OBAMA Does anyone really believe a word he says anymore?

[DiamondDave]

President Obama was and remains a superior choice to either Senator McCain or Governor Romney.

Not that I was a big fan or McCain or Romney (Liked McCain better in 2000 than in 2008)... but with Obama's lies and track record, his big government spending, and his love of socialist style programs, I cannot say that he is or would be superior to a piece of dried cow dung... I could not say he is even superior to the worst President we had in my lifetime (Carter)...

Big government spending...please tell us the last GOP President who reduced spending....

Obama was, is, and always will be the superior choice to any of his opponents in 2008 and 2012. As for cow dung...you seem to have trouble competing yourself.

And you assume I agreed with big government spending?? That is your mistake there bubba... Obama made it even worse

 

[candycorn]

President Obama was and remains a superior choice to either Senator McCain or Governor Romney.

O and mccain are probably equally inept. Romney was way above those two stooges.

Are you talking about Mitt Romney--the guy who has been unemployed for something like 10 years or so?

 

[candycorn]

Not that I was a big fan or McCain or Romney (Liked McCain better in 2000 than in 2008)... but with Obama's lies and track record, his big government spending, and his love of socialist style programs, I cannot say that he is or would be superior to a piece of dried cow dung... I could not say he is even superior to the worst President we had in my lifetime (Carter)...

Big government spending...please tell us the last GOP President who reduced spending....

Obama was, is, and always will be the superior choice to any of his opponents in 2008 and 2012. As for cow dung...you seem to have trouble competing yourself.

And you assume I agreed with big government spending?? That is your mistake there bubba... Obama made it even worse

Could care less what you think; if the choices are between Dems and Reps (as they always are), you're getting big spenders on both sides. Claiming one is better than the other based on spending is not logical. Claiming that one lies and the other doesn't is not logical since both have done so in the past. Introducing cow dung into the argument is pretty stupid also.

 

[candycorn]

President Obama was and remains a superior choice to either Senator McCain or Governor Romney.

Ah, the resident idiot has arrived!

Thanks for introducing yourself.

 

[Mustang]

How many of those who don't believe a word he said didn't vote for him, believed that he was born in Kenya and has a fake birth certificate, say he's a Communist, and hated him from day one?

There are far too many people on this board who simply come on here to spout nonsense and not to debate, they love nothing more than telling the world that Obama is this that and the other, when the reality is, the president isn't the problem and has never been, and I mean that for Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan etc.

The people who control politics, the corruption etc, these are the real problems, but those people who control politics are the ones who want you to say such nonsense to keep the heat away from them. Well done.

Before I say what I have to say on this OP, let me start with a little reality check for everyone. Politics in general, and political parties in particular is not a profession or a group that's known for creating straight shooters who tell the unvarnished truth. With that said, any conservative who thinks that Obama is an inveterate liar about all things while the conservative members of the Republican Party are shining examples of truth, justice and the American way are either delusional, or stupid, or just plain so partisan as to be unwilling or incapable of evaluating individual statements on their merit alone, and instead engage the kind of play by play analysis that fans of football teams do when a play is in dispute. Frankly, I wish we lived in a world where football players wouldn't claim they made a good catch when the ball was actually trapped (hit the ground first before bouncing up into the arms of the intended receiver), but that's not the way the world works, I'm sad to say. That's why there are referees on the field. If anything, politics is dirtier, nastier, and considerably more dishonest than pro sports with all their doping. And politicians are worse offfenders than used car salesmen when it comes to honesty.

At this point, I would like to bring talk radio into the equation. I've listened to talk radio for about 20 years, and I hear more lying, and dissembling, and phony disinformation in just about any 3 hour broadcast from conservative radio hosts than I hear from most politicians on TV. If those are the sources some people depend on to evaluate Obama's truthfulness, all I can say is you're being duped.

 

[candycorn]

How many of those who don't believe a word he said didn't vote for him, believed that he was born in Kenya and has a fake birth certificate, say he's a Communist, and hated him from day one?

There are far too many people on this board who simply come on here to spout nonsense and not to debate, they love nothing more than telling the world that Obama is this that and the other, when the reality is, the president isn't the problem and has never been, and I mean that for Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan etc.

The people who control politics, the corruption etc, these are the real problems, but those people who control politics are the ones who want you to say such nonsense to keep the heat away from them. Well done.

Before I say what I have to say on this OP, let me start with a little reality check for everyone. Politics in general, and political parties in particular is not a profession or a group that's known for creating straight shooters who tell the unvarnished truth. With that said, any conservative who thinks that Obama is an inveterate liar about all things while the conservative members of the Republican Party are shining examples of truth, justice and the American way are either delusional, or stupid, or just plain so partisan as to be unwilling or incapable of evaluating individual statements on their merit alone, and instead engage the kind of play by play analysis that fans of football teams do when a play is in dispute. Frankly, I wish we lived in a world where football players wouldn't claim they made a good catch when the ball was actually trapped (hit the ground first before bouncing up into the arms of the intended receiver), but that's not the way the world works, I'm sad to say. That's why there are referees on the field. If anything, politics is dirtier, nastier, and considerably more dishonest than pro sports with all their doping. And politicians are worse offfenders than used car salesmen when it comes to honesty.

At this point, I would like to bring talk radio into the equation. I've listened to talk radio for about 20 years, and I hear more lying, and dissembling, and phony disinformation in just about any 3 hour broadcast from conservative radio hosts than I hear from most politicians on TV. If those are the sources some people depend on to evaluate Obama's truthfulness, all I can say is you're being duped.

Pretty easy to tell when a talk radio personality is about to lie; they change their voices to emulate and falsely quote those they are about to trash.

The reason they change their voices is because they have no quote of the person they are emulating saying what the host needs them to say.

So when you hear an impersonation of Obama, that is the reason why. The funny thing is that you could likely do just as good a job trashing him without the over-the-top lie-fest.

 

[Oldstyle]

Bush went to get the oil, you're assuming that he was successful. In a way he was.

Iraqi oil production has increased massively, "Oil production in the country has been slowly but steadily climbing since the end of the war as the Iraqi government and partners such as Exxon Mobil (XOM, Fortune 500), BP (BP), Chevron (CVX, Fortune 500) and Total (TOT) work to repair existing fields and hunt for new sources."

"Iraq has lofty plans to one day produce 11 million barrels a day -- nearly equal to Russia's current output and a million barrels a day more than Saudi Arabia's production."

Iraq oil production surpasses Iran - Aug. 10, 2012

Doubling of Iraqi oil production by 2020?

"Doubling of Iraqi oil production by 2020?"

This is where the oil is. The war helped push prices up, and demand from China has seen oil prices rise significantly. To simply say oil prices are not what they were in 1999 without taking into account the effects of the real world is crazy. Venezuela under Chavez, who gained power in 1999, decided to push oil prices up using OPEC

Chavez Oil. Prices, CITGO, Exxon Mobil, OPEC, Hugo Chavez, Venezuela

"During his presidency, Hugo Chavez has giving special importance also to OPEC cartel. He has been promoting meetings between OPEC members to regulate oil production. This caused some controversies in 2000 when he decided to have some encounters with Saddam Hussein as Iraq is a member of OPEC. He also keep having meetings with other controversial leaders, like Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Libya's Muammar al-Gaddafi and Algeria's Abdelaziz Bouteflika (all OPEC members)."

See the trend? Saddam gone, Iran sanctions, Gaddafi gone and Algeria is still there.

But Chavez tried to get OPEC to work together to push up prices, the US didn't like it, did they?

It doesn't matter that the US doesn't buy the oil. Oil prices go up and down depending on supply and demand. Reduce demand in countries like Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, Libya and so on, and oil prices rise, which means the amount the US pays for oil goes up, even if this isn't US oil.

Two of the companies extracting oil from Iraq are American owned or partly American owned, others have plenty of US shareholders, like BP.

The US stands to profit from increased oil production in the US on several fronts.

You have to ask yourself why US interests since the end of the Cold War have been Kuwait, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Venezuela, Afghanistan (oil pipelines), Kosovo (oil pipelines), and only a few other places.

Certainly Rwanda, Ivory Coast and Syria the US has kept away from, why do you think that is?

The progressive rant back then was that we were only going into Iraq because we wanted their oil...then when it became obvious that WASN'T the case you didn't hear that anymore. Do you guys ever get tired of being so completely wrong?

Do you get your 'facts' from the Ministry of Truth? What evidence do you have to prove your allegation that oil was not the reason for our invasion and occupation of Iraq?

Going into Iraq was about oil - they had it and we wanted it.*** After our defeat of Saddam in '91 he would not have given us the time of day let alone his oil. The mushroom cloud blitzkrieg by VP Cheney, SecDef Rumsfeld and SecSt. Rice on Meet the Press and other Sunday News Programs news to make a case for military action against Iraq was an effort to scare the public into support for the war of choice.

See: Iraq war: Predictions made, and results - CSMonitor.com

Why do you defenders of Bush, et al, continue to lie and misrepresent history. You've got to have enough brain cells to realize the evidence of your lies is insurmountable.

If our rationale for going into Iraq was because we wanted their oil...then why didn't we take their oil when we took control of Iraq? Did we just FORGET? We didn't take their oil because that was never the reason why we went in there in the first place! We went there because Saddam Hussein wouldn't abide by the UN sanctions that were in place following the first Gulf War.

 

[DiamondDave]

Big government spending...please tell us the last GOP President who reduced spending....

Obama was, is, and always will be the superior choice to any of his opponents in 2008 and 2012. As for cow dung...you seem to have trouble competing yourself.

And you assume I agreed with big government spending?? That is your mistake there bubba... Obama made it even worse

Could care less what you think; if the choices are between Dems and Reps (as they always are), you're getting big spenders on both sides. Claiming one is better than the other based on spending is not logical. Claiming that one lies and the other doesn't is not logical since both have done so in the past. Introducing cow dung into the argument is pretty stupid also.

Again.. you are assuming I claimed something that I did not.. I only claimed that Obama has actually been worse at it than anyone we have seen to date.. I did not say I liked Bush's spending, nor did I say I supported it.. nor did I say I supported anyone in the REP party who is for any increased government spending...

But nice try

 

[S.J.]

And you assume I agreed with big government spending?? That is your mistake there bubba... Obama made it even worse

Could care less what you think; if the choices are between Dems and Reps (as they always are), you're getting big spenders on both sides. Claiming one is better than the other based on spending is not logical. Claiming that one lies and the other doesn't is not logical since both have done so in the past. Introducing cow dung into the argument is pretty stupid also.

Again.. you are assuming I claimed something that I did not.. I only claimed that Obama has actually been worse at it than anyone we have seen to date.. I did not say I liked Bush's spending, nor did I say I supported it.. nor did I say I supported anyone in the REP party who is for any increased government spending...

But nice try

They're famous for that.

 

[Oldstyle]

Who says they liked it? Who says what they got isnt better?

Let's cut through all the bullshit, Closed! If the ACA really WAS better then you wouldn't have to fine people who don't sign up for it because they'd be RUSHING to sign up on their own!

You "mandate" things and "fine" for non-compliance when what you're pushing isn't what people want.

What? You mean like when someone gets a fine for failure to wear a seatbelt? So seatbelts must be awful?

Thats your logic?

Is it "logical" to mandate compliance and threaten fines on something that IS better, Closed? Why would you need to do that? The answer quite obviously is that for a sizable part of the population (Hello, Middle Class taxpayer!!!) the ACA is not better than what they had. The truth is that health care for those folks will be more expensive and the care provided will be less high quality. The REASON that you have mandates and fines is that the people who wrote this legislation KNEW that the cost of providing subsidies for the poor and paying for the expensive care of those with pre-existing conditions would need to be passed along to the young and the healthy in order for this program not to go into a fiscal death spiral almost immediately.

 

[Oldstyle]

President Obama was and remains a superior choice to either Senator McCain or Governor Romney.

O and mccain are probably equally inept. Romney was way above those two stooges.

Are you talking about Mitt Romney--the guy who has been unemployed for something like 10 years or so?

Mitt Romney spent a lifetime successfully working in both the private and the public sectors. When you compare him with Barack Obama the contrast is so glaring as to be almost laughable. Show me something exceptional that Obama did as a lawyer, as a college instructor, or as a legislator! The truth is...he was mediocre at best...at ALL of these things! He basically slid along using the status of being the first black President of the Harvard Law Review. Romney on the other hand was incredibly successful in practically everything he touched...from running the Mormon mission in France at a young age...to being an investment capitalist...to rescuing the Olympic Games...to working with an overwhelmingly liberal House in Massachusetts. That's the guy we COULD have had! Instead we got the guy who's all talk with nothing to back it up.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Let's cut through all the bullshit, Closed! If the ACA really WAS better then you wouldn't have to fine people who don't sign up for it because they'd be RUSHING to sign up on their own!

You "mandate" things and "fine" for non-compliance when what you're pushing isn't what people want.

What? You mean like when someone gets a fine for failure to wear a seatbelt? So seatbelts must be awful?

Thats your logic?

Is it "logical" to mandate compliance and threaten fines on something that IS better, Closed?

Yes, see seatbelts

Why would you need to do that?

Because the more people put in the cheaper it becomes. This isnt Rocket Surgery

The answer quite obviously is that for a sizable part of the population (Hello, Middle Class taxpayer!!!) the ACA is not better than what they had.

So obvious that answer is that you cant find anything but your own story writing to back that up.

The truth is that health care for those folks will be more expensive and the care provided will be less high quality. The REASON that you have mandates and fines is that the people who wrote this legislation KNEW that the cost of providing subsidies for the poor and paying for the expensive care of those with pre-existing conditions would need to be passed along to the young and the healthy in order for this program not to go into a fiscal death spiral almost immediately.

I know, doom and gloom....the sky is falling...it will be the end of America yadda yadda

 

[Oldstyle]

What? You mean like when someone gets a fine for failure to wear a seatbelt? So seatbelts must be awful?

Thats your logic?

Is it "logical" to mandate compliance and threaten fines on something that IS better, Closed?

Yes, see seatbelts




Because the more people put in the cheaper it becomes. This isnt Rocket Surgery

The answer quite obviously is that for a sizable part of the population (Hello, Middle Class taxpayer!!!) the ACA is not better than what they had.

So obvious that answer is that you cant find anything but your own story writing to back that up.

The truth is that health care for those folks will be more expensive and the care provided will be less high quality. The REASON that you have mandates and fines is that the people who wrote this legislation KNEW that the cost of providing subsidies for the poor and paying for the expensive care of those with pre-existing conditions would need to be passed along to the young and the healthy in order for this program not to go into a fiscal death spiral almost immediately.

I know, doom and gloom....the sky is falling...it will be the end of America yadda yadda

Your claim is the one that's totally illogical, Closed. If something really IS better than what people have then THEY FLOCK TO IT! You don't have to mandate it. You don't have to impose fines to force compliance. If your neighbor tells you that he just saved 20% on his health insurance and got better coverage you're probably beating a path down to your agent's office the next day to sign up. That isn't what's happening with the ACA though...is it?

 

[ron4342]

I mean seriously the guy has lied to the American people so many times I have lost count.
He has more scandals under his belt than all the presidents combined and has put us in more debt than all of the previous presidents.

You really have to be brain dead at this point to think anything he does is going to benefit the American People.

I'll tell you who I don't believe, I DON'T BELIEVE ANYTHING CONSERVATIVES SAY. (Death panels, anyone? ANYONE?)

 

[ron4342]

Is it "logical" to mandate compliance and threaten fines on something that IS better, Closed?

Yes, see seatbelts




Because the more people put in the cheaper it becomes. This isnt Rocket Surgery



So obvious that answer is that you cant find anything but your own story writing to back that up.

The truth is that health care for those folks will be more expensive and the care provided will be less high quality. The REASON that you have mandates and fines is that the people who wrote this legislation KNEW that the cost of providing subsidies for the poor and paying for the expensive care of those with pre-existing conditions would need to be passed along to the young and the healthy in order for this program not to go into a fiscal death spiral almost immediately.

I know, doom and gloom....the sky is falling...it will be the end of America yadda yadda

Your claim is the one that's totally illogical, Closed. If something really IS better than what people have then THEY FLOCK TO IT! You don't have to mandate it. You don't have to impose fines to force compliance. If your neighbor tells you that he just saved 20% on his health insurance and got better coverage you're probably beating a path down to your agent's office the next day to sign up. That isn't what's happening with the ACA though...is it?

Actually, THAT is exactly what is happening. As more and more people start ignoring the lies and false information spread by the gop the word of mouth is reaching more and more people and that is the reason the projection of 7,000,000+ was met. Stop whining like the poor loser you are.

 

[Xses69]

I mean seriously the guy has lied to the American people so many times I have lost count.
He has more scandals under his belt than all the presidents combined and has put us in more debt than all of the previous presidents.

You really have to be brain dead at this point to think anything he does is going to benefit the American People.

let us know when he lies us into a war.


mmkay?

Your kidding right. He is arming terrorist and Drug Cartels

 

[Oldstyle]

Yes, see seatbelts




Because the more people put in the cheaper it becomes. This isnt Rocket Surgery



So obvious that answer is that you cant find anything but your own story writing to back that up.


I know, doom and gloom....the sky is falling...it will be the end of America yadda yadda

Your claim is the one that's totally illogical, Closed. If something really IS better than what people have then THEY FLOCK TO IT! You don't have to mandate it. You don't have to impose fines to force compliance. If your neighbor tells you that he just saved 20% on his health insurance and got better coverage you're probably beating a path down to your agent's office the next day to sign up. That isn't what's happening with the ACA though...is it?

Actually, THAT is exactly what is happening. As more and more people start ignoring the lies and false information spread by the gop the word of mouth is reaching more and more people and that is the reason the projection of 7,000,000+ was met. Stop whining like the poor loser you are.

I've seen this Administration in action too many times to buy into that 7 million number, Ron. What's the old saying...fool me once, shame on you...fool me twice shame on me? The numbers that are relevant in this aren't how many people went to a web site and went through the process so they could find out what their rate would be...the numbers that are relevant are how many PAY for coverage...how much of that we'll be subsidizing and whether they are young and healthy or old and have existing health issues. THAT information is totally missing from this discussion because THAT information the Obama people aren't releasing. Gee, wonder why...

 

[candycorn]

O and mccain are probably equally inept. Romney was way above those two stooges.

Are you talking about Mitt Romney--the guy who has been unemployed for something like 10 years or so?

Mitt Romney spent a lifetime successfully working in both the private and the public sectors. When you compare him with Barack Obama the contrast is so glaring as to be almost laughable. Show me something exceptional that Obama did as a lawyer, as a college instructor, or as a legislator! The truth is...he was mediocre at best...at ALL of these things! He basically slid along using the status of being the first black President of the Harvard Law Review. Romney on the other hand was incredibly successful in practically everything he touched...from running the Mormon mission in France at a young age...to being an investment capitalist...to rescuing the Olympic Games...to working with an overwhelmingly liberal House in Massachusetts. That's the guy we COULD have had! Instead we got the guy who's all talk with nothing to back it up.

Yeah, the "expert" who hasn't worked in 10 years or so...

I'm glad we dodged that bullet and elected President Obama to 4 more years.

 

[OKTexas]

Are you talking about Mitt Romney--the guy who has been unemployed for something like 10 years or so?

Mitt Romney spent a lifetime successfully working in both the private and the public sectors. When you compare him with Barack Obama the contrast is so glaring as to be almost laughable. Show me something exceptional that Obama did as a lawyer, as a college instructor, or as a legislator! The truth is...he was mediocre at best...at ALL of these things! He basically slid along using the status of being the first black President of the Harvard Law Review. Romney on the other hand was incredibly successful in practically everything he touched...from running the Mormon mission in France at a young age...to being an investment capitalist...to rescuing the Olympic Games...to working with an overwhelmingly liberal House in Massachusetts. That's the guy we COULD have had! Instead we got the guy who's all talk with nothing to back it up.

Yeah, the "expert" who hasn't worked in 10 years or so...

I'm glad we dodged that bullet and elected President Obama to 4 more years.

This from someone who voted for the mulatto messiah who had no real world experience except sucking off the government and foundations, really!

 

[TooTall]

I mean seriously the guy has lied to the American people so many times I have lost count.
He has more scandals under his belt than all the presidents combined and has put us in more debt than all of the previous presidents.

You really have to be brain dead at this point to think anything he does is going to benefit the American People.

let us know when he lies us into a war.


mmkay?

Do you mean lies like these?

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
snopes.com: Weapons of Mass Destruction Quotes