Obama Lies

“If they were ironic then that means she lied. Did she lie about something?”

“What is funny is that you still defend this guy! LMAO!!!

I'm going to start calling you the Mohican, because you're the last of the.”

“You need to look up the definition of irony. It doesn't involve lying.”

“wow, you can't be that dumb. you just can't.

The story is about her saying Obama lied about something, so if it was ironic, then it would be because SHE lied.”

“Gotcha. My bad.

Right, the irony being that Baachman is the great white hope of the tea baggers, touting an end to earmarks and fiscal responsibility, leads a caucus under the tea bagger name who takes a billion in earmarks. So, yeah. You're right. She lied.”

“The lie being what exactly? What were her words?”

“wow, you can't be that dumb. you just can't.”

“what were her words?

You are batting 0 for 4. Can't show me where she lied. Just the blind being led by the blind...”

“I can't believe you are defending her. I guess you're just too ashamed to say the tea potty is a sham.”

“Like I said many times, she is not part of the tea party, regardless of what you or she wants to call her. Maybe you could have an adult conversation some time but that would require you to not go round and round with the same stupid arguments.”

“Riight.Just keep on telling yourself that.

http://www.minnpost.com/derekwallbank/2010/12/07/24017/bachmann_hires_former_odonnell_spokesman_as_new_communications_director

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/19/AR2010111902931.html?wprss=rss_politics

http://www.michelebachmann.com/2010/08/05/michele-bachmann-launches-national-tea-party-tele-townhall/

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/dec/27/nation/la-na-michele-bachmann27-2009dec27”

“something tells me you didn't read those

for example, what does this have to do with anything? http://www.minnpost.com/derekwallbank/2010/12/07/24017/bachmann_hires_former_odonnell_spokesman_as_new_communications_director”

“Don;t play dumb. Lessee, picks the loser Tea Party champion's flak as her communications director? You don't think that indicates tea party insider baseball? Come on.”

“The lie:

"More than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops that line our border," - Obama, February 2009.

The truth:

According to leaked diplomatic cables, there are three sources.

1. U.S. Defense Department shipments to Latin America, known and tracked by the U.S. State Department as "foreign military sales."

2. Weapons ordered by the Mexican government, tracked by the State Department as "direct commercial sales."

3. Aging, but plentiful arsenals of military weapon stores in Honduras, Guatemala and Nicaragua.”

“64 percent of all the world's statistics are made up right there on the spot
82.4 percent of people believe 'em whether they're accurate statistics or not
I don't know what you believe but I do know there's no doubt
I need another double shot of something 90 proof
I got too much to think about

Todd Snider

90%??!!...you don't even need to look that up to know it's a lie”

“If you think the Mexican and US governments aren't thick into these cartels through the money laundry that buys both governments as much as the Corporations, not that they are bigger crooks than the Corporations.”

“The Gipper started the arms for hostages thing, could have been some hostages taken from time to time who were bought back with arms, no not in ameriker.”

“Are uncliff and saleboard the same person?”

“are noprob and bacpac the same person?”

“nope, do we sound a lot alike?”

“Actually if you look logically at what Obama said, there is no contradiction. He said 90% comes from the US - not 90% comes from US gun shops. He just said many from gun shops. Also, he didn't say 90% of the the major weapons, he just said 90% of all guns recovered.”

“BhusseinO has a fake birth certificate and is always wrong about everything, in fact, why don't we have a national holiday for the wedding today and pay social security in gold bullion?”

“Actually if you look logically at what Obama said, there is no contradiction.

Sure, you can argue no contradiction through semantics like you did, but it's a weak argument.

It was a lie because Obama, Clinton, Pelosi, and the Mexicans purposefully misrepresented the 90% statistic to give the civilian gun industry a black eye. It was a pretty clever move because their misinformation was spread far and wide by a sympathetic media, and even though they were later forced to backpedal, the damage was already done - 90% became a "fact" in common parlance.

The truth that they were forced to admit is that the figure only represented those firearms reported to the US gov which were trackable, and that it was the Mexicans giving them a small, cherry-picked sample of data from a much larger set.

Now with the additional information coming to light, the truth is that the majority of weapons ending up in the hands of criminals were from government contracts, and that they were distributed through channels of corruption in Mexico and Latin America (which is the reason why Mexico tried so hard to pin the tail on the civilian gun industry in the US).

Obama knew this all along. He lied about it.”

“You can't conclude based on the article you cited what the stats are for guns in the hands of criminals. That article was about the heavy weaponry in the hands of drug cartels. These are two different things.”

“I'm just going to bump this up for violin to rant about obama's illegal war, when on Sunday obama will be in violation of the War Powers Resolution. :)”

“Um, violin, the war-monger in chief is officially in violation of the war powers resolution, and it has triggered bipartisan condemnation.

You lambasted Bush's illegal wars, but you won't do the same for Obama? There is still time, but the window is closing. Ignoring it is tantamount to an admission of hypocrisy. Just so you know - LOL. :)”

“*snicker*”

“*snicker*”

“Why mutt? Have you suddenly become a pacifistic isolationist? Muslim collaborator? Worse?

I'm just glad that we have real men in office that will do whatever it takes to promote American interests in the world.”

“to promote American interests in the world.”
VioLiN

What would those interest be?

I love this new humanitarian the left has taken. They cared nothing for the 1 million people Saddam Husein killed...”

“OK, i thought you might have been sarcastic....”

“Why mutt? = violin

Because it's his first big foreign policy initiative he can claim full ownership over, and it's arguably criminal. I suppose the half-hearted attempt at sarcasm is the closest to condemnation we will see from you. The bitter disappointment his voters are tasting is pretty damn funny. Maybe next time you won't be conned by a silver tongued chicago politician LOL”

“But but but...we're ALL socialist now....”

“[...]every president should have the constitutional decency to get some congressional approval when he takes the country to war.

The model for such constitutional restraint is — yes, Sen. Obama — George W. Bush. Not once but twice (Afghanistan and then Iraq) did Bush seek and receive congressional authorization, as his father did for the Persian Gulf War. On Libya, Obama did nothing of the sort. He claimed exemption from the WPR on the grounds that America in Libya is not really engaged in “hostilities.”

To deploy an excuse so transparently ridiculous isn’t just a show of contempt for Congress and for the intelligence of the American people. It manages additionally to undermine the presidency’s own war-making prerogatives by implicitly conceding that if the Libya war really did involve hostilities, the president would indeed be subject to the WPR.

The worst of all possible worlds: Insult Congress, weaken the presidency. A neat trick.[...] - Charles Krauthammer”

“

According to documents recently released under a "Freedom of Information Act" request, Barack Obama's father told immigration authorities in 1961 that his unborn child was going to be given to the Salvation Army for adoption, because those authorities were upset with Obama senior's bigamous marital status.

The documents show that officials weren't happy that the 24-year-old Kenyan had gotten his teenaged American wife "Hapai" (Hawaiian for "knocked up," which comes shortly after getting "lei'd"), and found his marital status suspicious owing to the fact that he already had a wife and two children in Africa and he didn't live with his new wife - the increasingly swollen Stanley Ann Dunham.

The documents show that authorities had previously warned Obama senior about his "playboy ways" and that serious consideration was given to not renewing his student visa, which would have forced him to leave the United States.

Barack Obama's father was said to be worried about his inability (and unwillingness) to provide financial support for his third child and obviously believed that if he'd made a "mistake," he shouldn't be punished with a baby.

Which is why he eventually skipped out on his personal responsibilities, feeling that others should bear them...and created a son who not only feels the same way but is imposing that warped vision on an entire nation.

But with so many urgent problems in our nation right now, is it really fair or meaningful for us to go back and look at Barack Obama's family issues? Absolutely. Because the only way to understand this president's strange and frequently anti-American worldview is to understand how he came to be the man he is.

And despite two self-serving autobiographies, the only way to learn the truth about this "transparent" president continues to be through the Freedom of Information Act.”

“So, you've put him in the Kettle on the Stovie?”

“"Raising taxes in a recession is a bad idea. You don't raise taxes in a recession." - Barack Obama, 2009”

“The recession officially ended two years ago.

Where's the lie?”

“Obama caught in a massive lie
Wednesday, Jul 13,
http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/07/13/obama-caught-in-a-massive-lie/”

“Saw this in a couple places on the net yesterday: Obama was blaming the earthquake on a geological formation known as "Bush's Fault." LMAO!”

“*snicker*”

“Raising Revenue by Punishing Achievement

Published September 19, 2011 | O'Reilly Factor | Bill O'Reilly


By Bill O'Reilly

It was more of the same from President Obama on Monday, demanding a tax increase on wealthy Americans and corporations in order to cut the enormous federal debt.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Explain why somebody who is making $50 million a year in the financial markets should be paying 15 percent on their taxes when a teacher making $50,000 a year is paying more than that, paying a higher rate. They ought to have to answer for that.

Well, Mr. President, I do have an answer. Of course I do.

No. 1, you are talking about long-term capital gains tax, currently at 15 percent. But you and your pal Warren Buffett never say that. You equate the 15 percent cap gains tax with the federal income tax. That is not fair. That's because capital gains tax is levied on profits from invested money that has already been taxed.

Let's take me for example. I pay 35 percent in federal income tax. Some of my take-home pay is invested, and if I make some money on the investment, the government takes 15 percent of it away, or more if I make the profit in less than a year. Let's see: 35 percent plus 15 percent on profits; a nice return for the feds on my sweat equity.

OK, let's continue, Mr. President. If I lose money on my investments, a good possibility, you only allow me to deduct $3,000 a year. Therefore, my risk in investing is substantial. Now you want to up the ante on my winnings, but you don't say how much because the stock market will go nuts if you do. With all due respect, the tax the rich deal is bogus, as I'll demonstrate in a moment.

One more thing, Mr. President. In August of 2009, you said this:

OBAMA: The last thing you want to do is to raise taxes in the middle of a recession because that would just suck up and take more demand out of the economy and put businesses in a further hole.

Correct. So let me ask you: What's changed in two years? The economy is still awful and unemployment's even higher. So why have you changed your mind about a tax increase on the affluent and business?

Here's the unintended consequence of Mr. Obama's revenue enhancing plan, and I must tell you I want the feds to get more revenue. I don't want to starve them, as some people do. We need a robust military, a good transportation system and protections all over the place. But if you tax achievement, some of the achievers are going to pack it in.

Again, let's take me. My corporations employ scores of people. They depend on me to do what I do so they can make a nice salary. If Barack Obama begins taxing me more than 50 percent, which is very possible, I don't know how much longer I'm going to do this. I like my job, but there comes a point when taxation becomes oppressive. Is the country really entitled to half a person's income?

Finally, this fair share garbage has got to stop. Right now, taxpayers with incomes above $1 million represent just 0.2 percent -- not 2 percent, 0.2 percent -- of all income tax returns. Yet the million-dollar babies pay 21 percent of all the federal income tax.

Fair share, Mr. President? You make the call.”