53 Lies by Obama
senojekips
Active member
He should give it up.
He'll need at least another dozen terms in office to get anywhere near his predecessor.
He'll need at least another dozen terms in office to get anywhere near his predecessor.
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
lol True that.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Who in turn was made look like a saint next to Nixon.
mmarsh
Active member
1. All politicians (even good ones) lie. This is true in all countries. This is not exactly anything new.
2. I don't see any evidence cited that Obama stated any of things. The only evidence cited a link to a right-wing forum, which just scanning a few threads makes FOX NEWS really look "fair and balanced". This list smackes of being printed from a chain email. One of the items on the list was that Obama was a closet muslim, which has been debunked ad nauseum.
Credibility: Highly suspect.
3. But accusing Obama and Clinton of lying both in frequency and gravity compared to the last president whose lies are still bringing back US soldiers in boxes to this very day. I don't think conservatives want to go into a game "whose the bigger liar".
MontyB
Or Ronald Reagan. Unless some people really think Reagan developed amnesia during Iran-Contra. (Rupert Murdoch recently used the same tactic of not knowing anything going on). But some people actually believe fibbing about consensual sex is actually more serious than selling weapons to terrorists and using the proceeds to fund South America Death Squads. Go Figure.
2. I don't see any evidence cited that Obama stated any of things. The only evidence cited a link to a right-wing forum, which just scanning a few threads makes FOX NEWS really look "fair and balanced". This list smackes of being printed from a chain email. One of the items on the list was that Obama was a closet muslim, which has been debunked ad nauseum.
Credibility: Highly suspect.
3. But accusing Obama and Clinton of lying both in frequency and gravity compared to the last president whose lies are still bringing back US soldiers in boxes to this very day. I don't think conservatives want to go into a game "whose the bigger liar".
MontyB
Or Ronald Reagan. Unless some people really think Reagan developed amnesia during Iran-Contra. (Rupert Murdoch recently used the same tactic of not knowing anything going on). But some people actually believe fibbing about consensual sex is actually more serious than selling weapons to terrorists and using the proceeds to fund South America Death Squads. Go Figure.
Last edited:
Speaking of Rupert Murdoch and FOX News, girls, a friend of mine reminds us of the following:
In December 1996, a Florida couple, John and Alice Martin, who sounded suspiciously like union goons, claimed to have inadvertently tapped into a phone conversation between then House Speaker Newt Gingrich and House Republican leadership.
According to these Democratic and union activists, they were just driving around with a police scanner in their car, picked up a random phone conversation and said to themselves, "Wait a minute! I could swear that's Dick Armey's voice!"
Luckily, they also had a tape recorder and cassette in their car, so they proceeded to illegally record the intercepted conversation and then turned the tape over to Democratic Rep. James McDermott -- the top Democrat on the Ethics Committee that was at that very moment investigating Gingrich.
Although they swore they had no idea that what they were doing was a crime, in their cover letter to McDermott, they requested immunity -- just as you probably do whenever you write somebody a letter. (They later pleaded guilty to a crime under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.)
McDermott promptly turned the tape over to The New York Times and other newspapers. The Times' headline on the story, "Gingrich Is Heard Urging Tactics in Ethics Case," might as well have been titled: "Tape Shows Gingrich Conspiring to Act Within the Law."
John Boehner, one of the participants in the Gingrich call, sued McDermott for violating his First Amendment rights, which resulted in a court ordering McDermott to pay Boehner more than $1 million.
And yet, more than a dozen news organizations, many of the same ones demanding the death penalty for Rupert Murdoch right now, filed amicus briefs defending McDermott's distribution of the pirated tape.
Needless to say, the Times ferociously defended its own use of the hacked phone call, arguing that it would be unconstitutional to punish the publication of information, no matter how obtained.
So it's strange to see these defenders of the press's right to publish absolutely anything get on their high horses about British tabloid reporters, operating under a different culture and legal system, hacking into cell phones.
Not only that, but they are demanding that the CEO of the vast, multinational corporation that owned the tabloids be severely punished.
This is because the CEO is Rupert Murdoch and Murdoch owns Fox News.
The entire mainstream media are fixated on Murdoch's imagined role in the Fleet Street phone-hacking story -- the only topic more boring than the debt ceiling -- solely in order to pursue their petty vendetta against Fox News, which liberals hate with the hot, hot heat of a thousand suns.
Every guest on MSNBC is asked the same question: Is it possible to believe that Murdoch was unaware of what some reporters at News of the World were doing? How can a network that employs Chris Matthews be unfamiliar with the concept of a "rogue employee"?
In fact, it's quite easy to believe Murdoch was unaware of what News of the World reporters were doing -- particularly considering the striking absence of any evidence to the contrary.
Murdoch is an American who owns television networks, satellite operations and newspapers all over the world. As he said in his testimony this week, News Corp. has 53,000 employees and, until its recent demise, News of the World amounted to a grand total of 1 percent of News Corp.'s operations.
Why wasn't Les Moonves responsible for CBS anchor Dan Rather trying to throw the 2004 presidential election with phony National Guard documents one month before the election? Moonves was president, CEO and director of CBS, a company with half as many employees as News Corp. And his rogue employee constituted a much bigger part of CBS' business than News of the World did of the Murdoch empire.
And yet no one asked if Moonves was aware that his network was about to accuse a sitting president of shirking his National Guard duty. Moonves wasn't dragged before multiple congressional panels. Nor was MSNBC tracking his every bowel movement on live TV. No one remembers the biggest media scandal of the last 30 years as "The Les Moonves Scandal."
What about all the illegally obtained information regularly printed in the Times? Was Pinch Sulzberger unaware his newspaper was publishing classified government documents illegally obtained by Julian Assange?
Did he know that in 2006 the Times published illegally leaked classified documents concerning a government program following terrorists' financial transactions; that in 2005 it revealed illegally obtained information about a top-secret government program tracking phone calls connected to numbers found in Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's cell phone; and, that, in 1997, the paper published an illegally obtained phone call between Newt Gingrich and Republican leaders?
If only Murdoch's minions had hacked into the phones of George Bush, Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld, liberals would be submitting his name to the pope for sainthood.
But now the rest of us have to watch while the mainstream media pursue their personal grudge against Rupert Murdoch for allowing Fox News to exist. They demand his head for owning a British tabloid where some reporters used illegally obtained information, something The New York Times does defiantly on a regular basis.
In December 1996, a Florida couple, John and Alice Martin, who sounded suspiciously like union goons, claimed to have inadvertently tapped into a phone conversation between then House Speaker Newt Gingrich and House Republican leadership.
According to these Democratic and union activists, they were just driving around with a police scanner in their car, picked up a random phone conversation and said to themselves, "Wait a minute! I could swear that's Dick Armey's voice!"
Luckily, they also had a tape recorder and cassette in their car, so they proceeded to illegally record the intercepted conversation and then turned the tape over to Democratic Rep. James McDermott -- the top Democrat on the Ethics Committee that was at that very moment investigating Gingrich.
Although they swore they had no idea that what they were doing was a crime, in their cover letter to McDermott, they requested immunity -- just as you probably do whenever you write somebody a letter. (They later pleaded guilty to a crime under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.)
McDermott promptly turned the tape over to The New York Times and other newspapers. The Times' headline on the story, "Gingrich Is Heard Urging Tactics in Ethics Case," might as well have been titled: "Tape Shows Gingrich Conspiring to Act Within the Law."
John Boehner, one of the participants in the Gingrich call, sued McDermott for violating his First Amendment rights, which resulted in a court ordering McDermott to pay Boehner more than $1 million.
And yet, more than a dozen news organizations, many of the same ones demanding the death penalty for Rupert Murdoch right now, filed amicus briefs defending McDermott's distribution of the pirated tape.
Needless to say, the Times ferociously defended its own use of the hacked phone call, arguing that it would be unconstitutional to punish the publication of information, no matter how obtained.
So it's strange to see these defenders of the press's right to publish absolutely anything get on their high horses about British tabloid reporters, operating under a different culture and legal system, hacking into cell phones.
Not only that, but they are demanding that the CEO of the vast, multinational corporation that owned the tabloids be severely punished.
This is because the CEO is Rupert Murdoch and Murdoch owns Fox News.
The entire mainstream media are fixated on Murdoch's imagined role in the Fleet Street phone-hacking story -- the only topic more boring than the debt ceiling -- solely in order to pursue their petty vendetta against Fox News, which liberals hate with the hot, hot heat of a thousand suns.
Every guest on MSNBC is asked the same question: Is it possible to believe that Murdoch was unaware of what some reporters at News of the World were doing? How can a network that employs Chris Matthews be unfamiliar with the concept of a "rogue employee"?
In fact, it's quite easy to believe Murdoch was unaware of what News of the World reporters were doing -- particularly considering the striking absence of any evidence to the contrary.
Murdoch is an American who owns television networks, satellite operations and newspapers all over the world. As he said in his testimony this week, News Corp. has 53,000 employees and, until its recent demise, News of the World amounted to a grand total of 1 percent of News Corp.'s operations.
Why wasn't Les Moonves responsible for CBS anchor Dan Rather trying to throw the 2004 presidential election with phony National Guard documents one month before the election? Moonves was president, CEO and director of CBS, a company with half as many employees as News Corp. And his rogue employee constituted a much bigger part of CBS' business than News of the World did of the Murdoch empire.
And yet no one asked if Moonves was aware that his network was about to accuse a sitting president of shirking his National Guard duty. Moonves wasn't dragged before multiple congressional panels. Nor was MSNBC tracking his every bowel movement on live TV. No one remembers the biggest media scandal of the last 30 years as "The Les Moonves Scandal."
What about all the illegally obtained information regularly printed in the Times? Was Pinch Sulzberger unaware his newspaper was publishing classified government documents illegally obtained by Julian Assange?
Did he know that in 2006 the Times published illegally leaked classified documents concerning a government program following terrorists' financial transactions; that in 2005 it revealed illegally obtained information about a top-secret government program tracking phone calls connected to numbers found in Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's cell phone; and, that, in 1997, the paper published an illegally obtained phone call between Newt Gingrich and Republican leaders?
If only Murdoch's minions had hacked into the phones of George Bush, Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld, liberals would be submitting his name to the pope for sainthood.
But now the rest of us have to watch while the mainstream media pursue their personal grudge against Rupert Murdoch for allowing Fox News to exist. They demand his head for owning a British tabloid where some reporters used illegally obtained information, something The New York Times does defiantly on a regular basis.
Yes, Nixon was no saint compared to JFK.
lvcabbie
Active member
Richard Nixon, in spite of all the hate from the left, was a president who got our country out of the quagmire of Vietnam. In many ways, he was a thousand times better than LBJ who managed to get by because he was such a radical leftist, the darling of the media.
At the same time, JFK got away with brazen philandering for the same reason. He was exactly like the rest of the slimy Kennedy clan.
At the same time, JFK got away with brazen philandering for the same reason. He was exactly like the rest of the slimy Kennedy clan.
mmarsh
Active member
Not just the left, You should talk to some of our Moderators who are Vietnam Vets here, some of which are staunch Conservatives and listen to what they feel about Nixon AND JFK. They see it precisely THE OPPOSITE.
I tilt center-left but I actually though Nixon was a pretty good president, UNTIL Watergate. But What Nixon did there was indefensible, a clear abuse of office and he was right to be shown the door.
I the same note I disliked JFK and the entire Kennedy clique who are overrated. But seriously, who cares about philandering? What does it have to do with being a good president? I personally don't care if a president is banging ever hooker in DC as long as he does his job well enough. For the record, there are far more cases of philandering of right-wing politicians than those on the left.
In many countries (like the one I currently reside in) philandering is not a big secret or seen as a problem. When French President Francois Mitterand died, both his wife and Mistress at together at the funeral.
Only in America is such as non-issue, actually considered an important issue.:roll:
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Center left? I guess the Democrats are too conservative for you lol.
mmarsh
Active member
Actually some are, like the current President of the United States who (aside from social issues) is in no way shape or form a liberal.
Liberals are so angry with Obama there is now a chance he may face a primary challenge from the left, Bernie Sanders has mentioned this as a possibility.
lvcabbie
Active member
I think the worst thing about Vietnam was the way McNamara and LBJ micro-managed the war, ignoring the recommendations of on-the-ground commanders.
As we have learned in our so-called War on Terror, guerrilla fighters have a huge advantage over regular troops. We had Special Forces troops who were doing exactly what was necessary to help the regular people survive in a difficult situation.
But, we Americans self-righteously feel that only OUR form of government is the one all the peoples of the world should follow. We openly condemn corruption in other government where we have our own sinister form of it here in our federal and state governments.
We forget that tribal government is the only things billions of people on this earth know and democracy is a word with no meaning to them. We turned out backs on South Vietnamese warlords who had their fingers on the pulse of the country and replaced them with ineffective and even more corrupt bureaucrats.
We'd screwed things up so badly and the media had demonized our men and women in uniform to the point where all we could do was get the hell out of there.
And Nixon did that for us.
I think that anyone who knows the true status of the people of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia will find it is no different than it has been for centuries - only with lots of modern technology.
As we have learned in our so-called War on Terror, guerrilla fighters have a huge advantage over regular troops. We had Special Forces troops who were doing exactly what was necessary to help the regular people survive in a difficult situation.
But, we Americans self-righteously feel that only OUR form of government is the one all the peoples of the world should follow. We openly condemn corruption in other government where we have our own sinister form of it here in our federal and state governments.
We forget that tribal government is the only things billions of people on this earth know and democracy is a word with no meaning to them. We turned out backs on South Vietnamese warlords who had their fingers on the pulse of the country and replaced them with ineffective and even more corrupt bureaucrats.
We'd screwed things up so badly and the media had demonized our men and women in uniform to the point where all we could do was get the hell out of there.
And Nixon did that for us.
I think that anyone who knows the true status of the people of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia will find it is no different than it has been for centuries - only with lots of modern technology.
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
The problem was, not only were the Generals being micromanaged, the Generals themselves didn't know the first thing about what they were supposed to be doing.
muscogeemike
Active member
I keep saying that at least 60% of people are stupid - and I found someone who agrees with me:
On Pres. Obama – That such an administration could be elected in the first place, headed by a man whose only qualifications to be president of the United States at a dangerous time in the history of the world were rhetoric, style and symbolism - and whose animus against the values and institutions of America had been demonstrated repeatedly over a period of decades beforehand – speaks volumes about the inadequacies of our educational system and the degeneration of out culture. Dr. Thomas Sowell
On Pres. Obama – That such an administration could be elected in the first place, headed by a man whose only qualifications to be president of the United States at a dangerous time in the history of the world were rhetoric, style and symbolism - and whose animus against the values and institutions of America had been demonstrated repeatedly over a period of decades beforehand – speaks volumes about the inadequacies of our educational system and the degeneration of out culture. Dr. Thomas Sowell