Don't like Obama, fine, but why the dishonesty?

[Avatar4321]

There are plenty things that people could find Obama not doing a good job in.So why do so many on this forum and other places have to lie, exaggerate, and make shit up about Obama? Why call him socialist, marxist, the "messiah", "owebama", claim he isn't a US citizen, claims he want to destroy america? or claim things done by other people is really Obama's doing, and anything that goes on in the gov't or military is under Obama's direction?

YOu totally discredit any point you may have when you resort to such Glenn Beck/Rush type absurd attacks and arguments. You just look like some stupid, childish, partisan hack nutjob when you do so.

Because he is a socialist/marxist who surounds himself with his fellow radicals in the highest levels of government. He thinks he is the messiah. And he is actively destroying America.

We have one of two things we must conclude from Obama's policies:

1) He is a complete moron who doesnt realize that it's unwise to spend more than we bring in, that giving money to special interests who got him elected is stimulus, that we should raise taxes and go into deeper debt to get out of the economy when anyone with half a brain realizes that will make things worse.

or

2) He is doing it on purpose knowing full well what his policies will do.

And while i certainly dont believe he is as smart as some people on this board, i dont think the man is an idiot.

unsubstantiated bullshit, just what I speak of.

So what your saying is that Im wrong and Obama is an idiot?

 

[Coyote]

Saying that one MUST purchase something or be penalized fiancially by the federal government is most certainly a step in that direction and completely unprecedented.

I think it is less a step towards "socialized" medicine then a step towards controling costs and maintaining private insurance options. You can't control healthcare costs and expect the health insurance industry to pick up pre-existing conditions without some way to pay for it and the best way is probably having everyone buy insurance so you have a large enough pool of healthy people who incur few costs to pay for the sicker people. I'm not sure I like it but I'm not seeing any better ideas put forth.

If it includes a government mandate to purchase something, then time must be spent looking at alternatives.

I can not speak for many, but I will speak for me...a conservative....

I am OK with we, the people, footing the bill for those that use the ER and do not have insurance. It is a price I am willing to pay in an efort to avoid government expansion and mandates to purchase something under penalty of law.

I want healthcare reform. I do not want liberty and freedom reform.

I can respect that.

Ideally I'd like to see a public option, healthy private options, serious torte reform and a change in the way services are paid (salary) that doesn't tend to reward unnecessary procedures, an emphasis on encouraging more community based health initiatives and education on preventative care, midwifes, physician assitants and nurse practioners all of whom cost less but can do many basic services. Obviously, I'm a liberal

Realistically...who knows.

 

[Oldandtired]

TARP preceeded Obama.

Where did he support AIG?

Are you not aware that he signed INTO LAW the bonuses for the AIG executives?

I don't think it was because he approved of it....what legal avenue could he use to stop it? And if he had - would that have been good? Dispicable as it is - does the government have the right to tell business' how much they can pay their employees maximum? Correct me if I'm wrong but - weren't these bonus' negotiated some time ago...can you just break those contracts?

and TARP?

Of course the bonuses was not his intention.....I know that.....but to answer your question.....no, there was nothing he can do about it.

But that didnt stop him in regard to the Chrysler issue. He did not hesitate to throw those contracts to the wind. Why was that? Why toss those contracts out but not the AIG contracts?

As for TARP.....not sure where you stand, but Bush was wrong and so was Obama. There is no such thing as too big to fail. J.Walter Thompson failed and the ad indusrtry continued. White and Case failed and the legal industry continued. Pan AM....Insignia.......should I continue?

Big companies failing opens the door to new ventures. That is what makes America AMerica.

 

[Titanic Sailor]

In truth, the main culprits of dishonesty are those still backing Obama no matter what he does, and allows the outright lies and deception by this administration to continue. The last year has seen a constant barrage of "words" that identify the insurance industry as a bad guy. They have thick skin, you know why?

Because you can call me anything you want if you are going to assure me an additional 70 BILLION dollars from this health care debacle according to "Democrat" Kucinich.

You Obammunists need to start being honest, and then take a look around you to see how many friends have disappeared because you can't be honest. Some day perhaps you'll have a conscience that will help guide you to the truth: Obama is failing our nation.

 

[Oldandtired]

I think it is less a step towards "socialized" medicine then a step towards controling costs and maintaining private insurance options. You can't control healthcare costs and expect the health insurance industry to pick up pre-existing conditions without some way to pay for it and the best way is probably having everyone buy insurance so you have a large enough pool of healthy people who incur few costs to pay for the sicker people. I'm not sure I like it but I'm not seeing any better ideas put forth.

If it includes a government mandate to purchase something, then time must be spent looking at alternatives.

I can not speak for many, but I will speak for me...a conservative....

I am OK with we, the people, footing the bill for those that use the ER and do not have insurance. It is a price I am willing to pay in an efort to avoid government expansion and mandates to purchase something under penalty of law.

I want healthcare reform. I do not want liberty and freedom reform.

I can respect that.

Ideally I'd like to see a public option, healthy private options, serious torte reform and a change in the way services are paid (salary) that doesn't tend to reward unnecessary procedures, an emphasis on encouraging more community based health initiatives and education on preventative care, midwifes, physician assitants and nurse practioners all of whom cost less but can do many basic services. Obviously, I'm a liberal

Realistically...who knows.

I dont mind a public option for those that want it.....but I read the terms when it was on the table...and I did not like the mandate that you MUST ENTER the public option if you make any changes to your existing policy.

I do not like mandates by the government to purchase anything run by the government. Bad enough to be told I MUST buy something....but to be forced to buy it from those that say I must buy it? And ironically...who would I be buying it from? ME...becuase the government is for and by the people.

Dam, I am dizzy.

 

[Coyote]

Are you not aware that he signed INTO LAW the bonuses for the AIG executives?

I don't think it was because he approved of it....what legal avenue could he use to stop it? And if he had - would that have been good? Dispicable as it is - does the government have the right to tell business' how much they can pay their employees maximum? Correct me if I'm wrong but - weren't these bonus' negotiated some time ago...can you just break those contracts?

and TARP?

Of course the bonuses was not his intention.....I know that.....but to answer your question.....no, there was nothing he can do about it.

But that didnt stop him in regard to the Chrysler issue. He did not hesitate to throw those contracts to the wind. Why was that? Why toss those contracts out but not the AIG contracts?

As for TARP.....not sure where you stand, but Bush was wrong and so was Obama. There is no such thing as too big to fail. J.Walter Thompson failed and the ad indusrtry continued. White and Case failed and the legal industry continued. Pan AM....Insignia.......should I continue?

Big companies failing opens the door to new ventures. That is what makes America AMerica.

My feelings on TARP are very mixed - I was not at all happy about bailing out a bunch of irresponsible and greedy lenders. It still pisses me off. But I don't know what the impact would have been world wide as well as locally in terms of jobs, mortgages etc if we had allowed them to simply fail. I think "too big to fail" is a real risk and NOTHING should be "too big to fail". The best thing I heard on TARP was one economist saying we should have allowed them to fail and used TARP to insulate the rest of the economy from their failure - insulate them, and quietly dismantle and sell off the pieces.

On Chrysler...I'm just not sure and I'm not sure of the legalities involved either.

 

[Avatar4321]

Because he is a socialist/marxist who surounds himself with his fellow radicals in the highest levels of government. He thinks he is the messiah. And he is actively destroying America.

We have one of two things we must conclude from Obama's policies:

1) He is a complete moron who doesnt realize that it's unwise to spend more than we bring in, that giving money to special interests who got him elected is stimulus, that we should raise taxes and go into deeper debt to get out of the economy when anyone with half a brain realizes that will make things worse.

or

2) He is doing it on purpose knowing full well what his policies will do.

And while i certainly dont believe he is as smart as some people on this board, i dont think the man is an idiot.

Way to go, you have managed to cram every bit of SPAM that low-information dopes are spewing nationwide into a single post!



Since you're clearly brilliant, clearly the smartest person on this board and maybe in the country, why don't you enlighten us as to Mr. Obama's intended ends?

We already know that he hates America and hates freedom, shucks, that's a given. So in addition to his vast conspiracy to destroy Christmas, what else does he want to do, and who is really behind all of it? Does he want to turn us into a totalitarian communist state just for the power, or is it because he actually hates all of us?

Well while Obama will not let you live when he takes over the world for trying to "out" him (Because you're clearly onto him, I mean, c'mon who can deny the validity of that brilliant post), you can rest easy knowing that we all knew how smart and well-rounded you were before the Guillotine blade fell.

He thinks that communism is superior to our current system. How on earth can you listen to the man, what he says he is going to do, who he appoints as his closest advisors, and come to any other conclusion? The man has been straight forward about being attracted to marxism and seeking out professors to guide him on it. He has been straight forward about seizing property from people and giving it to people he thinks deserves it.

Are you telling me that Obama is stupid? That he doesnt know that massive debt, spending money on political deals, and raising taxes won't kill the economy?

Is it a coincidence that he supports policies that take away our freedom to determine our health? Or policies that take away our freedom to earn and contract? Or freedom of speech? Or that make people more dependent on government and dont bother actually helping a single soul? Or what about policies to control what we eat and drink?

Call it communism, fascism, any kind of ism. I don't really give a crap. He is moving us toward totalitarianism and violating the Constitution. I don't have to be the smartest person in the room to realize that. He is very clear about his intentions.

 

[Avatar4321]

This post is precisely the sort of dishonesty he's talking about.

Obama didn't "Put" the country in a $14t deficit. It was over $11t when he walked in, and the economy was in shambles... Tax revenues were waaaaay down due to stagnating economic activity. ANYONE elected would be facing a massive deficit right now. Also the federal debt now, today, is $12.5t, not 14...

So if Obama had come in and cut all the waste in government and unconstitutional spending, which would probably easily cut the government in half and we'd be running a surplus.

So no, don't pretend no one who entered office would be looking at that Trillions in spending deficits. A freakin idiot understands that spending MORE when you are out of money is a bad thing.

 

[Coyote]

He thinks that communism is superior to our current system.

What????

 

[Wicked Jester]

ah yes, the typical dishonest response, claim someone posting on a forum needs to calm down, amazing ability you have of determining emotions for posts.

Sounds like many of the hacks need to calm down, you should see the nasty comments they post to me and on the forum.

And, not suprisingly, you completely ignore and therefore not respond to the crux of my post...which was to show how the premise of your original post is hypocritical.

criticizing a war, that kills thousand of american troops, on proven faulty intelligence (my guess is you refuse to admit the intellignece was sketchy) that killed thousands and thousands of people, destabilizing yet another region, spending billions of dollars for that when there already was a war going on that pretty much everybody supported.

Liberal democrat gets blasted when he didn't even do anything, called a terrorist sympathizer, marixist, socialist, muslim who isn't american resident, making him guilty by association with Wright an Ayers, which are all dishonest stretches of reality. Then all the "destroying america" crap when he tries help the american economy, that's horrible, he's destroying the country.

Billions on war=good
billions to help americans=horrible and destroying the country

yeah, those two are completely comparable

Who really lied themselves into war, Dr Goofball?

Interrogator Shares Saddam's Confessions - 60 Minutes - CBS News

Of course we all know that you'll completely ignore this.

 

[Coyote]

So no, don't pretend no one who entered office would be looking at that Trillions in spending deficits. A freakin idiot understands that spending MORE when you are out of money is a bad thing.

It's so simple! Hot Damn!



Umh...so...why hasn't anyone done it....yet....in the history of deficit spending?

 

[Oldandtired]

Because he is a socialist/marxist who surounds himself with his fellow radicals in the highest levels of government. He thinks he is the messiah. And he is actively destroying America.

We have one of two things we must conclude from Obama's policies:

1) He is a complete moron who doesnt realize that it's unwise to spend more than we bring in, that giving money to special interests who got him elected is stimulus, that we should raise taxes and go into deeper debt to get out of the economy when anyone with half a brain realizes that will make things worse.

or

2) He is doing it on purpose knowing full well what his policies will do.

And while i certainly dont believe he is as smart as some people on this board, i dont think the man is an idiot.

Way to go, you have managed to cram every bit of SPAM that low-information dopes are spewing nationwide into a single post!



Since you're clearly brilliant, clearly the smartest person on this board and maybe in the country, why don't you enlighten us as to Mr. Obama's intended ends?

We already know that he hates America and hates freedom, shucks, that's a given. So in addition to his vast conspiracy to destroy Christmas, what else does he want to do, and who is really behind all of it? Does he want to turn us into a totalitarian communist state just for the power, or is it because he actually hates all of us?

Well while Obama will not let you live when he takes over the world for trying to "out" him (Because you're clearly onto him, I mean, c'mon who can deny the validity of that brilliant post), you can rest easy knowing that we all knew how smart and well-rounded you were before the Guillotine blade fell.

He thinks that communism is superior to our current system. How on earth can you listen to the man, what he says he is going to do, who he appoints as his closest advisors, and come to any other conclusion? The man has been straight forward about being attracted to marxism and seeking out professors to guide him on it. He has been straight forward about seizing property from people and giving it to people he thinks deserves it.

Are you telling me that Obama is stupid? That he doesnt know that massive debt, spending money on political deals, and raising taxes won't kill the economy?

Is it a coincidence that he supports policies that take away our freedom to determine our health? Or policies that take away our freedom to earn and contract? Or freedom of speech? Or that make people more dependent on government and dont bother actually helping a single soul? Or what about policies to control what we eat and drink?

Call it communism, fascism, any kind of ism. I don't really give a crap. He is moving us toward totalitarianism and violating the Constitution. I don't have to be the smartest person in the room to realize that. He is very clear about his intentions.

The problem with Obama and the direction he is taking us is quite simple in my eyes....

He wants to do what seems right, but without concern of the long term consequences.

It is not that conservatives dont want to help the poor. To the contrary, I do whatever I can to help them. I donate time, I donate money, and I hire some despite lacking the skill set I need....But conservatives also know that if we expand on the entitlements for them, the long term consequences can be devastating. He does not seem to care about that. He wants to addrwess issues today and worry about the consequences tomorrow.....

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Way to go, you have managed to cram every bit of SPAM that low-information dopes are spewing nationwide into a single post!



Since you're clearly brilliant, clearly the smartest person on this board and maybe in the country, why don't you enlighten us as to Mr. Obama's intended ends?

We already know that he hates America and hates freedom, shucks, that's a given. So in addition to his vast conspiracy to destroy Christmas, what else does he want to do, and who is really behind all of it? Does he want to turn us into a totalitarian communist state just for the power, or is it because he actually hates all of us?

Well while Obama will not let you live when he takes over the world for trying to "out" him (Because you're clearly onto him, I mean, c'mon who can deny the validity of that brilliant post), you can rest easy knowing that we all knew how smart and well-rounded you were before the Guillotine blade fell.

He thinks that communism is superior to our current system. How on earth can you listen to the man, what he says he is going to do, who he appoints as his closest advisors, and come to any other conclusion? The man has been straight forward about being attracted to marxism and seeking out professors to guide him on it. He has been straight forward about seizing property from people and giving it to people he thinks deserves it.

Are you telling me that Obama is stupid? That he doesnt know that massive debt, spending money on political deals, and raising taxes won't kill the economy?

Is it a coincidence that he supports policies that take away our freedom to determine our health? Or policies that take away our freedom to earn and contract? Or freedom of speech? Or that make people more dependent on government and dont bother actually helping a single soul? Or what about policies to control what we eat and drink?

Call it communism, fascism, any kind of ism. I don't really give a crap. He is moving us toward totalitarianism and violating the Constitution. I don't have to be the smartest person in the room to realize that. He is very clear about his intentions.

The problem with Obama and the direction he is taking us is quite simple in my eyes....

He wants to do what seems right, but without concern of the long term consequences.

It is not that conservatives dont want to help the poor. To the contrary, I do whatever I can to help them. I donate time, I donate money, and I hire some despite lacking the skill set I need....But conservatives also know that if we expand on the entitlements for them, the long term consequences can be devastating. He does not seem to care about that. He wants to addrwess issues today and worry about the consequences tomorrow.....

Yeah, merely a coincidence that the unemployment rates continue to rise in the states with the most liberal unemployment insurance policies?

Nah, I doubt it.

 

[Zona]

Rush is moving out of the country bump.

 

[Avatar4321]

So no, don't pretend no one who entered office would be looking at that Trillions in spending deficits. A freakin idiot understands that spending MORE when you are out of money is a bad thing.

It's so simple! Hot Damn!



Umh...so...why hasn't anyone done it....yet....in the history of deficit spending?

Because a bunch of morons like yourself are in charge who want control over our lives rather than sound government.

 

[Oldandtired]

He thinks that communism is superior to our current system. How on earth can you listen to the man, what he says he is going to do, who he appoints as his closest advisors, and come to any other conclusion? The man has been straight forward about being attracted to marxism and seeking out professors to guide him on it. He has been straight forward about seizing property from people and giving it to people he thinks deserves it.

Are you telling me that Obama is stupid? That he doesnt know that massive debt, spending money on political deals, and raising taxes won't kill the economy?

Is it a coincidence that he supports policies that take away our freedom to determine our health? Or policies that take away our freedom to earn and contract? Or freedom of speech? Or that make people more dependent on government and dont bother actually helping a single soul? Or what about policies to control what we eat and drink?

Call it communism, fascism, any kind of ism. I don't really give a crap. He is moving us toward totalitarianism and violating the Constitution. I don't have to be the smartest person in the room to realize that. He is very clear about his intentions.

The problem with Obama and the direction he is taking us is quite simple in my eyes....

He wants to do what seems right, but without concern of the long term consequences.

It is not that conservatives dont want to help the poor. To the contrary, I do whatever I can to help them. I donate time, I donate money, and I hire some despite lacking the skill set I need....But conservatives also know that if we expand on the entitlements for them, the long term consequences can be devastating. He does not seem to care about that. He wants to addrwess issues today and worry about the consequences tomorrow.....

Yeah, merely a coincidence that the unemployment rates continue to rise in the states with the most liberal unemployment insurance policies?

Nah, I doubt it.

I can say something as fact.....Michigan has it set up so that if anyone who is on unemployment leaves the state for another job, they lose unemployment (naturally), BUT ALSO lose their state rpotection from creditors that is now there for them.....and is there for them even AFTER they get a job...as long as the job is in Michigan.

I know as I tried to recruit a dozen machinists to NY...and they wont come as they lose their "protection".....so they are poor, unemployed.....yet too comfortable to do anything about it.

Sadly, I see that as the direction we are going.

 

[drsmith1072]

There are plenty things that people could find Obama not doing a good job in.So why do so many on this forum and other places have to lie, exaggerate, and make shit up about Obama? Why call him socialist, marxist, the "messiah", "owebama", claim he isn't a US citizen, claims he want to destroy america? or claim things done by other people is really Obama's doing, and anything that goes on in the gov't or military is under Obama's direction?
YOu totally discredit any point you may have when you resort to such Glenn Beck/Rush type absurd attacks and arguments. You just look like some stupid, childish, partisan hack nutjob when you do so.

How is it that when George Bush was president EVERYTHING was ultimately his responsibility but we shouldn't hold Obama to the same standard? Why not?

I can't speak for everyone but when I made my arguments concerning "If it happens on his watch it's his fault" I based it on the fact that this argument was used for years by righties to attack clinton and blame him for everything. He even got blamed for the events that took place on ruby ridge and he wasn't even president yet.
Therefore, when W became president and the righties flip flopped and refused to hold W to the same standard that they held clinton to, as they started to blame clinton for things that occured on W's watch, I started calling them out for their dishonesty and hypocrisy using their own past arguments.

Then fast forward to now and you have righties refusing to hold W accountable for what happened on his watch with their lame claims that he is no longer president even as they continue to blame clinton for things that occured AFTER he was out of office. There were some righites who started trying to blame obama for things that occured on w's watch even before obama was actually in office.

I just find it hilarious how under a democrat (clinton) righties were all about whose watch it was then under a republican everything was a dems fault (no personal responsibility from those who take pride in preaching it to others) and now the hypocrtical righties have come full circle now that a democrat is president again and they are now back to being all about whose watch it is.

Oh and in case you missed it everytime a democrat tries to hold W accountable for what happened on his watch that led us to where we are now they are attacked by the righties who scream that W is no longer president.
Why is it ok for cons to continue to look back and blame clinton for things that happened on Ws watch and not ok for dems to blame W for things that occured on his watch that led us to where we are now? Seems like the typical righty hypocrisy in it's purest form to me.

 

[hboats]

Claiming the healthcare bill is too expensive (it's budget-positive by CBO analysis) - Is dishonest.

How many times do I have to correct you on this before you stop saying it? Every thread that you say this in I correct you and you run and hide from that thread.

The truth is it is in no way budget positive or budget neutral, but even when that is pointed out to some people with proof straight out of the very bill in question (even proof from the very paragraph in the bill that lies that it is budget positive) they refuse to stop being blinded by the lies they ingest.

Rick

 

[Some Guy]

Claiming the healthcare bill is too expensive (it's budget-positive by CBO analysis) - Is dishonest.

How many times do I have to correct you on this before you stop saying it? Every thread that you say this in I correct you and you run and hide from that thread.

The truth is it is in no way budget positive or budget neutral, but even when that is pointed out to some people with proof straight out of the very bill in question (even proof from the very paragraph in the bill that lies that it is budget positive) they refuse to stop being blinded by the lies they ingest.

Rick

Well, the CBO scored it as deficit positive, but i'm assuming you're making the claim that the reason for that is the increased taxes included in the bill.

 

[Some Guy]

I can't speak for everyone but when I made my arguments concerning "If it happens on his watch it's his fault" I based it on the fact that this argument was used for years by righties to attack clinton and blame him for everything. He even got blamed for the events that took place on ruby ridge and he wasn't even president yet.
Therefore, when W became president and the righties flip flopped and refused to hold W to the same standard that they held clinton to, as they started to blame clinton for things that occured on W's watch, I started calling them out for their dishonesty and hypocrisy using their own past arguments.

Then fast forward to now and you have righties refusing to hold W accountable for what happened on his watch with their lame claims that he is no longer president even as they continue to blame clinton for things that occured AFTER he was out of office. There were some righites who started trying to blame obama for things that occured on w's watch even before obama was actually in office.

I just find it hilarious how under a democrat (clinton) righties were all about whose watch it was then under a republican everything was a dems fault (no personal responsibility from those who take pride in preaching it to others) and now the hypocrtical righties have come full circle now that a democrat is president again and they are now back to being all about whose watch it is.

Oh and in case you missed it everytime a democrat tries to hold W accountable for what happened on his watch that led us to where we are now they are attacked by the righties who scream that W is no longer president.
Why is it ok for cons to continue to look back and blame clinton for things that happened on Ws watch and not ok for dems to blame W for things that occured on his watch that led us to where we are now? Seems like the typical righty hypocrisy in it's purest form to me.

You're not holier than thou. Democrats and republicans both engage in tactics that are hypocritical all the time, both on message boards and in Washington.