More Obama Bullshit

[Sinjorri]

The right thinks they can just DENY ANYTHING Obama says without one shread of evidence.

They hate him and will lie about him because he is black.

They hate black people and that is why most black people refuse to vote republican.

The republicans always say its because blacks are just to stupid.

thats teh leftist way, always go as low as you can to degrade people that disagree with you

 

[Caroljo]

The right thinks they can just DENY ANYTHING Obama says without one shread of evidence.

They hate him and will lie about him because he is black.

They hate black people and that is why most black people refuse to vote republican.

The republicans always say its because blacks are just to stupid.

SHOW ME where the republicans lied about him BECAUSE HE'S BLACK.

SHOW ME where republicans stated they hate black people.

SHOW ME where republicans ALWAYS say black people are stupid.

YOU CAN'T.....

You say the right are full of hate....I don't think i know of ONE conservative or liberal on this board that's more hateful than you are, and a liar on top of it!

 

[The Rabbi]

He did not make the claim about Bush in your quote. Did he make this claim somewhere else or are you lying?
He did not claim companies were allowed to pollute more in your quote, he claims the GOP wants less environmental regulation (which would result in that). Do you dispute that the GOP wants fewer EPA regulations? So unless he said "They wanted companies to pollute more" somewhere else in his speech, you're lying there too.

Ironic that the poster who calls Obama a liar, lies so much in order to support his claim.

At the beginning of the last decade, the wealthiest Americans received a huge tax cut in 2001 and another huge tax cut in 2003.

Hmm, now who was president at the beginning of the last decade? Clinton? No. Obama? No. Lincoln? No. Hmm.

This has what to do with workers being treated with impunity? Nothing? So you were lying about that? yeah we knew that.

You claim, like Obama, that less EPA regulation will result in more pollution. Can you support that? No. Can he? No. Is it true? No.
Okay I know this would be tough for someone who is really really stupid to understand but do try. No one but you said "Companies were allowed to pollute more." See that sentence? Yeah, that sentence you wrote. No one said that. That is what was a lie.

It is interesting that the people disputing this themselves have to lie and rely on unsupported assertions.

Nah but it's interesting that liars are so stupid, they forget what they posted 30 seconds later.

There was no lie in my post. Obama clearly implied that companies would pollute more with fewer regulations. Did you not see that in the passage I quoted? Are you too stupid to understand that? Why do you change the subject from your earlier objection about Bush?

 

[IndependntLogic]

Hmm, now who was president at the beginning of the last decade? Clinton? No. Obama? No. Lincoln? No. Hmm.

This has what to do with workers being treated with impunity? Nothing? So you were lying about that? yeah we knew that.

You claim, like Obama, that less EPA regulation will result in more pollution. Can you support that? No. Can he? No. Is it true? No.
Okay I know this would be tough for someone who is really really stupid to understand but do try. No one but you said "Companies were allowed to pollute more." See that sentence? Yeah, that sentence you wrote. No one said that. That is what was a lie.

It is interesting that the people disputing this themselves have to lie and rely on unsupported assertions.

Nah but it's interesting that liars are so stupid, they forget what they posted 30 seconds later.

There was no lie in my post. Obama clearly implied that companies would pollute more with fewer regulations. Did you not see that in the passage I quoted? Are you too stupid to understand that? Why do you change the subject from your earlier objection about Bush?

Well let's talk about really stupid liars then, shall we?
So you now flip-flop, spin but cant help but admit Obama never said:
companies pollute more
or
Companies treated employees with impunity

Yet you posted:
"He claims that under Bush and prior employers were allowed to treat workers with impunity. That is not so. He claims companies were allowed to pollute more."

You fail.

 

[Listening]

There are no facts laid out.
He claims that under Bush and prior employers were allowed to treat workers with impunity. That is not so. He claims companies were allowed to pollute more. That is not true. He claims all of this stuff that didnt actually happen resulted in disaster. They did not. They could not because it didnt happen.

He did not make the claim about Bush in your quote. Did he make this claim somewhere else or are you lying?
He did not claim companies were allowed to pollute more in your quote, he claims the GOP wants less environmental regulation (which would result in that). Do you dispute that the GOP wants fewer EPA regulations? So unless he said "They wanted companies to pollute more" somewhere else in his speech, you're lying there too.

Ironic that the poster who calls Obama a liar, lies so much in order to support his claim.

As Adoph Hitler said, "If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed". The Right certainly follows this advice by taking anything Obama says and filling in the blanks creating a lie, then repeating it over and over.

Kinda like Babara BS (senator from CA) who says there are 50 milliion uninsured. That is the number they keep pushing.

Along with the WHO ranking of 37.

Both garbage....but the left keeps blithering.

Oh yeah...45K die each year due to lack of health care....can't produce 1 name (or haven't)...but 45K......

 

[IndependntLogic]

He did not make the claim about Bush in your quote. Did he make this claim somewhere else or are you lying?
He did not claim companies were allowed to pollute more in your quote, he claims the GOP wants less environmental regulation (which would result in that). Do you dispute that the GOP wants fewer EPA regulations? So unless he said "They wanted companies to pollute more" somewhere else in his speech, you're lying there too.

Ironic that the poster who calls Obama a liar, lies so much in order to support his claim.

As Adoph Hitler said, "If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed". The Right certainly follows this advice by taking anything Obama says and filling in the blanks creating a lie, then repeating it over and over.

Kinda like Babara BS (senator from CA) who says there are 50 milliion uninsured. That is the number they keep pushing.

Along with the WHO ranking of 37.

Both garbage....but the left keeps blithering.

Oh yeah...45K die each year due to lack of health care....can't produce 1 name (or haven't)...but 45K......

I don't believe there are 50M uninsured but I do believe there are a LOT who are.
The WHO ranking seems pretty severe to me but then, having had govt health care in our military and then in a few different countries, I can see why a country that provides nothing for so many people would take a hit.
I'm certain some people die because they didn't have the money to get an early diagnosis of something. That's not a stretch. Who would think otherwise?

But none of this has anything to do with Obama's speech so really, it's all a strawman.

 

[starcraftzzz]

He claims that under Bush and prior employers were allowed to treat workers with impunity. That is not so.

Obama says that right wingers tell us that taking away workers rights and doing things that only benefits the rich will be beneficially. OS basically the reason you think he is lying is because you can't read/andor have the reading comprehension of a 3rd grader
That is not so? Only if you've completely been under a rock and missed Reagan union busting, and state GOP parties taking away bargaining rights

He claims companies were allowed to pollute more. That is not true.

Again the problem seems to be that you can't read. Every time the EPA comes out with a regulation that lowers pollutions right-wingers yourself included scream about how it will hurt the economy. This is despite the fact that all the cost-benefit analysis show that the regulations would save more money then they cost and create millions of jobs

He claims all of this stuff that didnt actually happen resulted in disaster. .

He claims that the right told us removing regulations would lead to prosperity. Well we removed banking regulations and it resulted int he biggest banking crises ever. We removed utility regulations and as a result costs sky rocked. We removed accounting regulations and as a result Enron and Wold Co occured.

The problem here is that you are an illiterate moron who has no clue

 

[starcraftzzz]

Hmm, now who was president at the beginning of the last decade? Clinton? No. Obama? No. Lincoln? No. Hmm.
You claim, like Obama, that less EPA regulation will result in more pollution. Can you support that? No. Can he? No. Is it true? No.
It is interesting that the people disputing this themselves have to lie and rely on unsupported assertions.

Natural Gas Industry Must Tighten Up Methane Leaks -- And Save $2 Billion Per Year In The Process | ThinkProgress
^Natural gas companies could reduce methane emissions by 80% while saving a net of 2 billion dollars through increased efficiency, and saving society money through less ozone health costs and global warming

Power Companies: 'The Time Is Now' for Air Toxics Rule | ThinkProgress
^New EPA standards that reduce Mercury emissions by 91% and SO2 emissions by 55% will save 17,000 lives a year prevent 12,000 heart attacks and 120,000 asthma attacks each year and will provide 140 billion in health benefits. These new regulations and the Clean Air transport rule will create 1.4 million jobs over the next 5 years

04/14/2011: EPA Landmark Clean Air Act Settlement with TVA to Modernize Coal-Fired Power Plants and Promote Clean Energy Investments / State-of-the-art pollution controls and clean energy technology to provide up to $27 billion in annual health benef
^EPA settlement with the TVA will result in the TVA investing 5 billion to clean up their coal plants. Which will result in 2,000 less deaths a year, and save 20 billion yearly due to health benefits.

Good it took me 5 seconds to prove that everything you said is utter bullshit.

 

[francoHFW]

see sig pp1- Dupes are clueless....and good nite...

 

[The Rabbi]

Nah but it's interesting that liars are so stupid, they forget what they posted 30 seconds later.

There was no lie in my post. Obama clearly implied that companies would pollute more with fewer regulations. Did you not see that in the passage I quoted? Are you too stupid to understand that? Why do you change the subject from your earlier objection about Bush?

Well let's talk about really stupid liars then, shall we?
So you now flip-flop, spin but cant help but admit Obama never said:
companies pollute more
or
Companies treated employees with impunity

Yet you posted:
"He claims that under Bush and prior employers were allowed to treat workers with impunity. That is not so. He claims companies were allowed to pollute more."

You fail.

Actually he said some people want to see the following agenda where companies....and then he said "And we've seen the results of that agenda in the last decade."
Is that not what he is saying? Of course it is. He is a damned liar and you are a damned fool.

 

[Intense]

The right thinks they can just DENY ANYTHING Obama says without one shread of evidence.

They hate him and will lie about him because he is black.

They hate black people and that is why most black people refuse to vote republican.

The republicans always say its because blacks are just to stupid.

 

[The Rabbi]

He claims that under Bush and prior employers were allowed to treat workers with impunity. That is not so.

Obama says that right wingers tell us that taking away workers rights and doing things that only benefits the rich will be beneficially. OS basically the reason you think he is lying is because you can't read/andor have the reading comprehension of a 3rd grader
That is not so? Only if you've completely been under a rock and missed Reagan union busting, and state GOP parties taking away bargaining rights

He claims companies were allowed to pollute more. That is not true.

Again the problem seems to be that you can't read. Every time the EPA comes out with a regulation that lowers pollutions right-wingers yourself included scream about how it will hurt the economy. This is despite the fact that all the cost-benefit analysis show that the regulations would save more money then they cost and create millions of jobs

He claims all of this stuff that didnt actually happen resulted in disaster. .

He claims that the right told us removing regulations would lead to prosperity. Well we removed banking regulations and it resulted int he biggest banking crises ever. We removed utility regulations and as a result costs sky rocked. We removed accounting regulations and as a result Enron and Wold Co occured.

The problem here is that you are an illiterate moron who has no clue

You're the one with the reading problem.
Obama said the rightwing conservative agenda was tried in the last decade. That agenda was allowing companies to treat workers with impunity and pollute more.
There was never any agenda that did that, nor did any of that happen.
Obama is a liar. You are an idiot.

 

[The Rabbi]

Hmm, now who was president at the beginning of the last decade? Clinton? No. Obama? No. Lincoln? No. Hmm.
You claim, like Obama, that less EPA regulation will result in more pollution. Can you support that? No. Can he? No. Is it true? No.
It is interesting that the people disputing this themselves have to lie and rely on unsupported assertions.

Natural Gas Industry Must Tighten Up Methane Leaks -- And Save $2 Billion Per Year In The Process | ThinkProgress
^Natural gas companies could reduce methane emissions by 80% while saving a net of 2 billion dollars through increased efficiency, and saving society money through less ozone health costs and global warming

Power Companies: 'The Time Is Now' for Air Toxics Rule | ThinkProgress
^New EPA standards that reduce Mercury emissions by 91% and SO2 emissions by 55% will save 17,000 lives a year prevent 12,000 heart attacks and 120,000 asthma attacks each year and will provide 140 billion in health benefits. These new regulations and the Clean Air transport rule will create 1.4 million jobs over the next 5 years

04/14/2011: EPA Landmark Clean Air Act Settlement with TVA to Modernize Coal-Fired Power Plants and Promote Clean Energy Investments / State-of-the-art pollution controls and clean energy technology to provide up to $27 billion in annual health benef
^EPA settlement with the TVA will result in the TVA investing 5 billion to clean up their coal plants. Which will result in 2,000 less deaths a year, and save 20 billion yearly due to health benefits.

Good it took me 5 seconds to prove that everything you said is utter bullshit.

Think Progress? That's your source? Really?
snicker.
You have the critical reading skills of a chimp. When a progressive tells you some measure "might save 13000 lives" they are lying. There is no evidence of such a thing. It is completely made up for propaganda purposes to fool idiots like you. Clearly it worked.

 

[Robert_Stephens]

There are no facts laid out.
He claims that under Bush and prior employers were allowed to treat workers with impunity. That is not so. He claims companies were allowed to pollute more. That is not true. He claims all of this stuff that didnt actually happen resulted in disaster. They did not. They could not because it didnt happen.

Obama:

They keep telling us that if we'd just strip away more regulations, and let businesses pollute more and treat workers and consumers with impunity, that somehow we'd all be better off. We're told that when the wealthy become even wealthier, and corporations are allowed to maximize their profits by whatever means necessary, it's good for America, and that their success will automatically translate into more jobs and prosperity for everybody else. That's the theory.

Obama is plainly referring to the global credit crisis and the resulting crash, high unemployment, and millions of foreclosures resulting from deregulation. He is also referring to the Deepwater Horizon spill.

Bush expanded the size of government, except in two agencies. The only two agencies he shrank were the EPA and the SEC.

You are in error. He also shrunk NASA, inexplicably, when he promised he would maintain NASA's budget at 2010 levels.

Typical of the ilk.

Robert

 

[bripat9643]

do you remember all the coal mine disastors?

You mean one coal mine accident, don't you? When was coal mining deregulated?

Remember the oil spill disaster under Obama?

 

[bripat9643]

How the Bush administration reversed decades of progress on mine safety | Alicia Patterson Foundation

Your article doesn't list a single regulation that was repealed. It's a collection of anecdotes. It's propaganda, in other words. It even admits that coal mining deaths have been declining for years. It just whines that improvements aren't sufficient. When will they ever be sufficient for leftwing agitators who hate the coal industry?

 

[bripat9643]

People DIED because of it.

WORKERS

Because of what? People die every year in the coal mining industry. When I was younger, I worked as a carpenter in the construction industry. Someone got killed on every project I worked on. I don't see you leftwing turds whining about safety in the construction industry.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

"And yet, for much of the last century, we have been having the same argument with folks who keep peddling some version of trickle-down economics. They keep telling us that if we'd convert more of our investments in education and research and health care into tax cuts -- especially for the wealthy -- our economy will grow stronger. They keep telling us that if we'd just strip away more regulations, and let businesses pollute more and treat workers and consumers with impunity, that somehow we'd all be better off. We're told that when the wealthy become even wealthier, and corporations are allowed to maximize their profits by whatever means necessary, it's good for America, and that their success will automatically translate into more jobs and prosperity for everybody else. That's the theory.

"Now, the problem for advocates of this theory is that we've tried their approach -- on a massive scale. The results of their experiment are there for all to see. At the beginning of the last decade, the wealthiest Americans received a huge tax cut in 2001 and another huge tax cut in 2003. We were promised that these tax cuts would lead to faster job growth. They did not. The wealthy got wealthier -- we would expect that. The income of the top 1 percent has grown by more than 275 percent over the last few decades, to an average of $1.3 million a year. But prosperity sure didn't trickle down.

If lies were btu's Obama would have generated enough energy to fuel Pittsburgh.

Please refudiate (you betcha') the facts Obama has liad out here, with well, facts please...

Tooooooooooooooooooooooo easy........

September 12, 2008

Walk on the Supply Side​

"The first supply-side era in modern economic history began in earnest in 1981 with huge tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. Although there were modest steps back from these tax cuts in the ensuing years in response to fiscal deficits and tax-sheltering, this first supply-side era didn’t end until the tax hikes of 1993. This respite from supply-side policies ended in 2001, however, when a new set of supply-side tax measures were enacted. Today, as budget shortfalls mount and the economy weakens, the supply-side approach to economic policy is once again up for debate.

Of course, the reason for the failures of the supply-side periods to deliver as strong an economic performance as the 1993 to 2001 era may not have anything to do with tax policy. Other short-term factors and long-term trends influence the economy as well. The evidence that supply-side tax cuts help economic growth is, however, weak at best and much contradicted in the economic literature."

 

[Flopper]

Kinda like Babara BS (senator from CA) who says there are 50 milliion uninsured. That is the number they keep pushing.

Thanks for illustrating my point. The number comes from the US Census Bureau. "In 2010, the percentage of people without health insurance, 16.3 percent, was not statistically different from the rate in 2009. The number of uninsured people increased to 49.9 million in 2010 from 49.0 million in 2009."

Highlights: 2010 - U.S Census Bureau

 

[Listening]

Kinda like Babara BS (senator from CA) who says there are 50 milliion uninsured. That is the number they keep pushing.

Thanks for illustrating my point. The number comes from the US Census Bureau. "In 2010, the percentage of people without health insurance, 16.3 percent, was not statistically different from the rate in 2009. The number of uninsured people increased to 49.9 million in 2010 from 49.0 million in 2009."

Highlights: 2010 - U.S Census Bureau

Maybe someone should tell the White House.

FREEDOM EDEN: Obama: 30 Million Uninsured, 47 Million?

They are talking 30 million.

Of course, Barbar BS always couches in the context of "these poor 50 million souls" like they all want it....or deserve it.

More crap.

Or as you quoted Hitler about telling lies often enough........

Keep trying.