Is it no wonder Trump calls the MSM "fake news"! 95% negative stories..

[bripat9643]

Most of the stories on Osama Bin Laden were negative, thus proving there was a liberal media bias against poor Osama.

Oh wait, it proved no such thing. And that's why the OP is dreadfully stupid and whiny.

You're equating Trump with a mass murdering terrorist?

Really?

 

[nat4900]

They hate him and that will be their downfall....

Did you two morons ever WONDER if Trump ***** up THREE TIMES more than Obama?

 

[healthmyths]

Most of the stories on Osama Bin Laden were negative, thus proving there was a liberal media bias against poor Osama.

Oh wait, it proved no such thing. And that's why the OP is dreadfully stupid and whiny.

OH... so Trump is as bad as Osama Bin Laden is your position?
Then that makes supporters like me and nearly 60 million others like the terrorists?
Trump was elected by the majority of people in the states where the Electoral college votes then dictated Trump as the winner.
But you whiny, ignorant, uninformed people totally believing the MSM, i.e. "Trump anti-immigrant" for example which is so dumb and obvious...He married a legal immigrant... so
why would he be "anti-immigrant"? But you idiots keep on believing the MSM biased and grossly inaccurate reporting.
recent Examples of biased MSM reporting:

MELANIA TRUMP ORDERS REMOVAL OF NEAR-200-YEAR-OLD TREE FROM WHITE HOUSE," the Newsweek headline blared.
Well, that's just horrible, cutting down such a wonderful old tree! And at Christmastime! What A Scrooge!
Except it isn't true. It's what President Trump refers to as "fake news" — completely wrong, printed maliciously with the intent to wrongly malign someone, in this case America's first lady.
Newsweek has since "updated" and edited the story, so we don't know exactly what the original said
(although they decided to keep the same inflammatory headline, which makes it sound like Melania Trump just capriciously decided to hack down a historic tree).
"A White House official told CNN that the first lady made the decision after reviewing and assessing professional information and historical documents," Newsweek wrote.
But there's much more to the story.
The Washington Post at least did a little reporting, writing that the decision to remove the tree "comes after decades of attempts to hold the aged tree up with a steel pole and cables. Arboretum experts said that rigging is now compromised and that the wood of the magnolia's trunk is too delicate for further interventions. Any other tree in that condition would have been cut down years ago."
Ultimately, those measures could not allay safety concerns about the tree, said White House spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham. Visitors and members of the press are frequently standing right in front of the magnolia when the president departs on Marine One; the high winds from the helicopter could make a limb collapse more likely.
So yeah. The tree's got to come down. And while Melania isn't an arborist, she heeded the advice of specialists from the National Arboretum when she called for a large portion of the tree to be removed this week.
FAKE NEWSweek Reports That Melania Trump 'Orders Removal Of Near-200-Year-Old Tree From White House'

F.,...king FAKE news... rigged inflammatory HEADLINE...MELANIA TRUMP ORDERS REMOVAL OF NEAR-200-YEAR-OLD TREE FROM WHITE HOUSE,

This is what is wrong and idiots like you believe the headlines!

 

[healthmyths]

They hate him and that will be their downfall....

Did you two morons ever WONDER if Trump ***** up THREE TIMES more than Obama?

**** UPS???

Tell that to these guys!!!

Our troops died because Obama's more concerned about "political correctness" then beating the enemy!

Remember Obama may be moving toward something resembling a doctrine. One of his advisers described the president’s actions in Libya as “leading from behind.”

— Ryan Lizza, the New Yorker, May 2 issue

Shades of Vietnam: Spike in U.S. troop deaths tied to stricter rules of engagement
But it is clear that the rules of engagement, which restrain troops from firing in order to spare civilian casualties, cut back on airstrikes and artillery strikes — the types of support that protect troops during raids and ambushes.

“In Afghanistan, the [rules of engagement] that were put in place in 2009 and 2010 have created hesitation and confusion for our war fighters,” said Wayne Simmons, a retired U.S. intelligence officer who worked in NATO headquarters in Kabul as the rules took effect, first under Army Gen. Stanley M. McChrystal, then Army Gen. David H. Petraeus.
“It is no accident nor a coincidence that from January 2009 to August of 2010, coinciding with the Obama/McChrystal radical change of the [rules of engagement], casualties more than doubled,” Mr. Simmons said. “The carnage will certainly continue as the already fragile and ineffective [rules] have been further weakened by the Obama administration as if they were playground rules.”
As President Obama’s troop surge began in 2009, so did new rules of engagement demanded by Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who was responding to local elders angry over the deaths of civilians from NATO airstrikes and ground operations.
Mr. Karzai now is refusing to sign a status of forces agreement for U.S. troops to remain in his country after 2014, even though Mr. Obama personally pledged to him in a letter that Afghan homes would be mostly off-limits to ground forces.
Even before the president’s edict, commanders since 2009 had to insure that a Taliban fighter was carrying a weapon before they could authorize direct fire. A unit engaged in combat on the ground and requesting airstrikes must convince commanders — and lawyers — back at headquarters that no civilians would be harmed.

Warriors say this chain-of-command bureaucracy has cost lives: Each Taliban fighter allowed to escape is one more terrorist free to attack Americans by fighting battles or planting homemade bombs.

The September 2009 battle also stands as a stark example of the effects the restrictive rules of engagement had on troops under fire, fighting for their lives.
Former Army Capt. William Swenson, who last month pinned on the Medal of Honor, repeatedly called headquarters to request airstrikes but was denied for hours, as more than 150 Taliban fighters surrounded and attacked his position.
Mr. Swenson vented his frustration in an after-action investigation.
“It’s not JAG [military attorney] responsibility to interject to say, ‘Hey, we are concerned that you’re going to hit a building,’” he said. “I can tell you that I am concerned with saving as many lives as I can, not necessarily one. Unfortunately, this is combat. I can’t be perfect, but I can do what I feel what’s right at the time.”
He added: “I am not a politician. I am just the guy on the ground asking for that ammunition to be dropped because it’s going to save lives.”
Mr. Swenson recalled other instances in which the brigade command would not authorize airstrikes on targets he identified.
“I just get the craziest thing across the radio sometimes,” he said. “Just people second-guessing.”
Of 13 U.S. forces at Ganjgal, five were killed. The Afghan National Army lost eight soldiers.
Another soldier said in the same after-action report that there was a dwelling in Ganjgal used by the Taliban — including women — as a safe haven from which to fire rocket-propelled grenades and other weapons. Yet the command would not target the building.
“Let’s focus on [rules of engagement] because there is no reason you can’t level a house if they are shooting from it,” the soldier said. “I’ve never heard of a rule that would not allow [you] to fire on a house. They always teach you that you always have the right to defend yourself. Let commanders on the ground make decisions. We are using lawyers to make tactical decisions.”
He added: “You have the right to stay alive or keep your guys alive. We failed them by not keeping them alive because we didn’t provide them what they need to come out alive.”

The linking of an increase in American deaths to restrictive rules of engagement emerged a month before Ganjgal, when Marine Lance Cpl. Joshua Bernard was ambushed and killed in southern Afghanistan while on patrol.

Weeks earlier, his father, a retired Marine sergeant, wrote members of his Maine delegation in Washington to say that new rules against air and artillery support would get troops needlessly killed because the Taliban now enjoyed new safe havens among civilians.
“The rules of engagement are so convoluted, so open-ended, that it puts the people on the ground at risk no matter what they do,” said John Bernard, according to the Marine Corps Times. “It’s insane. You don’t let your guys languish there when these things happen. You err on the side of your guys, not the civilians.”
Mr. Simmons, who did intelligence work in Afghanistan, said new restrictions for 2014 and beyond spell trouble for thousands of U.S. troops who could remain.
“The carnage will certainly continue as the already fragile and ineffective [rules of engagement] have been further weakened by the Obama administration as if they were playground rules,” he said.
James Russell, an instructor at the Naval Postgraduate School who has conducted research in Afghanistan, said: “I know of no way to quantify or gather evidence that would demonstrate a correlations between more casualties and a changed [rules of engagement].”
Mr. Russell believes the main reason for increased casualties in 2009 and 2010 was that troops conducted operations in Helmand province, which had been taken over by the Taliban.
“So we went looking for the enemy to take him on in the ground he controlled. Not surprisingly, we encountered a much more violent environment, which led to more casualties,” he said. “A restricted [rules of engagement] to reduce collateral damage and civilian casualties certainly complicated our operations, but I don’t think you could attribute our increase in casualties to this kind of single factor.”

Spike in battlefield deaths linked to restrictive rules of engagement

 

[healthmyths]

Pew: Trump media three times more negative than for Obama, just 5 percent positive

Pew: Trump media three times more negative than for Obama, just 5 percent positive

So is it any wonder Trump has tweeted frequently about the "FAKE NEWS" and most of us that
are smart enough to see this extreme MSM bias agree with him!
Now these aren't polls of people. But when politicians read polls which are generally made up of
more Democrats then GOP and when the people get their news from these truly biased and negative sources, is it any wonder the politicians think Trump is bad! As the people polled (again more Democrats) have a negative attitude about Trump which THEY GET FROM THE BIASED NEGATIVE MSM!
I frequently put info up like this NOT for the ignorant and grossly uninformed Dems/Liberals/etc.. but for a few of the on the fence people. Who are trying to deal logically and with accurate information to form opinions. But when the MSM continues to pump out 95% MORE NEGATIVE stories what kind of opinion is being formed?
I continually use this example as it is so clear and simple to show how the biased MSM FAILS to tell the whole story!
"Trump anti-immigrant"
56,800 results!
Headlines...
"Against Trump's Anti-immigrant" Huffington
"Trump's Anti-Immigrant Hate"...
"Trump's anti-immigrant"...
Do any of you fence sitters comprehend the gross ignorance and NEGLIGENCE to these statements?
A) Trump is MARRIED TO AN IMMIGRANT!!!!!
B) 40 million Americans are either "legal" immigrants or as in my case I have a relative!
And these people call us that support Trump "Anti-immigrant"????
What you fence sitters seem to be unaware of is that Trump, us 40+million are NOT anti-immigrant!
These biased truly biased MSM leaves out the adjective "ILLEGAL"... Trump's Anti-ILLEGAL"!
Finally to show you concrete proof of how this BIASED MSM has put their money where there mouth is:
View attachment 168378


View attachment 168375

Trump lies 5.5 times a day.. all documented.
He fights and belittles private citizens, allies, members of his own party etc.
and morons like you wonder why he gets less favorable press.

Where is your source for that dumb ass comment..."Trump lies 5.5 times a day"GEEZ! Is there any type of idiotic comment you won't make?
PROVE your 5.5 times statement and until you do you are moron and even more disgusting a LIAR!

 

[healthmyths]

Pew: Trump media three times more negative than for Obama, just 5 percent positive

Pew: Trump media three times more negative than for Obama, just 5 percent positive

So is it any wonder Trump has tweeted frequently about the "FAKE NEWS" and most of us that
are smart enough to see this extreme MSM bias agree with him!
Now these aren't polls of people. But when politicians read polls which are generally made up of
more Democrats then GOP and when the people get their news from these truly biased and negative sources, is it any wonder the politicians think Trump is bad! As the people polled (again more Democrats) have a negative attitude about Trump which THEY GET FROM THE BIASED NEGATIVE MSM!
I frequently put info up like this NOT for the ignorant and grossly uninformed Dems/Liberals/etc.. but for a few of the on the fence people. Who are trying to deal logically and with accurate information to form opinions. But when the MSM continues to pump out 95% MORE NEGATIVE stories what kind of opinion is being formed?
I continually use this example as it is so clear and simple to show how the biased MSM FAILS to tell the whole story!
"Trump anti-immigrant"
56,800 results!
Headlines...
"Against Trump's Anti-immigrant" Huffington
"Trump's Anti-Immigrant Hate"...
"Trump's anti-immigrant"...
Do any of you fence sitters comprehend the gross ignorance and NEGLIGENCE to these statements?
A) Trump is MARRIED TO AN IMMIGRANT!!!!!
B) 40 million Americans are either "legal" immigrants or as in my case I have a relative!
And these people call us that support Trump "Anti-immigrant"????
What you fence sitters seem to be unaware of is that Trump, us 40+million are NOT anti-immigrant!
These biased truly biased MSM leaves out the adjective "ILLEGAL"... Trump's Anti-ILLEGAL"!
Finally to show you concrete proof of how this BIASED MSM has put their money where there mouth is:
View attachment 168378


View attachment 168375

Trump lies 5.5 times a day.. all documented.
He fights and belittles private citizens, allies, members of his own party etc.
and morons like you wonder why he gets less favorable press.

So your source is:
Analysis | President Trump has made 1,628 false or misleading claims over 298 days
Remember this is the SAME source that told Americans...
The story, which alleged sinister motives on behalf of Trump, was composed by four reporters and was pieced together from “the private accounts of more than 30 officials at the White House, the Justice Department, the FBI and on Capitol Hill, as well as Trump confidants and other senior Republicans, [to] paint a conflicting narrative centred on the president’s brewing personal animus toward Comey.”
Despite standing behind the Post’s latest story, Sullivan claims that she would prefer not to use unnamed sources because of the obvious reasons: they offer no accountability or assessment.
“There is no way to get at the story through talking to the White House press secretary or listening to the spin that is offered by officials who are willing to go on the record,” she told CBC News.
Sullivan made the claim while talking to Canada’s government-owned broadcaster for a segment of the The Investigators. Sullivan did agree with Trump on one point: that “there is a tremendous amount of leaking being done.”
WaPo Reporter Says Anonymous Sources Better Than Official Ones In Trump Admin

And you use like the POST 5.5 times making it sound as if EACH time was a separate and unique situation!
Dumb f...ks like you believe that crap!
For example from the WAPO article:
Trump’s most repeated claim, uttered 60 times, was some variation of the statement that the Affordable Care Act is dying and “essentially dead.”
Why don't you claim that LIE for all these people then?
Aetna chief executive says Obamacare is in a ‘death spiral’

 

[Kondor3]

He was talking about the crowd in Washington AT THE EVENT.
Your excuses are hilarious

So now you can read Trump's thoughts?

Oh, God, the TrumpBots and Trumppanzees actually think they're competent in Semantics, don't they?

 

[Rambunctious]

He was talking about the crowd in Washington AT THE EVENT.
Your excuses are hilarious

So now you can read Trump's thoughts?

Oh, God, the TrumpBots and Trumppanzees actually think they're competent in Semantics, don't they?

Did you just get up? go back to bed and next time you pop in be up to date okay?

 

[Care4all]

The farcical nature of much of the "Trump News" is quite transparent, and is even starting to be recognized by the Leftist masses. I have read a couple articles by Leftist commentators over the past few days chiding reporters for being so transparent in their TDS.

What is missing from essentially all news reporting about Trump is some mention of Trump's side of the case in point. For example, it was reported that Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Paris climate accord (particulars not relevant). It was further reported that almost every nation in the world disagreed with this action. NOT A SINGLE WORD WAS WRITTEN ABOUT THE LOGICAL AND FACTUAL REASONS WHY TRUMP TOOK THE ACTIONS HE DID. Was the accord tilted in favor of China and India? Did it subject us to paying penalties for relatively harmless technical violations? Is there any credible evidence that making the sacrifices called for in the treaty will MEASURABLY IMPACT THE FUTURE CLIMATE, given what China, India, and other third-world countries are permitted to do under the accord? Is this a treaty that must be ratified by the Senate, and if so, why didn't O'Bama submit it for ratification? It's not all that complicated.

Let the readers decide for themselves whether Trump is right or wrong, but at least explain Trump's position(s) while you are constantly calling them stupid and evil.

And if you, the Journalist, don't understand the reasons, make a few phone calls, have it explained to you, and report it.

every article printed in the mainstream media,

PRESENTS THE ARTICLES TO THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM FOR THEIR RESPONSE BEFORE THE ARTICLES GO TO PRINT...

but the dear president REFUSES to respond and give the administration's side of it....

I AGREE it would benefit the president to use the opportunity to explain why he did what he did....

but the president REFUSES to do such, so he can CLAIM they are 'fake news' with his cult following.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The OP has the math and reading skills of a 3 year old.

The Trump stories were 62% negative, not 95% negative.

******* idiot.

 

[Care4all]

The OP has the math and reading skills of a 3 year old.

The Trump stories were 62% negative, not 95% negative.

******* idiot.

with all of Trump's perpetual lying, I'm surprised it is not 100%

 

[NYcarbineer]

This is the breakdown of the Pew research study:

lol, even the rightwing media couldn't bring itself to do even a third of the Trump stories in a positive manner.

Pew Research: Only 5% of Trump Stories Are Positive, By Far the Lowest Among Presidents in Last 25 Years

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Is it the fault of the media that Trump started his presidency by lying and having his Press Sec stand in front of the American people and tell at least 4 lies on day 1?

Any president that starts his term in office with a lie will get negative coverage.

Please, spare us. Obama told a dozen lies every day he was in office.

Here a a few lies he told us at his inauguration:

1. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because we, the people, have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebears and true to our founding documents.
2. On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.
3. On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics.
4. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions -- that time has surely passed.
5. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together.
6. We'll restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost.
7. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.
   
8. All this we can do.
   
9. All this we will do.
10. What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them, that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply.
11. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works -- whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.
12. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end.
13. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account, to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day, because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.
14. Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill.
15. Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with the sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.
16. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we'll work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet.
17. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense.
18. To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds.
19. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to the suffering outside our borders, nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.
20. What is demanded, then, is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility -- a recognition on the part of every American that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world; duties that we do not grudgingly accept, but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character than giving our all to a difficult task.
21. This is the price and the promise of citizenship.

I was tempted to list every single sentence as a lie, but some where debatable.

I am truly embarrassed for you and a tad pissed off you even use the same oxygen that I do.

 

[Correll]

They hate him and that will be their downfall....

66% of Americans hate him or are disgusted by him.
Funny you still don’t know the reasons why.

The op shows the reason. Massive lying by the vile left.


Trump's first year was pretty good. The economy is doing well, the border is improving, ISIS is being crushed.

 

[healthmyths]

The farcical nature of much of the "Trump News" is quite transparent, and is even starting to be recognized by the Leftist masses. I have read a couple articles by Leftist commentators over the past few days chiding reporters for being so transparent in their TDS.

What is missing from essentially all news reporting about Trump is some mention of Trump's side of the case in point. For example, it was reported that Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Paris climate accord (particulars not relevant). It was further reported that almost every nation in the world disagreed with this action. NOT A SINGLE WORD WAS WRITTEN ABOUT THE LOGICAL AND FACTUAL REASONS WHY TRUMP TOOK THE ACTIONS HE DID. Was the accord tilted in favor of China and India? Did it subject us to paying penalties for relatively harmless technical violations? Is there any credible evidence that making the sacrifices called for in the treaty will MEASURABLY IMPACT THE FUTURE CLIMATE, given what China, India, and other third-world countries are permitted to do under the accord? Is this a treaty that must be ratified by the Senate, and if so, why didn't O'Bama submit it for ratification? It's not all that complicated.

Let the readers decide for themselves whether Trump is right or wrong, but at least explain Trump's position(s) while you are constantly calling them stupid and evil.

And if you, the Journalist, don't understand the reasons, make a few phone calls, have it explained to you, and report it.

every article printed in the mainstream media,

PRESENTS THE ARTICLES TO THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM FOR THEIR RESPONSE BEFORE THE ARTICLES GO TO PRINT...

but the dear president REFUSES to respond and give the administration's side of it....

I AGREE it would benefit the president to use the opportunity to explain why he did what he did....

but the president REFUSES to do such, so he can CLAIM they are 'fake news' with his cult following.

Where is your proof? I don't believe a word you say. Give me a link and substantiation for your statement every article is presented to the team for their response!
I want you to prove that EVERY ARTICLE! EVERY ARTICLE!

 

[healthmyths]

Is it the fault of the media that Trump started his presidency by lying and having his Press Sec stand in front of the American people and tell at least 4 lies on day 1?

Any president that starts his term in office with a lie will get negative coverage.

What lie?

Here we go again. The cult getting instant amnesia.

The day old prez ordered Spicy to go out to the masses and say,” Trump’s inauguration crowd was the largest in history. Period “

Forget that jewel already?

Where in the hell is YOUR proof of that outlandishly stupid ass comment? GIVE ME THE EXACT QUOTE where Trump said that!
You guys lie and lie and exaggerate and blow way out of proportion!

 

[healthmyths]

The OP has the math and reading skills of a 3 year old.

The Trump stories were 62% negative, not 95% negative.

******* idiot.

Too bad you didn't read the article that came with this chart!
The report about the harsh media coverage was included in Pew’s year-ending report titled "17 Striking Findings From 2017."

The media story reviewed the tone of coverage of Trump’s first 60 days in office and found that just 5 percent was “positive.”

By comparison, Obama’s coverage was 42 percent positive.

Pew: Trump media three times more negative than for Obama, just 5 percent positive

 

[BluesLegend]

Is it racist they had to prop up the black president?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The OP has the math and reading skills of a 3 year old.

The Trump stories were 62% negative, not 95% negative.

******* idiot.

Too bad you didn't read the article that came with this chart!
The report about the harsh media coverage was included in Pew’s year-ending report titled "17 Striking Findings From 2017."

The media story reviewed the tone of coverage of Trump’s first 60 days in office and found that just 5 percent was “positive.”

By comparison, Obama’s coverage was 42 percent positive.

Pew: Trump media three times more negative than for Obama, just 5 percent positive

View attachment 168427

You're an idiot. Nowhere in any of those charts is Trump 95% negative.

 

[bripat9643]

Is it the fault of the media that Trump started his presidency by lying and having his Press Sec stand in front of the American people and tell at least 4 lies on day 1?

Any president that starts his term in office with a lie will get negative coverage.

Please, spare us. Obama told a dozen lies every day he was in office.

Here a a few lies he told us at his inauguration:

1. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because we, the people, have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebears and true to our founding documents.
2. On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.
3. On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics.
4. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions -- that time has surely passed.
5. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together.
6. We'll restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost.
7. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.
   
8. All this we can do.
   
9. All this we will do.
10. What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them, that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply.
11. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works -- whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.
12. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end.
13. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account, to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day, because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.
14. Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill.
15. Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with the sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.
16. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we'll work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet.
17. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense.
18. To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds.
19. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to the suffering outside our borders, nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.
20. What is demanded, then, is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility -- a recognition on the part of every American that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world; duties that we do not grudgingly accept, but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character than giving our all to a difficult task.
21. This is the price and the promise of citizenship.

I was tempted to list every single sentence as a lie, but some where debatable.

I am truly embarrassed for you and a tad pissed off you even use the same oxygen that I do.

You're embarrassed for me? I would be embarassed about having voted for a man who told so many lies in his inauguration speech.