus tour on Dec. 15, 2007).

- “We’ve got a philosophical difference, which we’ve debated repeatedly, and that is that Sen. Clinton believes the only way to achieve universal health care is to force everybody to purchase it” (spoken during the Democratic Party presidential debate on Feb. 21, 2008).

- “These negotiations will be on C-SPAN, and so the public will be part of the conversation and will see the decisions that are being made” (spoken on Jan. 20, 2008, and seven other times).

- “The detention facilities at Guantánamo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than one year from the date of this order” (presidential executive order on Jan. 22, 2009).

- “Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe the United States has to be frank with the Chinese about such failings and will press them to respect human rights” (On a fact sheet distributed by the Obama campaign during the 2008 campaign).

- “We need tougher border security, and a renewed focus on busting up gangs and traffickers crossing our border. … That begins at home, with comprehensive immigration reform. That means securing our border and passing tough employer enforcement laws” (spoken in Miami on May 23, 2008).

- “I will make sure that we renegotiate [NAFTA]” (spoken on Feb. 23, 2008).

And, as long as we’re discussing lies and broken promises, let’s not forget this is the president who promised during his campaign to “clean up both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue” with “the most sweeping ethics reform in history.” He repeatedly pledged that “an Obama administration is going to have the toughest ethic laws of any administration in history.” Doesn’t “toughest ethic laws” include more lies and broken promises?

Can Obama be re-elected on broken promises?

I have yet to see a poster attack this post for it's accuracy. That says a great deal about Obama and anything he says. So what is the point of listening to him now?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Any good Obamabot gonna try to dispute one of those lies?

Just one, hell you can try and then run from the thread without having to back your word, just try to help out your hero here.

 

[BDBoop]

Hero?

 

[007]

Let me remind you of several other core busted promises by Obama – shattered vows right from the horse’s presidential mouth, according to the National Review and other watchdog and news agencies:

- “The first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That’s the first thing I’d do” (spoken on the campaign trail in 2008).

- “Today I’m pledging to cut the deficit we inherited in half by the end of my first term in office” (spoken at the opening of Fiscal Responsibility Summit on Feb. 23, 2009).

- “We will launch a sweeping effort to root out waste, inefficiency, and unnecessary spending in our government, and every American will be able to see how and where we spend taxpayer dollars by going to a new website called recovery.gov” (spoken in a speech on Jan. 28, 2009).

- “There is no doubt that we’ve been living beyond our means and we’re going to have to make some adjustments. Now, what I’ve done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut” (spoken during the third presidential debate on Oct. 15, 2008.

- “We are going to ban all earmarks” (spoken at a press conference on Jan. 6, 2009).

- “Instead of allowing lobbyists to slip big corporate tax breaks into bills during the dead of night, we will make sure every single tax break and earmark is available to every American online” (spoken on campaign trail in June 2007).

- “Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase – not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes” (spoken in September 2008 at a town-hall meeting in Dover).

- “ will eliminate all income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year. This will eliminate taxes for 7 million seniors – saving them an average of $1,400 a year – and will also mean that 27 million seniors will not need to file an income tax return at all” (from Barack Obama presidential campaign fact sheet in 2008).

- “[My plan] will not help speculators who took risky bets on a rising market and bought homes not to live in but to sell” (spoken to an audience in Phoenix on Feb. 18, 2009).

- “Lobbyists won’t work in my White House” (spoken on his Iowa bus tour on Dec. 15, 2007).

- “We’ve got a philosophical difference, which we’ve debated repeatedly, and that is that Sen. Clinton believes the only way to achieve universal health care is to force everybody to purchase it” (spoken during the Democratic Party presidential debate on Feb. 21, 2008).

- “These negotiations will be on C-SPAN, and so the public will be part of the conversation and will see the decisions that are being made” (spoken on Jan. 20, 2008, and seven other times).

- “The detention facilities at Guantánamo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than one year from the date of this order” (presidential executive order on Jan. 22, 2009).

- “Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe the United States has to be frank with the Chinese about such failings and will press them to respect human rights” (On a fact sheet distributed by the Obama campaign during the 2008 campaign).

- “We need tougher border security, and a renewed focus on busting up gangs and traffickers crossing our border. … That begins at home, with comprehensive immigration reform. That means securing our border and passing tough employer enforcement laws” (spoken in Miami on May 23, 2008).

- “I will make sure that we renegotiate [NAFTA]” (spoken on Feb. 23, 2008).

And, as long as we’re discussing lies and broken promises, let’s not forget this is the president who promised during his campaign to “clean up both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue” with “the most sweeping ethics reform in history.” He repeatedly pledged that “an Obama administration is going to have the toughest ethic laws of any administration in history.” Doesn’t “toughest ethic laws” include more lies and broken promises?

Can Obama be re-elected on broken promises?

I have yet to see a poster attack this post for it's accuracy. That says a great deal about Obama and anything he says. So what is the point of listening to him now?

They won't either. All you'll see in this thread is liberals making jackasses of themselves.

Pathetic, obama ass kissing, bubble headed, nitwits.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Hero?

My bad, the president you support unquestionably, do you dispute anything the OP said? And if so what specifically?

 

[BDBoop]

Unquestionably?

 

[hortysir]

So Pale Rider doesn't like "liars" huh? Voting Romney are you? ROFLMAO!!!!

Translation:

They doooo it tooooo!!!!!!




Yes, Dorothy, east is east and west is west and politicians lie.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Unquestionably?

Correct, I've never seen you question or criticize anything Obama does.


But back to the important part of my posts that you're avoiding, anything in the OP you dispute?

 

[Jackson]

Unquestionably?

Boop, You just can't argue with the facts. The best you can say is, It is what it is. Ultimately the president is full of hot wind and will say what he must to win an election.

This is his record and is now being told.

 

[Seawytch]

Unquestionably?

Agreed. I would hardly say "unquestionably". Yes, I support this President. Do I support everything he's done? Good gracious, no. Do I realize that much of his "broken" campaign promises were through no fault of his, yes.

 

[BDBoop]

Unquestionably?

Correct, I've never seen you question or criticize anything Obama does.


But back to the important part of my posts that you're avoiding, anything in the OP you dispute?

You haven't? Really?

I'm guessing you haven't been reading enough of my posts.

Here's the thing; this place is getting old. There's no new news, and hasn't been for some time now. Therefore, people are starting to fight the same battles repeatedly. Therefore, I am bored, and spending less time on the board. Therefore, I'm not going to deal with the original post, because frankly, the original poster is a bit of a nut case.

 

[Seawytch]

So Pale Rider doesn't like "liars" huh? Voting Romney are you? ROFLMAO!!!!

Translation:

They doooo it tooooo!!!!!!




Yes, Dorothy, east is east and west is west and politicians lie.

Some MUCH more than others. (i.e. Willard Romney)

 

[Jackson]

Unquestionably?

Agreed. I would hardly say "unquestionably". Yes, I support this President. Do I support everything he's done? Good gracious, no. Do I realize that much of his "broken" campaign promises were through no fault of his, yes.

I differ with your analysis of "no fault of his". He spent one solid year pushing the health care agenda that is no in jeopardy at the cost of valuable time he could have been addressing those broken promises and working on the economy and jobs. Nearly ervery speech was Health Care Health Care Health Care. I was waiting and waiting for him to address the crisis we had with the economy and I didn't hear it.

That is when I changed my mind on this man.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Unquestionably?

Correct, I've never seen you question or criticize anything Obama does.


But back to the important part of my posts that you're avoiding, anything in the OP you dispute?

You haven't? Really?

I'm guessing you haven't been reading enough of my posts.

Here's the thing; this place is getting old. There's no new news, and hasn't been for some time now. Therefore, people are starting to fight the same battles repeatedly. Therefore, I am bored, and spending less time on the board. Therefore, I'm not going to deal with the original post, because frankly, the original poster is a bit of a nut case.

No I waste too much time on this board, I've read plenty of your posts.

The last paragraph is a bit of a head scratcher, you're posting repeatedly in the OP's thread who you view to be a nut case. So it's beneath you to reply to the actual post in the OP, but it's not beneath you to post multiple times in that very thread.

I don't get it.

 

[Caroljo]

Unquestionably?

Agreed. I would hardly say "unquestionably". Yes, I support this President. Do I support everything he's done? Good gracious, no. Do I realize that much of his "broken" campaign promises were through no fault of his, yes.

NO fault of his own???
There ya go....making excuses for him again.

 

[007]

Correct, I've never seen you question or criticize anything Obama does.


But back to the important part of my posts that you're avoiding, anything in the OP you dispute?

You haven't? Really?

I'm guessing you haven't been reading enough of my posts.

Here's the thing; this place is getting old. There's no new news, and hasn't been for some time now. Therefore, people are starting to fight the same battles repeatedly. Therefore, I am bored, and spending less time on the board. Therefore, I'm not going to deal with the original post, because frankly, the original poster is a bit of a nut case.

No I waste too much time on this board, I've read plenty of your posts.

The last paragraph is a bit of a head scratcher, you're posting repeatedly in the OP's thread who you view to be a nut case. So it's beneath you to reply to the actual post in the OP, but it's not beneath you to post multiple times in that very thread.

I don't get it.

It's the way these mouthy little leftist gas bags make themselves feel all superior, when in reality to us "thinking, rational, logical conservatives," we clearly see through their pathetic little Saul Alinsky games.

She can't dispute anything, and she won't dispute anything, because she knows it's all true, we know it's all true, and we know that she knows as well as all the other leftists on here that it's all true. So they just come into these threads to shit and piss their nasty little cakes holes off, sooooo typical of the elitist left.

 

[BDBoop]

Correct, I've never seen you question or criticize anything Obama does.


But back to the important part of my posts that you're avoiding, anything in the OP you dispute?

You haven't? Really?

I'm guessing you haven't been reading enough of my posts.

Here's the thing; this place is getting old. There's no new news, and hasn't been for some time now. Therefore, people are starting to fight the same battles repeatedly. Therefore, I am bored, and spending less time on the board. Therefore, I'm not going to deal with the original post, because frankly, the original poster is a bit of a nut case.

No I waste too much time on this board, I've read plenty of your posts.

The last paragraph is a bit of a head scratcher, you're posting repeatedly in the OP's thread who you view to be a nut case. So it's beneath you to reply to the actual post in the OP, but it's not beneath you to post multiple times in that very thread.

I don't get it.

I shouldn't be talking to you because it's in his thread?

/shrug

Okay.

 

[Jackson]

You haven't? Really?

I'm guessing you haven't been reading enough of my posts.

Here's the thing; this place is getting old. There's no new news, and hasn't been for some time now. Therefore, people are starting to fight the same battles repeatedly. Therefore, I am bored, and spending less time on the board. Therefore, I'm not going to deal with the original post, because frankly, the original poster is a bit of a nut case.

No I waste too much time on this board, I've read plenty of your posts.

The last paragraph is a bit of a head scratcher, you're posting repeatedly in the OP's thread who you view to be a nut case. So it's beneath you to reply to the actual post in the OP, but it's not beneath you to post multiple times in that very thread.

I don't get it.

I shouldn't be talking to you because it's in his thread?

/shrug

Okay.

The feigned superiority doesn't work when there is an accurate account from the op.