Is Obama a liar?

[Mad_Cabbie]

There are two choices -- Obama was lying or he was clueless.

Really? Maybe the problem is that this statement was bassed on erroneous information?

... OR, that what he actually implied was that if you had a plain that was exeptable to the new law (the ACA) that you COULD keep it - not that you could keep a sub-standard plan.

Repeatedly using erroneous information would fall under "clueless".

And no, that is not what he implied.

“That means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health-care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health-care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.”

Period!

He made a false statement, which did not imply what you're claiming. The two choices for the false statement are (a) he was clueless and (b) he knowingly told the falsehood.

The falsehood furthered his political ends -- it allowed a law to be passed which could not have been passed if he told the truth, and it allowed him to be reelected which he probably wouldn't have been if people knew in advance what kind of havoc would be wreaked by the ACA. So it is tempting to believe that he did it on purpose.

Nevertheless, the other option still remains -- that he was simply clueless.

Did he intentionally lie? Does he do it now because he is attempting to cover up for being wrong? I really don't know the answer to this and I am attempting to understand it.

 

[The T]

There are two choices -- Obama was lying or he was clueless.

Really? Maybe the problem is that this statement was bassed on erroneous information?

... OR, that what he actually implied was that if you had a plain that was exeptable to the new law (the ACA) that you COULD keep it - not that you could keep a sub-standard plan.

Repeatedly using erroneous information would fall under "clueless".

And no, that is not what he implied.

“That means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health-care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health-care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.”

Period!

He made a false statement, which did not imply what you're claiming. The two choices for the false statement are (a) he was clueless and (b) he knowingly told the falsehood.

The falsehood furthered his political ends -- it allowed a law to be passed which could not have been passed if he told the truth, and it allowed him to be reelected which he probably wouldn't have been if people knew in advance what kind of havoc would be wreaked by the ACA. So it is tempting to believe that he did it on purpose.

Nevertheless, the other option still remains -- that he was simply clueless.

Speaks for itself...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE]Obama on single payer health insurance - YouTube[/ame]

LONG before he was POTUS...ENDS justifies the means...LIE...Blame, Minimize, Deny, Obfuscate...and he was addressing a UNION in that video...and they applaud it...

 

[The T]

Really? Maybe the problem is that this statement was bassed on erroneous information?

... OR, that what he actually implied was that if you had a plain that was exeptable to the new law (the ACA) that you COULD keep it - not that you could keep a sub-standard plan.

Repeatedly using erroneous information would fall under "clueless".

And no, that is not what he implied.

“That means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health-care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health-care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.”

Period!

He made a false statement, which did not imply what you're claiming. The two choices for the false statement are (a) he was clueless and (b) he knowingly told the falsehood.

The falsehood furthered his political ends -- it allowed a law to be passed which could not have been passed if he told the truth, and it allowed him to be reelected which he probably wouldn't have been if people knew in advance what kind of havoc would be wreaked by the ACA. So it is tempting to believe that he did it on purpose.

Nevertheless, the other option still remains -- that he was simply clueless.

Did he intentionally lie? Does he do it now because he is attempting to cover up for being wrong? I really don't know the answer to this and I am attempting to understand it.

YES HE DID. He was caught.

 

[The T]

Really? Maybe the problem is that this statement was bassed on erroneous information?

... OR, that what he actually implied was that if you had a plain that was exeptable to the new law (the ACA) that you COULD keep it - not that you could keep a sub-standard plan.

Stop for a moment and look around you? Even Democrats in Congress, the MEDIA are aghast with him right now. The genie is out of the bottle. YOU just cover your eyes and pretend it isn't there.

I don't even engage other posters when they want to discus me, personally. Either argue the merits of the OP, my post(s) or add something to this thread beyond attempts to bicker about what type of person I am - than I will reply. Otherwise, I just don't even bother. thanks.

Don't obfuscate the point son...it's quite ugly. YOU defend the indefensible.

 

[Rozman]

He flat out lied...
Or he repeated the lie he was told to tell...

It amounts to the same thing.

 

[Amelia]

Really? Maybe the problem is that this statement was bassed on erroneous information?

... OR, that what he actually implied was that if you had a plain that was exeptable to the new law (the ACA) that you COULD keep it - not that you could keep a sub-standard plan.

Repeatedly using erroneous information would fall under "clueless".

And no, that is not what he implied.

“That means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health-care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health-care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.”

Period!

He made a false statement, which did not imply what you're claiming. The two choices for the false statement are (a) he was clueless and (b) he knowingly told the falsehood.

The falsehood furthered his political ends -- it allowed a law to be passed which could not have been passed if he told the truth, and it allowed him to be reelected which he probably wouldn't have been if people knew in advance what kind of havoc would be wreaked by the ACA. So it is tempting to believe that he did it on purpose.

Nevertheless, the other option still remains -- that he was simply clueless.

Did he intentionally lie? Does he do it now because he is attempting to cover up for being wrong? I really don't know the answer to this and I am attempting to understand it.

Why do you keep asking if it was intentional?

My point is that there are two choices: he intentionally lied or he is clueless.

If you prefer to believe his falsehoods were not intentional, then you prefer to believe that he is clueless.

So whether he intentionally lied is moot for my part of this discussion. Either option is bad. It's up to you which option you prefer to believe.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

He flat out lied...
Or he repeated the lie he was told to tell...

It amounts to the same thing.

This gives it a little perspective:

Fact Check: If you liked your health plan, you can keep your health plan ? CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

This is an issue that, for the most part, affects a small segment of the country. According to experts, and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, about 95% of legal residents receive their health insurance through group plans offered by their employers, the federal government in the form of Medicare and Medicaid or get direct health care via the Veterans Administration. For the overwhelming majority of people covered by these plans, there probably will be no change. Despite some anecdotal accounts involving companies such as Home Depot, Trader Joe’s and UPS, there has been no evidence of large scale cancellation of employers provided health insurance. Still, the small amount of anecdotal evidence raises questions about Obama’s all-encompassing promise.

Most of the impact of this dubious promise would fall on the individual market; an undisciplined collection of good and crappy plans. Actually it would be better described as filled with plans that were often good for people at certain times – generally when they are healthy – and awful for people when they get sick or injured. Obamacare’s vow was to bring order – and protection – to that market by requiring, among other things, that all new plans cover a minimum of conditions such as maternity care and mental health issues. “One of the things health reform was designed to do was to help not only the uninsured, but also the underinsured,” Obama said in a speech in Boston on Wednesday. “And there are a number of Americans, fewer than 5 percent of Americans, who’ve got cut-rate plans that don’t offer real financial protection in the event of a serious illness or an accident.”

 

[The T]

Repeatedly using erroneous information would fall under "clueless".

And no, that is not what he implied.

“That means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health-care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health-care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.”

Period!

He made a false statement, which did not imply what you're claiming. The two choices for the false statement are (a) he was clueless and (b) he knowingly told the falsehood.

The falsehood furthered his political ends -- it allowed a law to be passed which could not have been passed if he told the truth, and it allowed him to be reelected which he probably wouldn't have been if people knew in advance what kind of havoc would be wreaked by the ACA. So it is tempting to believe that he did it on purpose.

Nevertheless, the other option still remains -- that he was simply clueless.

Did he intentionally lie? Does he do it now because he is attempting to cover up for being wrong? I really don't know the answer to this and I am attempting to understand it.

Why do you keep asking if it was intentional?

My point is that there are two choices: he intentionally lied or he is clueless.

If you prefer to believe his falsehoods were not intentional, then you prefer to believe that he is clueless.

So whether he intentionally lied is moot for my part of this discussion. Either option is bad. It's up to you which option you prefer to believe.

Let him go on and wrestle with himself and the truth. It's fun to watch him squirm on his terms.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Why do you keep asking if it was intentional?

My point is that there are two choices: he intentionally lied or he is clueless.

If you prefer to believe his falsehoods were not intentional, then you prefer to believe that he is clueless.

So whether he intentionally lied is moot for my part of this discussion. Either option is bad. It's up to you which option you prefer to believe.

Because it, as of yet, has not been addressed.

 

[Amelia]

Really? Maybe the problem is that this statement was bassed on erroneous information?

... OR, that what he actually implied was that if you had a plain that was exeptable to the new law (the ACA) that you COULD keep it - not that you could keep a sub-standard plan.

Repeatedly using erroneous information would fall under "clueless".

And no, that is not what he implied.

“That means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health-care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health-care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.”

Period!

He made a false statement, which did not imply what you're claiming. The two choices for the false statement are (a) he was clueless and (b) he knowingly told the falsehood.

The falsehood furthered his political ends -- it allowed a law to be passed which could not have been passed if he told the truth, and it allowed him to be reelected which he probably wouldn't have been if people knew in advance what kind of havoc would be wreaked by the ACA. So it is tempting to believe that he did it on purpose.

Nevertheless, the other option still remains -- that he was simply clueless.

Speaks for itself...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE]Obama on single payer health insurance - YouTube[/ame]

LONG before he was POTUS...ENDS justifies the means...LIE...Blame, Minimize, Deny, Obfuscate...and he was addressing a UNION in that video...and they applaud it...

That clip should generally be followed up with his later statement: "I have not said that I was a single-payer supporter." In case his defenders don't have enough to hem and haw over.

 

[The T]

He flat out lied...
Or he repeated the lie he was told to tell...

It amounts to the same thing.

This gives it a little perspective:

Fact Check: If you liked your health plan, you can keep your health plan ? CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

This is an issue that, for the most part, affects a small segment of the country. According to experts, and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, about 95% of legal residents receive their health insurance through group plans offered by their employers, the federal government in the form of Medicare and Medicaid or get direct health care via the Veterans Administration. For the overwhelming majority of people covered by these plans, there probably will be no change. Despite some anecdotal accounts involving companies such as Home Depot, Trader Joe’s and UPS, there has been no evidence of large scale cancellation of employers provided health insurance. Still, the small amount of anecdotal evidence raises questions about Obama’s all-encompassing promise.

Most of the impact of this dubious promise would fall on the individual market; an undisciplined collection of good and crappy plans. Actually it would be better described as filled with plans that were often good for people at certain times – generally when they are healthy – and awful for people when they get sick or injured. Obamacare’s vow was to bring order – and protection – to that market by requiring, among other things, that all new plans cover a minimum of conditions such as maternity care and mental health issues. “One of the things health reform was designed to do was to help not only the uninsured, but also the underinsured,” Obama said in a speech in Boston on Wednesday. “And there are a number of Americans, fewer than 5 percent of Americans, who’ve got cut-rate plans that don’t offer real financial protection in the event of a serious illness or an accident.”

A house burns...1/3rd of the way from being totally engulfed...the home owner calls an insurance company and asks that his house be insured...

*DEAL WITH IT*

 

[Amelia]

Why do you keep asking if it was intentional?

My point is that there are two choices: he intentionally lied or he is clueless.

If you prefer to believe his falsehoods were not intentional, then you prefer to believe that he is clueless.

So whether he intentionally lied is moot for my part of this discussion. Either option is bad. It's up to you which option you prefer to believe.

Because it, as of yet, has not been addressed.

As I said, it is moot. He intentionally lied or he is clueless. So if you defend him you are defending someone who is a liar or someone who is clueless. Do you prefer to think of your president as someone who is clueless? Is that better than if he intentionally lied?

 

[The T]

Why does the Government insist upon demolishing a building that merely had a couple of leaks in the roof?

 

[Amelia]

Why does the Government insist upon demolishing a building that merely had a couple of leaks in the roof?

Excellent question.

 

[francoHFW]

A- 95 per cent of insured are not effected by O-Care, they have good insurance from employers. Already OBAMA ISN'T LYING BY POLITICAL STANDARDS. lol
B. At any time, these substandard insurers could have complied and kept them insured. Not OBAMA'S FAULT.
C. All the incredible lies told about O-Care and everything else shows who the liars are, hater dupes...

 

[Vox]

Why does the Government insist upon demolishing a building that merely had a couple of leaks in the roof?

Because the goal is not to fix the building but to control the inhabitants

 

[peach174]

Thanks, I'll work on it.

Now, back to my original post, I offered up a definition of lying as intent to decieve ... can you offer a valid rebuttle to my point?

I'm not saying that Obama DID NOT LIE, only what lying was.

There are two choices -- Obama was lying or he was clueless.

Really? Maybe the problem is that this statement was bassed on erroneous information?

... OR, that what he actually implied was that if you had a plain that was exeptable to the new law (the ACA) that you COULD keep it - not that you could keep a sub-standard plan.

You should not believe everything that the Democrats say. They are just as bad at lying as the Repubs are.

What sub-standard plans?
If you had all the coverage you needed at less cost per month and the deductibles were lower, then it's a good plan.
Now millions are losing those good health care plans.
It's not right that they have to lose their plans to insure the ones that don't have health insurance.

 

[The T]

Why does the Government insist upon demolishing a building that merely had a couple of leaks in the roof?

Because the goal is not to fix the building but to control the inhabitants

And make the building in their image...with lots of razor wire and NO escape.

 

[The T]

Why does the Government insist upon demolishing a building that merely had a couple of leaks in the roof?

Excellent question.

Indeed...and inasmuch as I am leery of Republicans? (And the left asking where is their plan)? There is one on the table...been there for awhile...

HR2300

 

[RandallFlagg]

Why does the Government insist upon demolishing a building that merely had a couple of leaks in the roof?

Because the goal is not to fix the building but to control the inhabitants

Indeed. The goal is absolute control. It's funny, but a friend of mine sent me a couple of lines from a song by a 60s band the other day and I was impressed that in the late 60s, the radical left accused the right of this - but now practices it en masse:

You're free to speak your mind my friend,
As long as you agree with me.
Don't criticize the Fatherland,
Or those who shape your destiny

'Cause if you do
You'll lose your job, your mind,
and all the friends you knew

We'll send out all our boys in blue
and they'll find a way
to silence you.

Strange how those same people who espoused "freedom" in the 60s are now the ones taking it away from us……..