Obama's Shocking Lies
 

And Hypocrisies.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...g_hypocri.html


http://www.commentarymagazine.com/bl.../wehner/292736

That's old news. I think Rush pointed all of that out a couple of days ago Donna.

Are you saying that all forum members listen to Rush?;)

Don't they?

Yoda

I have to wonder why the lessons we learned from "Peter & The Wolf" are lost when we listen to this president.

Brace yourself. I used to. In fact I used to quite enjoy his programs (circa late 1980s, early 1990s). There's a real difference between him then and him now. I'm not fond of 'him now'.

Somehow that does not totally surprise me. Is it what he says or how he says it ?

Geez....how can I express this.

Here is one of Obama's shocking lies from the link:

And what are we to make of the fact that the very paragraph from Obama's speech where he laments the lack of truth in public statements includes - you guessed it - a false statement by Obama?

In his commencement address, Obama insists he doesn't know how to work an iPod. But here's an item that appeared on the Huffington Post on June 25, 2008:

WASHINGTON - Bob Dylan. Yo-Yo Ma. Sheryl Crow. Jay-Z. These aren't musical acts in a summer concert series: They're artists featured on Barack Obama's iPod.

Now compare that to:

Starting a war with a country that didn't attack us, making false statements about WMD, Mushroom Clouds and Yellow Cake from *****.

Donna2: First, let me say it's a feeling I've gotten over the years of him getting an inflated ego and believing his own press clippings. It's not something I can pin down to any one thing, but I'll give you an example.

I used to have some philosophical disagreements with him on certain social issues. However, I found myself agreeing with him on issues that were easier to measure - things like taxes and spending, especially busting the myth that the rich don't pay taxes. But at least on social issues, I could find myself respecting him. Like when he explained his opposition to abortion. It wasn't any of the usual headline-grabbing slogans you hear. It was becuase he believed it was another instance of something that devalued the position of human life. Now, I didn't agree with him in specifics, but I understood him and I could respect that.

He used to joke a lot about what Democrats did - and you had to have an ear to 'get' or 'enjoy' some of what he said - he was kind of like a conservative Jon Stewart in that way, taking something that happened, reporting the facts, and having a little fun with it.

But now he acts like an evangelist. His ego, to this former fan, has gotten enormous - and I'm not sure I can blame him for that. People WANTED him to be the Pied Piper, to be honest and, let's face it, he's only human. His life has had so many influences since he started getting famous - the HUGE new contracts, the marriages, the drug incidents, etc. Eventually I changed jobs and didn't get much of a chance to listen to him but as time went on, when I *did* get a chance, he just seemed more 'nasty'. I still got a sense that there was a line he wouldn't cross. Now? I'm not so sure.

There's a theory going around as to why Rush has turned up the rhetoric - and it's competition. As one person put it "now he has to 'out-crazy' Glenn Beck for ratings". I don't know that I'd go THAT far but it does seem to me he's more about "whipping up the troops" than he used to be.

So now you get him out on the public speaking circuit and he's there acting like a wannabe-leader as opposed to more humble talk-show host he used to be. He's lost that humility - and the times of him universally excoriating drug users yet not holding himself to the same standard is probably the worst specific case that I can think of.

I certainly respect and admire the way he's been able to reinvent himself - especially all the early business problems he had and yet he kept right on trying until 'making it'.

It just seems that now he has, to some degree, become that which he mocked in years past. He's all about the slogans, the knee-jerk responses, the shouting, the demagoguery. It's kind of depressing.

I like the one where he gave England an ipod with his speeches on it. I'm sure they injoyed that. NOT LOL

There are so many Obama Lies that it is difficult to catalog them all.

Here is a start. If you need more Obama Lies I will post them.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...romise-broken/

djplong,

Well at least you have listened to him. I listen to talk radio but I am not a die hard fan of any particular host. I basically got tired of the terrible music on the radio and started listening to "talk"

People change with the times. Jay Leno was terrible when he replaced Johnny Carson and has gone through different stages over the years. What cracks me up is the people who post here who have never really listened to him but repeat their parties "Talking Points" . Most of it word for word from their extreme left-wing web sites.
The real point is that if there was no right-thinking voices out there, the very left-leaning media would have this country in worst shape then it already is. Imagine an unchecked congress and White House doing exactly what they want?
We would have been Greece 40 years ago!!!!!!!

I agree, Donna2. His detractors say how terrible he is and then brag how they never listen to him. How do they know how bad he is if they haven't listened?? Where would we be without him and other talk show hosts who have a voice because of Rush?

Exactly Sally Jo. Where would we be if we only had one voice? The Soviet Union comes to mind.

Hope to have no time
 

I hope to have no time to listen loud mouths because I will be too busy enjoying all the activities at the villages.

Bad approach
 

Liberals will use hate tactics toward anyone who is not of their ideology.

Rush, Palin, etc. must be stupid unintelligent retards unable to read and write and cope with everyday problems of living. That is a Liberals position about the most successful people in the USA unless of course if they are Liberals then they are bright intelligent people.

Talk about a juvenile attitude.

If I was you I would pursue your activities with a better attitude then you displayed with your rude post!!!

Sorry
 

I apologize, if I have offended anyone.

Maybe it is me who should apologize. I just re-read this thread and realized that you were talking about talk radio. DUH!!!! I thought you were one of those hit and run people who poke their head in here and insult us then we never here from again. LOL

I am sure you will have a great time at the Village activities.

Thanks
 

Thanks, l look forward to dicussing future issues.

I find this post fairly funny...who is it that says these things:

Al Bore...Foolsweek.....Shrillary need I say more?

You conservatives have a name for everything,

Will you accept a post about all the Bush administration lies?

Bush is not the president. Is that all you people can do is blame Bush. When does this guy take responsibility. Your blame Bush is getting very, very old.


I didn't see many people always blaming Clinton every time Bush did something.

The fact is that no president in recent history has broken more campaign promises or told more lies then Barry.

Bush didn't have the mess to clean up that Obama did. Remember, under Clinton, we ran a surplus. Obama inherited a record-breaking deficit that was poised to get worse because of TARP and the prescription drug giveaway cost increases (among other things) and aggravated further by the worst recession in 70 years.

Reagan got away with over 4 years of blaming previous administrations and especially the Democrat-controlled Congress for the mess we were in back then. Quite frankly I agreed with him.

Can you
 

Name one lie Bush told. Back it up.

Give us a break. Clinton was forced to go to the right when his extreme left-wing agenda was torpedoed. There was a thing in 1994 called The Contract with America that was lead by Newt Gingrich and Republicans.
Your memory is very selective, huh?

Please
 

Do not make things worse by avoiding the issue. Please answer the question.
What is your source?

How about "Mission Accomplished"

How about "My FEMA guy who's doing a great job!

And if you argue these weren't lies because he had no idea what he was saying, then that's probably a greater indictment.

Mission Accomplished was a banner that was displayed by the Navy to congratulate the Aircraft Carrier's 10 month deployment, longest since the Vietnam War.Bush stated at the time that this was the end to major combat operations in Iraq. While this statement did coincide with an end to the conventional phase of the war, Bush's assertion — and the sign itself — became controversial after guerilla warfare in Iraq increased during the Iraqi insurgency.

Fema did the job it legally was responsible for. Time and reflection has put the slow response on the incompetence of the local government.

Does this Statement Bother You?
 

Billions of dollars from the Obama “stimulus” simply vanished into thin air. (my words)


It is said that this regime has a "slush fund" of billions of dollars from the "stimulus" money that they use for their own purposes.
Why hasn't the media picked up on this fact? Or maybe the question should be re-phrased, "Even though the media is well aware of the "missing" billions, are they protecting this regime by keeping quiet about it"?

Donna2 - you just nailed one of my real irritations with the GOP. The GOP of 1994 that came up with the Contract For America (which I wholeheartedly supported) is NOT the GOP of today. Back then, they weren't the "Party of 'NO'!". Back then, they actually came up with suggestions as an alternative to the President's proposals.

Only liberal democrats use that expression of party of no.

No big government

No government takeovers

No political correctness


No socialism


No political supreme court nominees

No more unsecured borders

No more union thuggery.


No more bowing to foreign countries

No more apologizing for our exceptionalism.

Etc., etc.

Maybe your right. Republicans are the party of "no"

NO!!!!
 

To the Dems and Libs, the Repubs will always be the party of "NO" as the Dems will not even take or talk about constructive criticism as may regard their agenda. The Dems expect America to go along with their Socialistic and Communistic agenda no matter the cost financially or ethically. And, they expect the Repubs and the public to go along like a bunch of sheep. To question their motives and their legislation is to them Treason. They can only argue by blaming previous administrations, labeling and name calling. The party of No should wear that label as a badge of courage, patriotism and standing up for America and its true greatness.
This November, lets make it No Nancy, No Harry and No Barry!!!! Throw in a few others like Chuck, Henry and Stennie.

Barney too!!! And Dodd!!!

Whatever. I don't know you but I love you.:beer3:

Wow. You just made my point.

Yeah, a whole bunch of "NO". Nothing wrong at all with that.

But what's the alternative? I mean, for crying out loud, in the UK, it took them 5 days to hammer out a compromise between the Conservatives and the LIBERAL DEMOCRATS. Each side gave some for what they believed was the good of the country.

For a year we couldn't hammer out a compromise on health care (despite the fact that most Americans wanted it - you may argue that a majority didn't want what turned out to be 'Obamacare' but when you ask them about specific parts of it it turns out they DO want most of it - but we know about as little as Congress does about what was really in the bill and that's a disgrace on Congress' part). The same is frighteningly close to being true about financial reform (it's been a couple of weeks since I heard Democrats and Republicans saying they were just a couple of days away). Now I guaran-damn-tee you we're going to get the same story when we uncover the likelihood that the government was too lax in inspecting offshore oil rigs.

You are wrong again. The majority of people were and are satisfied with their heath care. The voters from Massachusetts hated government health care enough to elect a Republican for Senator for the first time in 40 years.

SCOTT BROWN

Yes, most Americans felt that the healthcare system needed some changes, however, not the massive overhaul that we got. Republicans wanted to fix the areas that needed it. They were ignored. Democrats idea of bipartisianship is the Repubs cross the aisle to their side.

I think better than the "Party of No"; I would consider myself the "Party of HELL NO!!"

These are Wonderfully imaginative explanations!
But if you quote him you should give credit to your friend the Mad Hatter.

My aren't we funny tonight? NOT!!!

Try to pry yourself from your left-wing hate sites for a minute and go to Wikipedia for some refreshing facts. It will do you some good.

The legend and the misconceptions of the real truth is more important to the liberal than the actual facts and truths when it relates to their "Bush Hate Syndrome".