I am not even that much of a fan. But if you have in your mind that the stimulus was a bad thing, you aren't dealing in reality. Go see the attached link.
is whether Obama is a liar. The answer is yes but probably within the norm of politicians. This is unlike Hillary who goes beyond this and is a compulsive or pathological liar.
knows you don't lie it comes back to bite you in the ass at some point in the deal. But you exploit the gray area to the max, you withhold information that was not requested that you know will hurt the sale. Politicians are Masters
at this, the good ones are
I'm not even so sure if that was a lie as much as it was a complete lack of understanding that some people actually like having crappy and inadequate health insurance.
In other words, it is Ok for me to lie to you because I know better than you.
Actually If you are paying for health insurance that literally did not insure you at all then yes the President knows better than you.
but it is better to catch the President in a "lie" than understand that you previous paid for "insurance" that literally was not insurance.
There is a study made of all the States of the Union since 1960 and what themes or lines of policy most received standing ovations from Congress during the address.
The answer has been clear by a wide margin:
Statements of ringingly delivered clear oxymorons. Like:
" we must go all out in the pursuit of peace but do all our military needs in the meantime"
Or:
We must make it a national mission to reach much higher revolutionary new national standards for education of our young people but leave it to our existing experts at the local level"
that kind of pablum gets both sides of the aisles standing and cheering.
I'm not even so sure if that was a lie as much as it was a complete lack of understanding that some people actually like having crappy and inadequate health insurance.
In other words, it is Ok for me to lie to you because I know better than you.
Actually If you are paying for health insurance that literally did not insure you at all then yes the President knows better than you.
but it is better to catch the President in a "lie" than understand that you previous paid for "insurance" that literally was not insurance.
So you know all those who lost their insurance had insurance that was not insurance. Another lie. Unlike you I will try to be non-partisan on this. It is perfectly clear to anyone who listens with an open mind there were winners and losers. Some got better insurance but some who had perfectly good plans are paying much more, have increased deductibles and/or less choice of doctors. Unlike you I do not pretend to know the value of someone's old plan better than they do. That is just a talking point to justify a lie. In any case I reject the point that the government always knows better than the individual as you obviously will if a Republican gets in office.
I'm not even so sure if that was a lie as much as it was a complete lack of understanding that some people actually like having crappy and inadequate health insurance.
In other words, it is Ok for me to lie to you because I know better than you.
Actually If you are paying for health insurance that literally did not insure you at all then yes the President knows better than you.
but it is better to catch the President in a "lie" than understand that you previous paid for "insurance" that literally was not insurance.
In concept most of these were suppose to have been Grandfathered in. However, the Presidents message should have been nuanced. We can argue that people don't pay attention unless the message can fit on a bumper sticker or would only confuse, but in truth you have to concede the President lied by omission.
Your policy was suppose to have been Grandfathered, if the insurance company had not made changes making it worse as of 2010 and you had the policy for at least a year. The Adminstration hurt themselves when the rules were written by to narrowly defining whats a change. For example, if there was a minimal increase in co-pay, it was excluded. Whether the President was aware who knows? But clearly would have known policies were not going to make the cut.
There also was never any mention that insurance companies may chose to cancel because they were not going to be able to offer these policies to new buyers. Insurances Co. clearly took advantage. It was to their economic benefit. Better PR, blame it on Obamacare than cancel later. Obviously, the President couldn't control companies in this regard, but would know it would happen.
of a national policy because Bill in UT has maternity insurance and dental insurance and he has no teeth. Yep, scrap the whole thing because of over overage for some
maternity coverage for my 60 yer old wife. Who knew? Thank you for having my back, Mr. President.
I guess you no longer need it because of your vasectomy. Was that covered?
Ha. Sorry guys but in my state NJ, Obamacare worked. Insurance costs went down by I think 5% on average.
Reason was policy requirements already similar to Obamacare. Rather than having insurance rates spike depending on age or circumstance, better to pay over lifetime. Easier to afford, more people insured everyone in the long term benefits.
maternity coverage for my 60 yer old wife. Who knew? Thank you for having my back, Mr. President.
I guess you no longer need it because of your vasectomy. Was that covered?
Ha. Sorry guys but in my state NJ, Obamacare worked. Insurance costs went down by I think 5% on average.
Reason was policy requirements already similar to Obamacare. Rather than having insurance rates spike depending on age or circumstance, better to pay over lifetime. Easier to afford, more people insured everyone in the long term benefits.
As I said. Some winners. Some losers or "loosers" since this is the internet.
of a national policy because Bill in UT has maternity insurance and dental insurance and he has no teeth. Yep, scrap the whole thing because of over overage for some
Who said that here?
The Bottom Line is there is a difference with her lying and Obama Â
Saying your premiums will go down because of a political argument to pass a bill and providing proof how it will do that is not the same with what the Clintons did. Projections are different from knowing the truth. The Clintons lie when the answer is X and they know it is X, but they will say Y. Just like "I didn't sleep with that women" or that Mark Rich, a fugitive, deserved a pardon.
I am not a republican or democrat, I vote on the candidate. But, HRC has been a compulsive and pathological liar about getting caught her entire career. Whether it was with that commodities deal, the travelgate nonsense, the papers from Whitewater mysteriously disappearing and the reappearing in the White House, "the vast right wing conspiracy," being under Sniper Fire in Bosnia (which was the same things Brian Williams did) to now this. And, I am sure I missed a few things. With this new thing, she has lied repeatedly from the private server because she didn't like carrying to devices, to not being subpoenaed, to saying she didn't solicit emails from Blumenthal (which there is proof she did), to saying she didn't pass along classified information. they surveyed 40 emails and found four instances of classified information. Who know how many more they will find.
I am sure the democrats can find a better candidate, who in the words of William Safire, is not a "congenital liar"
that he lied about this. The discussion here seems to have turned to the fallback position of if it was OK to lie about it.
The whole conversation has twisted. Originally HH just wanted lies and now it's a Big Brother justification of lies...I guess to say it's not really a lie.
Beyond that, we mentioned other lies, which he won't accept and we mentioned a myriad of lies by people who speak for him, which I'm still agog that he thinks that's somehow different. And that's after saying the lies were b cause it's Congress's fault.
But, I agree with the point about it being different than HRC. I said before, I think Obama lies so that h can force his ideological ends and make people think bad stuff is really cool stuff. Whereas, HRC lies purely to further her personal ambition.
All of us are going to believe (or disbelieve) what we want, what makes us feel good...totally disconnected from what is actually real. We live in a world of law, not science..
and at the end of the day, I want them to be proud of their president. Whether I agree with Obama or not, he is basically a good man who is doing his best for this country. Whether you agreed with ACA or not, I truly believe he thought it best for America. The same with George W. Bush, while he might not have been the smartest man or whether I agreed with him or not, I think he was a decent man who tried to the best he could for America. Whether you agreed with the wars or not, I truly believed he thought he was doing the best for American.
Hillary and Bill Clinton are truly about themselves. One day, they will be the cheerleaders for Wall Street if it will get money or a vote, the next day they will burn Wall Street if it will get them a vote. They are shameless and are in the game to be in the game, not to help American.
Hillary is basically running against everything she helped create in the 90s, Welfare reform, the criminal justice bill, DOMA, repealing Glass-Steagal, and the list goes on and on. The Clintons have no shame and now pretend to be the biggest cheerleaders for the other sides of things they passed in the 90s. It is disgraceful. I really hope the Dems can get another candidate, Elizabeth Warren, Al Gore, Joe Biden. But, please, no Hillary.
nice tap dance, very nice. Now give me the lies that came out of his mouth before you go back to tap dancing.
I gave you his interview on Jon Stewart where he said unequivocally that no conservative groups were treated differently by the IRS which is directly contradicted by a Congressional committee, a judge, and the head of the IRS, but you dismissed that. I brought up his UN and other speeches on Benghazi as well as responses by Carney and Rice linking the attack to a video but you dismissed that. On Iran among other things Ernest specifically said anytime, anywhere for inspections.
and apologized for being misleading on the subject. Can't really say the same for most other politicians who get caught willfully telling lies to people.
Quote:
"We weren’t as clear as we needed to be in terms of the changes that were taking place, and I want to do everything we can to make sure that people are finding themselves in a good position, a better position than they were before this law happened. And I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me," he said.
Obama offered an administrative fix that same day, allowing state insurance commissioners to extend current plans. But only some have chosen to do so.
In announcing the fix, Obama again conceded he had exaggerated. "There is no doubt that the way I put that forward unequivocally ended up not being accurate," he said. "It was not because of my intention not to deliver on that commitment and that promise. We put a grandfather clause into the law, but it was insufficient."
By the way, not that it is a justification, but the estimate is that only 2% of people who were insured couldn't get their old plans grandfathered in after the full policy took effect and the higher standards were set in place.
slang; calling one "weak sauce" compares said individual to the "mild" sauce found at Taco Bell; weak, insignificant, attempting to be like the other hot sauces, but not living up to expectations.
information you have is a lot different then intent to deceive. If you say he knowingly lied and can't produce those lies other than everyone know he lies is very weak sauce indeed.
In simple everyday American know it see it...looks like a duck and quacks like a duck is likely a duck ( much like the hunches you believe in when you make hiring recommendations ...but do not know with proof)....what does the vast majority of people call the following:
Mis representations?
Deceptions?
Vital incompleteness?
Answering the precise question and not the spirit of the question?
Deflecting the answer?
Answering a different question than what was asked and relaying on deference for ones position to not get a tight follow up question to a non answer?
Bullshit?
Whats the person who uses all of the above called in everyday plain spoken insight?
Deceiving?
Ok so Presidents don't lie ( except Nixon) in a way that is on record. So you are happy with deception from a position you depend on.... as long as you cannot find a blatant and deliberate lie?
We do agree that deception is more insidious and more problematically toxic than a lie you outright caught?
I don't like being lied to my face and if you lie to me I'm done with you. If I felt I was defending a liar, I'd check myself in for psychiatric evaluation because I have lost my mind
I'm not even so sure if that was a lie as much as it was a complete lack of understanding that some people actually like having crappy and inadequate health insurance.
Yes, we are too stupid to realize that we liked the insurance we had which my not have been perfect but cost less and gave us better coverage than what we have now.
It's this elitist attitude that liberals have that drives people crazy. And it DOES NOT excuse the outright deliberate lie about Obamacare. That kind of attitude is disgusting.
In that she is trying to benefit herself while harming others by flat out lying? No I don't. I think she stretches the truth and pushes that envelope to the edge, but no in the perjury definition I do not
It's amazing what low standards some of you have Â
Admit it, Dems: Hillary Could Strangle a Puppy on Live TV, and You’d Still Back Her (UPDATED: It's worse than you think)
Democrats don't give a "fart" about legally required government email transparency, as even Democrats now admit. Link - ( New Window )
when did you become the beacon for truth justice and the American Way? You are a talk junkie parrot that spews crap 24 x 7. What I really like is how twisted your panties get bunched by the idea that people see things differently than you do. Your first take on anyone feeling differently than you is indignity, like how could we not see things as clearly as you?
In that she is trying to benefit herself while harming others by flat out lying? No I don't. I think she stretches the truth and pushes that envelope to the edge, but no in the perjury definition I do not
Flat out lies?
Never subopenaed? She was
Deleted only private emails? Recovered emails from Blumenthal's account prove she did delete business emails.
Said she never solicited emails from Blumenthal? Recovered Blumenthal emails has her emailing him "keep em coming"
Said she never passed along classified information on private server? 40 documents were sampled and 4 instances of classified info that was classified at the time were sent by her over the server.
And, the Whitewater prosecutor wrote an indictment up about her lying to th grand jury but never submitted it because he didn't want to go after the president's wife.
And, of course, she said she got off the Tarmac in Bosnia under gun fire, but the tape undeniably shows her laughing and under no gun fire. Brian Williams was fired for the same stuff.
I think politicians of both parties take things to the edge, I think she is pathological. In any event, to say she has never flat out lied and only bright it up to th edge is not accurate. She has lied.
can focus in on talking points like Benghazi and personal emails, and yet have no problem with the fact that Repub congress and house members have blocked and repealed every bit of legislation meant to curb Wall Street and corporate overstepping and corruption. Not to mention the joke that is Republican denial of anything climate or evolution related. Scott Walker straight up banned the talking about climate change by his employees, yet Republicans love him. Ted Cruz , Marco Rubio, and James "Snowball" Inhofe, three known anti-science and anti-climate politicians, are somehow put in charge of committees that oversee NASA, NOAA, and the EPA. Republicans are pushing policies that basically guarantee that our coastlines will be sitting underwater within 50 years, and yet somehow you don't have a problem with this. Either that, or you're too lazy and ignorant to look up some climate facts for yourself, which may be even worse.
Admit it, Dems: Hillary Could Strangle a Puppy on Live TV, and You’d Still Back Her (UPDATED: It's worse than you think)
Democrats don't give a "fart" about legally required government email transparency, as even Democrats now admit. Link - ( New Window )
I find your posts totally amusing. That lack of any measured balance is amazing.
OMG, GWB adminstration had its own e-mail controversy. Private Domain Server in WH not backed up to save all e-mails. Potentially, millions of emails lost. People lied. Damaging emails found via other sources. Some emails erroneously sent to parody site. OMG.
Link below is Wikipedia but this was long and complex story which went many ways. It does however have many links to sources. Bush WH email controversy - ( New Window )
you write subpoenaed and some story about not want to indict the wife of a president. If I was alone in my view and was pissing in the wind, maybe I'm dumb. But after the election in 2016 win or lose 65,000,000 or so will have voted for her. That doesn't take into account the people that don't bother to vote. So a bunch of guys and a talk radio junkie getting bent out of shape means nothing to me. Then again us God hating, America sucks crowd ( according to some)can vote under the Constitution and I take comfort in that where I am viewed as crazy for supporting someone like Hilary on a sports web site 65,000,000 have my back win or lose in the polls
Admit it, Dems: Hillary Could Strangle a Puppy on Live TV, and You’d Still Back Her (UPDATED: It's worse than you think)
Democrats don't give a "fart" about legally required government email transparency, as even Democrats now admit. Link - ( New Window )
I find your posts totally amusing. That lack of any measured balance is amazing.
OMG, GWB adminstration had its own e-mail controversy. Private Domain Server in WH not backed up to save all e-mails. Potentially, millions of emails lost. People lied. Damaging emails found via other sources. Some emails erroneously sent to parody site. OMG.
Link below is Wikipedia but this was long and complex story which went many ways. It does however have many links to sources. Bush WH email controversy - ( New Window )
Lighten up, it was a joke. But it does amaze the lengths some will go to to defend Obama (it's ok that he lied because he knows better!' and Hillary.
you write subpoenaed and some story about not want to indict the wife of a president. If I was alone in my view and was pissing in the wind, maybe I'm dumb. But after the election in 2016 win or lose 65,000,000 or so will have voted for her. That doesn't take into account the people that don't bother to vote. So a bunch of guys and a talk radio junkie getting bent out of shape means nothing to me. Then again us God hating, America sucks crowd ( according to some)can vote under the Constitution and I take comfort in that where I am viewed as crazy for supporting someone like Hilary on a sports web site 65,000,000 have my back win or lose in the polls
And win or lose a similar number will vote for whatever name ends up on the R line. And the country loses either way, IMHO
Link - ( New Window )
at this, the good ones are
If you tell the lie more than 20 times is it 20 lies or just one?
Not so in politics. There is no direct face to face bounds.
and too be blunt....it is not a sales position.
unless we allow it via passivity or weariness.
As in Obama/Biden and McCain/ Palin with not a pennies difference between the one thing that mattered most...governance of the FIRE sector and policy
In other words, it is Ok for me to lie to you because I know better than you.
Actually If you are paying for health insurance that literally did not insure you at all then yes the President knows better than you.
but it is better to catch the President in a "lie" than understand that you previous paid for "insurance" that literally was not insurance.
The answer has been clear by a wide margin:
Statements of ringingly delivered clear oxymorons. Like:
" we must go all out in the pursuit of peace but do all our military needs in the meantime"
Or:
We must make it a national mission to reach much higher revolutionary new national standards for education of our young people but leave it to our existing experts at the local level"
that kind of pablum gets both sides of the aisles standing and cheering.
Quote:
I'm not even so sure if that was a lie as much as it was a complete lack of understanding that some people actually like having crappy and inadequate health insurance.
In other words, it is Ok for me to lie to you because I know better than you.
Actually If you are paying for health insurance that literally did not insure you at all then yes the President knows better than you.
but it is better to catch the President in a "lie" than understand that you previous paid for "insurance" that literally was not insurance.
Quote:
I'm not even so sure if that was a lie as much as it was a complete lack of understanding that some people actually like having crappy and inadequate health insurance.
In other words, it is Ok for me to lie to you because I know better than you.
Actually If you are paying for health insurance that literally did not insure you at all then yes the President knows better than you.
but it is better to catch the President in a "lie" than understand that you previous paid for "insurance" that literally was not insurance.
In concept most of these were suppose to have been Grandfathered in. However, the Presidents message should have been nuanced. We can argue that people don't pay attention unless the message can fit on a bumper sticker or would only confuse, but in truth you have to concede the President lied by omission.
Your policy was suppose to have been Grandfathered, if the insurance company had not made changes making it worse as of 2010 and you had the policy for at least a year. The Adminstration hurt themselves when the rules were written by to narrowly defining whats a change. For example, if there was a minimal increase in co-pay, it was excluded. Whether the President was aware who knows? But clearly would have known policies were not going to make the cut.
There also was never any mention that insurance companies may chose to cancel because they were not going to be able to offer these policies to new buyers. Insurances Co. clearly took advantage. It was to their economic benefit. Better PR, blame it on Obamacare than cancel later. Obviously, the President couldn't control companies in this regard, but would know it would happen.
Quote:
maternity coverage for my 60 yer old wife. Who knew? Thank you for having my back, Mr. President.
I guess you no longer need it because of your vasectomy. Was that covered?
Ha. Sorry guys but in my state NJ, Obamacare worked. Insurance costs went down by I think 5% on average.
Reason was policy requirements already similar to Obamacare. Rather than having insurance rates spike depending on age or circumstance, better to pay over lifetime. Easier to afford, more people insured everyone in the long term benefits.
Quote:
In comment 12385188 Bill in UT said:
Quote:
maternity coverage for my 60 yer old wife. Who knew? Thank you for having my back, Mr. President.
I guess you no longer need it because of your vasectomy. Was that covered?
Ha. Sorry guys but in my state NJ, Obamacare worked. Insurance costs went down by I think 5% on average.
Reason was policy requirements already similar to Obamacare. Rather than having insurance rates spike depending on age or circumstance, better to pay over lifetime. Easier to afford, more people insured everyone in the long term benefits.
I am not a republican or democrat, I vote on the candidate. But, HRC has been a compulsive and pathological liar about getting caught her entire career. Whether it was with that commodities deal, the travelgate nonsense, the papers from Whitewater mysteriously disappearing and the reappearing in the White House, "the vast right wing conspiracy," being under Sniper Fire in Bosnia (which was the same things Brian Williams did) to now this. And, I am sure I missed a few things. With this new thing, she has lied repeatedly from the private server because she didn't like carrying to devices, to not being subpoenaed, to saying she didn't solicit emails from Blumenthal (which there is proof she did), to saying she didn't pass along classified information. they surveyed 40 emails and found four instances of classified information. Who know how many more they will find.
I am sure the democrats can find a better candidate, who in the words of William Safire, is not a "congenital liar"
The whole conversation has twisted. Originally HH just wanted lies and now it's a Big Brother justification of lies...I guess to say it's not really a lie.
Beyond that, we mentioned other lies, which he won't accept and we mentioned a myriad of lies by people who speak for him, which I'm still agog that he thinks that's somehow different. And that's after saying the lies were b cause it's Congress's fault.
But, I agree with the point about it being different than HRC. I said before, I think Obama lies so that h can force his ideological ends and make people think bad stuff is really cool stuff. Whereas, HRC lies purely to further her personal ambition.
Hillary and Bill Clinton are truly about themselves. One day, they will be the cheerleaders for Wall Street if it will get money or a vote, the next day they will burn Wall Street if it will get them a vote. They are shameless and are in the game to be in the game, not to help American.
Hillary is basically running against everything she helped create in the 90s, Welfare reform, the criminal justice bill, DOMA, repealing Glass-Steagal, and the list goes on and on. The Clintons have no shame and now pretend to be the biggest cheerleaders for the other sides of things they passed in the 90s. It is disgraceful. I really hope the Dems can get another candidate, Elizabeth Warren, Al Gore, Joe Biden. But, please, no Hillary.
I gave you his interview on Jon Stewart where he said unequivocally that no conservative groups were treated differently by the IRS which is directly contradicted by a Congressional committee, a judge, and the head of the IRS, but you dismissed that. I brought up his UN and other speeches on Benghazi as well as responses by Carney and Rice linking the attack to a video but you dismissed that. On Iran among other things Ernest specifically said anytime, anywhere for inspections.
Obama offered an administrative fix that same day, allowing state insurance commissioners to extend current plans. But only some have chosen to do so.
In announcing the fix, Obama again conceded he had exaggerated. "There is no doubt that the way I put that forward unequivocally ended up not being accurate," he said. "It was not because of my intention not to deliver on that commitment and that promise. We put a grandfather clause into the law, but it was insufficient."
By the way, not that it is a justification, but the estimate is that only 2% of people who were insured couldn't get their old plans grandfathered in after the full policy took effect and the higher standards were set in place.
Mis representations?
Deceptions?
Vital incompleteness?
Answering the precise question and not the spirit of the question?
Deflecting the answer?
Answering a different question than what was asked and relaying on deference for ones position to not get a tight follow up question to a non answer?
Bullshit?
Whats the person who uses all of the above called in everyday plain spoken insight?
Deceiving?
Ok so Presidents don't lie ( except Nixon) in a way that is on record. So you are happy with deception from a position you depend on.... as long as you cannot find a blatant and deliberate lie?
We do agree that deception is more insidious and more problematically toxic than a lie you outright caught?
Yes, we are too stupid to realize that we liked the insurance we had which my not have been perfect but cost less and gave us better coverage than what we have now.
It's this elitist attitude that liberals have that drives people crazy. And it DOES NOT excuse the outright deliberate lie about Obamacare. That kind of attitude is disgusting.
Democrats don't give a "fart" about legally required government email transparency, as even Democrats now admit.
Link - ( New Window )
Flat out lies?
Never subopenaed? She was
Deleted only private emails? Recovered emails from Blumenthal's account prove she did delete business emails.
Said she never solicited emails from Blumenthal? Recovered Blumenthal emails has her emailing him "keep em coming"
Said she never passed along classified information on private server? 40 documents were sampled and 4 instances of classified info that was classified at the time were sent by her over the server.
And, the Whitewater prosecutor wrote an indictment up about her lying to th grand jury but never submitted it because he didn't want to go after the president's wife.
And, of course, she said she got off the Tarmac in Bosnia under gun fire, but the tape undeniably shows her laughing and under no gun fire. Brian Williams was fired for the same stuff.
I think politicians of both parties take things to the edge, I think she is pathological. In any event, to say she has never flat out lied and only bright it up to th edge is not accurate. She has lied.
Democrats don't give a "fart" about legally required government email transparency, as even Democrats now admit. Link - ( New Window )
I find your posts totally amusing. That lack of any measured balance is amazing.
OMG, GWB adminstration had its own e-mail controversy. Private Domain Server in WH not backed up to save all e-mails. Potentially, millions of emails lost. People lied. Damaging emails found via other sources. Some emails erroneously sent to parody site. OMG.
Link below is Wikipedia but this was long and complex story which went many ways. It does however have many links to sources.
Bush WH email controversy - ( New Window )
I'm pretty sure I know what it means. And you personify it.
Quote:
Admit it, Dems: Hillary Could Strangle a Puppy on Live TV, and You’d Still Back Her (UPDATED: It's worse than you think)
Democrats don't give a "fart" about legally required government email transparency, as even Democrats now admit. Link - ( New Window )
I find your posts totally amusing. That lack of any measured balance is amazing.
OMG, GWB adminstration had its own e-mail controversy. Private Domain Server in WH not backed up to save all e-mails. Potentially, millions of emails lost. People lied. Damaging emails found via other sources. Some emails erroneously sent to parody site. OMG.
Link below is Wikipedia but this was long and complex story which went many ways. It does however have many links to sources. Bush WH email controversy - ( New Window )
Lighten up, it was a joke. But it does amaze the lengths some will go to to defend Obama (it's ok that he lied because he knows better!' and Hillary.
I've got no issue with who you support. Make your own choice.
And win or lose a similar number will vote for whatever name ends up on the R line. And the country loses either way, IMHO