The Obama is a Big Fat Liar Thread

And the way you go on about Obama makes me laugh. It’s a jolly good time all round.
Do you think Romney would do much differently? (Other than letting the auto industry circle the drain?)

Would you rather someone else managed to grab the nomination?
(Sorry if you’ve said so… I haven’t been reading the forum so much lately.)

[quote=“jdsmith”]

Wow. You and Obama have something in common then.[/quote]

Yes, I didn’t lie either. I just demonstrated my ability to read and not listen to people with agendas manipulate primary sources.

So can someone make an attempt to explain how the new CBO report, which in many ways says not much more than last year, is somehow a great new revelation?

I’m perfectly willing to contend Obama has broken myriad promises, and if you want to call that lying so be it, but what is the hysteria about the new CBO report? I read it, and it doesn’t warrant the extreme reactions some of you have made.

Or is a good faith discussion just not possible with you people anymore and I should just go back to being amused by your typing?

An excellent choice of words.
What magnificent abilities must exist among those who must contend with…“you people”…pray tell, what other crumbs of ‘true knowledge’ might fall from the table of the intellectual masters?
Share the words of wisdom with “[b]you people[/b]” so that they may truly “know” what is acceptable among the enlightened!
Do assist us poor rabble so that we may also see the one true way to joy and salvation!

:unamused:

And the way you go on about Obama makes me laugh. It’s a jolly good time all round.
Do you think Romney would do much differently? (Other than letting the auto industry circle the drain?)

Would you rather someone else managed to grab the nomination?
(Sorry if you’ve said so… I haven’t been reading the forum so much lately.)[/quote]
If you want to talk about nominees, please refer to the Nomination Thread. This is the Obama is a Liar Thread. :thumbsup:

It’s amazing how you can speak in hypothetical like What Would Mitt Do/Have Done speak as if it had anything to do with this thread.

[quote=“Mucha Man”][quote=“jdsmith”]

Wow. You and Obama have something in common then.[/quote]

Yes, I didn’t lie either. I just demonstrated my ability to read and not listen to people with agendas manipulate primary sources. [/quote]
Sure, and everyone else does that, right? I don’t doubt that you can read. I do doubt your comprehension.

Did you not get this part:[quote]
Soaring costs.
[color=#FF0000]ObamaCare will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, according to a new projection released Tuesday by the Congressional Budget Office, rather than the $940 billion forecast when it was signed into law[/color]
.

The new 10-year projections cover nine years of ObamaCare’s implementation (2013-2022).
[color=#FF0000]Original estimates counted only six years of implementation — a budget gimmick to obscure the true cost of the law.[/color]
At this rate, the conservative estimates of ObamaCare’s cost will be $2 trillion over 10 years, not the $1 trillion that President Obama promised.
[/quote]

[quote]
Loss of 25 Dem seats. President Obama personally promised Democratic members of Congress that if they voted for the bill, their constituents soon would thank them, arguing that a vote against the bill would be most damaging.

Yet a new study by American Politics Research found that at least 25 members of Congress lost their seats in Congress during the 2010 elections precisely because they voted for ObamaCare.[/quote]
Stick with me and it’ll allllllll work out fine. And who were these guys replaced by? Do you like their replacements? I don’t.

forbes.com/sites/gracemariet … g-worse/2/

The keeping-it-real title of this thread should have been: Washington DC is a Big Fat Lie Factory.

Personally I can’t get too worked up over any one American politician being exposed as a big fat liar because Ron Paul’s treatment by the American establishment shows what awaits any honest person who is foolish or foolhardy enough to wade into the sewer of American politics.

It’s always entertaining though watching U.S. liberals and conservatives myopically bashing each other over the heads about whose icon is the biggest fraudster. I agree with both sides wholeheartedly.

[quote=“Winston Smith”]The keeping-it-real title of this thread should have been: Washington DC is a Big Fat Lie Factory.

Personally I can’t get too worked up over any one American politician being exposed as a big fat liar because Ron Paul’s treatment by the American establishment shows what awaits any honest person who is foolish or foolhardy enough to wade into the sewer of American politics.

It’s always entertaining though watching U.S. liberals and conservatives myopically bashing each other over the heads about whose icon is the biggest fraudster. I agree with both sides wholeheartedly.[/quote]
I agree with you about the entire system being replete with big fat liars, but there’s only so much bandwidth.

I would consider Paul if he didn’t come across like a simple minded rube when he speaks about say, foreign policy . :laughing:

And I’m not “worked up” about this at all. Just conversatin’. :thumbsup:

[quote=“Mucha Man”]

So can someone make an attempt to explain how the new CBO report, which in many ways says not much more than last year, is somehow a great new revelation?
[/quote][quote]
Obamacare Cost Jumps $111 Billion; No One Notices

It is tempting to ignore President Obama’s budgets, since no one seriously intends that they be adopted; his FY 2012 budget was voted down in the Senate, 97-0. Yet every now and then, interesting information is buried in the fine print. Table 33-1 of the budget sets forth the proposed spending for federal programs by agency and account. In President Obama’s FY 2012 budget, this is the line item for one aspect of Obamacare–the Refundable Premium Assistance Tax Credit, which subsidizes the purchase of health insurance by individuals on the insurance exchange that the statute would establish. The fiscal years covered by this estimate are 2014 through 2021:[/quote]

[quote]
If you do the math, you will see that the total amount budgeted for this line item for those years adds up to an enormous amount of money, $366.699 billion. But in this year’s budget, those same numbers have suddenly jumped even higher. Here is the same line item from President Obama’s FY 2013 budget, for fiscal years 2014 through 2022:[/quote][quote]

If you add up the numbers for fiscal years 2014 through 2021 to get an accurate comparison, spending on these Obamacare subsidies is now estimated at $477.834 billion,
[color=#FF0000]an increase of more than $111 billion[/color]
. [/quote]
Now this is all about Can you keep your health care if you want to? Oblahblah said we could…repeatedly. The problem here is that the employers can opt out, pay a fee (which is a LOT less than the cost of insuring an employee) and the employee is dumped into the Government “market” system.

[quote]
before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee. Senator Ron Johnson, one of the bright lights in that body, asked her a series of questions about the cost projections for Obamacare. Sebelius didn’t seriously try to answer any of them. Among others, Johnson asked Sebelius about this $111 billion increase in the budget for mandatory outlays for the health care exchange. Sebelius acknowledged that the increase is there, but wasn’t asked, and didn’t volunteer, the reason.[/quote]

Another problem is that the “new insurance market” does not exist…yet. So why is there more money being set aside for employees whose insurance through their workplace has been cancelled? Because more people than previously expected will have their insurance cut out from under them because the employers can’t pay and stay afloat?

[quote]
There is one obvious explanation: President Obama has long assured Americans that if they like the health insurance they have, they can keep it.
[color=#FF0000]Numerous studies have poked holes in this claim, as it seems clear that large numbers of employers–some say 50%–will terminate their health care benefits and dump all of their employees into the yet-to-be-created exchange system[/color]
. Does the administration’s $111 billion increase in the estimated cost of Obamacare represent an admission that far more people will be deprived of employer-provided health insurance than has previously been acknowledged?[/quote]
Sure seems that way.
powerlineblog.com/archives/2 … otices.php

And this is why I pay attention to the Senate Appropriations Committees. :thumbsup:
youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … Thj-IqYG9o

[quote=“jdsmith”][quote=“Winston Smith”]The keeping-it-real title of this thread should have been: Washington DC is a Big Fat Lie Factory.

Personally I can’t get too worked up over any one American politician being exposed as a big fat liar because Ron Paul’s treatment by the American establishment shows what awaits any honest person who is foolish or foolhardy enough to wade into the sewer of American politics.

It’s always entertaining though watching U.S. liberals and conservatives myopically bashing each other over the heads about whose icon is the biggest fraudster. I agree with both sides wholeheartedly.[/quote]
I agree with you about the entire system being replete with big fat liars, but there’s only so much bandwidth.

I would consider Paul if he didn’t come across like a simple minded rube when he speaks about say, foreign policy . :laughing:

And I’m not “worked up” about this at all. Just conversatin’. :thumbsup:[/quote]

Maybe its just me. Everytime I saw Ron Paul on TV, I thought “Why is Frasier Crane’s dad running for president”? :roflmao:

[quote=“jdsmith”]Did you not get this part:

Soaring costs. ObamaCare will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, according to a new projection released Tuesday by the Congressional Budget Office, rather than the $940 billion forecast when it was signed into law.[/quote]

Look, the $1.76 trillion refers to gross costs before deductions of “in part $510 billion in receipts and other budgetary effects (primarily revenues from penalties and other source).”

And also look: in 2010 the CBO estimated gross costs to be $1.45 trillion. And that was for 2012-2021. For this budget they added a year.

So as I keep saying, this is nothing new. People are just manipulating figures and being disingenuous.

In 2010, net costs were also projected at 1.131 trillion. The 2012 CBO report says that net costs are actually slightly lower, down to around 1.08 trillion. If you want to get worked up about a rise in costs from $940 billion to $1.08 trillion then we have very different ideas of what soaring costs means.

I agree. Like Obama was disingenuous, or being a liar, when he passed the plan and said it wouldn’t cost more than 940 Billion dollars, money the US didn’t have to spend then, doesn’t have to spend now, and probably won’t have to spend in 2022 when the cost has doubled.

Maybe you think 100 billion dollars is nothing, but it’s not just a 100 billion dollars, it’s 1.3 to 1.7 trillion now. :thumbsdown:

And speaking of disingenuousness, [quote]
(CBS/AP) Congressional economists are estimating somewhat lower costs for covering the uninsured under President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul law,
[color=#FF0000]as well as slightly fewer people gaining coverage[/color]
.

Assuming the Supreme Court does not overturn the law, the Congressional Budget Office would reduce the number of uninsured by 30 million in 2016, or
[color=#FF0000]2 million fewer people than estimated last year[/color]
. Total costs from 2012-2021 are about $50 billion lower than estimated last year. That’s due to a combination of factors, including overall health care costs rising more slowly than in the recent past.[/quote]

2 million is slightly less?? :noway:
cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-573 … -estimate/

No it’s not, as you have to add in the extra year. The original budget went to 2021. Now it goes to 2022. So obviously it is going to be more money.

In any case, it is not double as people are claiming. There has been no revelation in the latest CBO report that should have caused the outcry it did.

No it’s not, as you have to add in the extra year. The original budget went to 2021. Now it goes to 2022. So obviously it is going to be more money.

In any case, it is not double as people are claiming. There has been no revelation in the latest CBO report that should have caused the outcry it did.[/quote]

I disagree. No one knows how much this thing will cost. Putting a 940Billion dollar price tag on it was a blatant lie.

[quote]
The CBO explained in its report that “the addition of 2022 to the projection period has the effect of increasing the costs of the coverage provisions of the ACA relative to those projected in March 2011 for the 2012–2021 period because that change adds a year in which the expansion of eligibility for Medicaid and subsidies for health insurance purchased through the exchanges will be in effect.”

Two core provisions of the law do not take effect until 2014: expanded Medicare eligibility for the poor and the insurance subsidies for middle-income people. And the tax on high-cost so-called “Cadillac” health insurance plans does not start until 2018.

Calculating the ten-year cost of the Affordable Care Act is also extremely difficult partly because no one knows for sure what will remain of the law once the Supreme Court issues its ruling, probably in June, on the legal challenges to the law, nor can anyone say how Congress might respond with new legislation if the justices invalidate parts of the law
.[/quote]
nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/ … s-changing

Here’s a nice article about Obama being a liar. What timing! :bravo:

[quote]
Public Trust: The Beltway elite mock critics who say the president’s hiding his radical past from voters. They say there’s nothing there, move along. But if there’s nothing to hide, why is so much hidden?

And if the White House isn’t worried about the public seeing another side of President Obama, why is it trying to reinforce the image of him as a post-racial, pro-American moderate with a slick new Hollywood-produced 17-minute documentary?

The answer, of course, is that it is very much concerned.

The Obama campaign knows its carefully manicured narrative is wearing thin against the drip-drip-drip of revelations about his extremism. And it can’t risk the incumbent being reintroduced to voters this election as an untrustworthy imposter who’s hiding things about himself and his agenda.[/quote]

[quote]
The videotape of Obama praising and hugging his America-bashing, Constitution-trashing law professor Derrick Bell isn’t the only evidence that’s been hidden from the public. A 1998 video of Obama praising the late Marxist agitator Saul “The Red” Alinsky alongside a panel of hard-core Chicago communists also exists. Yet it, too, has been withheld.

So has a 2003 video of Obama speaking at a Chicago dinner held in honor of former PLO spokesman Rashid Khalidi. Anger at Israel and U.S. foreign policy were expressed during the private banquet.

Why have Obama’s remarks and actions during the controversial event been suppressed? Perhaps it’s because the radical Khalidi — a close friend and neighbor of Obama, who held a 2000 political fundraiser in his home for him — has strongly defended the use of violence by Palestinians against Israel, while expressing clearly anti-American views.[/quote]

[quote]
why did Obama disguise the name of his radical Alinsky trainer Jerry Kellman in his memoir? And why did he also try to shield from readers the identity of his Alinsky mentor John McKnight, who wrote him a letter of recommendation to Harvard?

If his Alinskyite indoctrination is of no concern, why did Obama leave out his weeks-long training at Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation in Los Angeles? This station of the cross for Alinsky acolytes is strangely missing from all 500 pages of his tediously detailed memoir.[/quote]

[quote]
Moreover, if communist Frank Marshall Davis wasn’t a controversial factor in Obama’s life, why did Obama also mask his identity in his first memoir? If listening, spellbound, at the feet of a known subversive isn’t a red flag, why keep his real profile a secret?

Obama also couldn’t find room in “Dreams From My Father” to mention the most striking thing about his father’s politics. Obama Sr. was a pro-Soviet socialist, who as a government economist wrote a communist tract for Kenya in 1965.

If this published paper wasn’t a big deal, as Obama apologists have suggested, why is it conveniently missing from the 143-page section Obama devoted to boast about his father’s career in Kenya?[/quote]

[quote]
Even more radical — and influential — than Bell was Harvard law professor Robert Unger, who taught Obama a couple of courses, including one called “Reinventing Democracy.” Like Bell, Unger called U.S. jurisprudence a sham system designed to protect the rich at the expense of the poor. But Unger also taught Obama how to dismantle it. He argued for seizing all private capital and redistributing it.

Obama kept up communications with Unger long after he graduated, but those contacts stopped in 2008. “I am a leftist, and by conviction as well as by temperament, a revolutionary,” Unger explains. “Any association of mine with Barack Obama in the course of the campaign could do only harm.”[/quote]

[quote]
Obama at one point was an employee of the radical shakedown group Acorn, and later trained its goons in Alinsky agitation tactics. He also worked with Pentagon-bombing Marxist Bill Ayers on the board of the Woods Fund, where the two comrades doled out cash to other radical groups.

In other words, Obama didn’t just rub elbows with radicals, he operated as a one. It’s now plain he and his fellow travelers are intentionally suppressing information that could provide the voting public a clearer link between the incumbent and radicalism.

Obama’s new campaign infomercial, ironically titled “The Road We’ve Traveled,” is just another attempt to suspend disbelief before the election.[/quote]
news.investors.com/article/60433 … m-past.htm

Great stuff. You can’t make this up. :bravo:

It’s hard for me to believe that Obama’s refusal to release his college papers and such things is not designed to cover up things that would essentially make him unelectable. Big fat cigarette smoking commie liar. Just an ordinary liar, mind you, on a grand scale for sure, but not to be confused with Taqiyya, even though his lying does share elements of it. :laughing:

[quote=“jdsmith”]

[quote]
Even more radical — and influential — than Bell was Harvard law professor Robert Unger, who taught Obama a couple of courses, including one called “Reinventing Democracy.” Like Bell, Unger called U.S. jurisprudence a sham system designed to protect the rich at the expense of the poor.[color=#FF0000] But Unger also taught Obama how to dismantle it. He argued for seizing all private capital and redistributing it.[/color]

Obama kept up communications with Unger long after he graduated, but those contacts stopped in 2008. “I am a leftist, and by conviction as well as by temperament, a revolutionary,” Unger explains. “Any association of mine with Barack Obama in the course of the campaign could do only harm.”[/quote]

[quote]
Obama at one point was an employee of the radical shakedown group Acorn, and later trained its goons in Alinsky agitation tactics.[color=#FF0000] He also worked with Pentagon-bombing Marxist Bill Ayers on the board of the Woods Fund, where the two comrades doled out cash to other radical groups.

In other words, Obama didn’t just rub elbows with radicals, he operated as a one.[/color] It’s now plain he and his fellow travelers are intentionally suppressing information that could provide the voting public a clearer link between the incumbent and radicalism.

Obama’s new campaign infomercial, ironically titled “The Road We’ve Traveled,” is just another attempt to suspend disbelief before the election.[/quote]
news.investors.com/article/60433 … m-past.htm

Great stuff. You can’t make this up. :bravo:

It’s hard for me to believe that Obama’s refusal to release his college papers and such things is not designed to cover up things that would essentially make him unelectable. [color=#FF0000]Big fat cigarette smoking commie liar. Just an ordinary liar, mind you, on a grand scale for sure, but not to be confused with Taqiyya, even though his lying does share elements of it. :laughing:[/color][/quote]

Emphasis added is mine. So to be clear whats being suggested is hes a commie, a terrorist , a lair and a Muslim. Well, he was all those things last time round according to his detractors AND a Kenyan, or have they given up with that one this time round?

Remind me again, why did people want to see his college papers? Seems an unusual request.

[quote=“Mick”][

Emphasis added is mine. So to be clear whats being suggested is hes a commie, a terrorist , a lair and a Muslim. Well, he was all those things last time round according to his detractors AND a Kenyan, or have they given up with that one this time round?

Remind me again, why did people want to see his college papers? Seems an unusual request.[/quote]

I think it’s being suggested that he is a liar, not a terrorist or a Muslim. He was/probably still is imo a radical leftist at heart with communist utopian ideologies. Who suggested he was a Muslim? Me? No. I specifically said he may be using elements of Taqiyya, not that he is a Muslim. I couldn’t care less if he was though. They’re all the same to me them religious people.

Bush, Gore, Clinton, Kerry and many other Presidents and Candidates released their college records. This one did not. That in itself is unusual, yes. :thumbsup:

[quote]Why, then, didn’t Kerry release his records during the campaign? After all, his refusal seemed like a cover-up. Now we know.

Kerry’s military records also include his college grades. (The New Yorker printed Bush’s grades in 1999, but Kerry consistently refused to release his.) It turns out that “dummy” and fellow Yalie George W. Bush made better grades than did brainy, intellectual John Kerry. Under Yale’s grading system at the time Bush and Kerry attended, grades from 90 to 100 meant an A, 80 to 89 a B, 70 to 79 a C, and 60 to 69 a D. Kerry received five Ds, including four in his freshman year, with a D in political science! Bush, during his time at Yale, got one D, in astronomy. Overall, Kerry finished Yale with a cumulative score of 76. Bush finished with a score of 77. So who’s the dummy?

Retired history professor Gaddis Smith taught both students, but only recalls Kerry. Smith remembered Kerry as a “good student.” When informed, however, that Kerry received a 71 and 79 in Smith’s history courses, the professor said, “Uh, oh. I thought he was [a] good student. Those aren’t very good grades.” Oh, what did the forgettable Bush get in history? 88.[/quote]
studentnewsdaily.com/comment … h_is_dumb/

Obaabaa didn’t serve in the military, so he’s most likely covering up either A) what a terrible student he was, or B) what ridiculous classes he took, or both, or that he like his wife, was just angry angry angry:[quote]
“My experiences at Princeton have made me far more aware of my ‘blackness’ than ever before,” the future Mrs. Obama wrote in her thesis introduction. “I have found that at Princeton, no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my white professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don’t belong. Regardless of the circumstances underwhich I interact with whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, I will always be black first and a student second.”

Read more: politico.com/news/stories/02 … z1pCSL9UFL
[/quote]
:thumbsup:

Obama’s not fat, he’s a right skinny c*nt.

[quote=“jdsmith”]
I think it’s being suggested that he is a liar, not a terrorist or a Muslim.[/quote]

Since the thread is called “The Obama is a big fat liar thread” I should think its safe to assume this is not a suggestion, but a statement of fact, or a claim. Which as others pointed out as a politician that pretty much counts for every politician. Is he the biggest fattest liar of the lot? That’s not the feeling I get. But the suggestion he is a terrorist (or at the least an extreme radical), how else do you interpret this from your article?

[quote] He also worked with Pentagon-bombing Marxist Bill Ayers on the board of the Woods Fund, where the two comrades doled out cash to other radical groups.

In other words, Obama didn’t just rub elbows with radicals, he operated as a one.[/quote]

Because thats normally how you would describe a persons speech, as having elements of Taqiyya, thanks for the clarification, got it. :thumbsup:

[quote=“jdsmith”] Obaabaa didn’t serve in the military, so he’s most likely covering up either A) what a terrible student he was, or B) what ridiculous classes he took, or both, or that he like his wife, was just angry angry angry:[quote]
“My experiences at Princeton have made me far more aware of my ‘blackness’ than ever before,” the future Mrs. Obama wrote in her thesis introduction. “I have found that at Princeton, no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my white professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don’t belong. Regardless of the circumstances underwhich I interact with whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, I will always be black first and a student second.” [/quote][/quote]

Or perhaps he is trying to minimize the racial element, Harvard’s has a reputation, anything less than exemplary grades opens the door to affirmative action, seems that theme is repeated in his wifes study at Princeton. I did read the study you linked to, of course from a young person, it rambles, misses the point often, focuses entirely on black and white instead of comfort zones where people are used to operating and massive changes or limited changes to those zones, assuming incorrectly in my view its all related to black and white influences.

Do you think this is the direction the presidential race will take, dont vote for Obama hes a radical black man? I hope not, dont you?

You’re just saying that he’s lying 'cuz you saw his lips moving.

I hope so. It will only further marginalize the right which they so richly deserve.

Yeah, O is a secret this and that. :unamused: Only he’s been in power for 3 years and is governing as a right of center democrat. If people want to make all kinds of conjecture about what radical things he might do in his second term they have simply excused themselves from rational discourse.

That foreign-born, socialist, rich-people-condemning, no-birth-certificate-having, healthcare-giving liberal!

Obama? Uh, no. But that description aptly fits someone else: Jesus! :slight_smile: