१९ सप्टेंबर, २०१३
WaPo's Fact Checker gives Obama 4 "Pinocchios."
For the statement, made yesterday: "You have never seen in the history of the United States the debt ceiling or the threat of not raising the debt being used to extort a president or a governing party and trying to force issues that have nothing to do with the budget and nothing to do with the debt."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२४ टिप्पण्या:
No comments on what would have been a shocking story only two years ago. We've become so accustomed to Obama stretching the truth we just yawn. That's a sad commentary.
Surprise, surprise, surprise!
Is Obama that ignorant of history, or just a congenital liar?
It has to be one or the other.
Is he lying or ignorant?
Three more years.
The Pinocchios of Obama's present...
Sadly, I think he just lives in his own reality
awwh, mesquito,
It is getting difficult to tell; part of the time he is lying, part of the time he has no idea what he is talking about, and part of the time he is doing both.
Wow, the MSM is really trying to bolster those credentials in time for the next instance they need credibility to burn for a democratic candidate. A year ago that would have been "solidly true".
We should rename the Obama Administration the Baghdad Bob Administration.
avwh asks,
Is Obama that ignorant of history, or just a congenital liar?
It has to be one or the other.
you err, dude, it can and is both.
The Pinocchios Of Obama's Discontent?
The news isn't that Obama lied, but that it's the WaPo that called him on it.
This is what happens in second terms. The WaPo would never have done this in the first term, at the beginning of a (potentially) big partisan fight, because that might have led to a R*p*bl*c*n being elected President in 2012. But it can't hurt Hillary in 2016 to call Obama on his lies.
Part of a larger pattern by public officials, especially in Washington. Rarely do their lies have consequences that mean anything. By that I mean rarely do they result in loss of an election. Unless they lie about sex. Then it can be consequential. But lie about matters of public policy and trust? Whatever.
Not sayin' Obama's cheese has slipped off its cracker.
Only that there's no longer any Ritz to put on.
Obama lying? That's a dog bites man story. A yawn. Now a story where Obama tells the truth-now that will be a shocker-a real man bites dog story.
The part I don't get about this asinine article is this...
Assume, counter-factually, that Obama was right and never before in the history of America has anyone ever tried to leverage the debt ceiling for non-budget non-debt matters.
Obama's point still wouldn't make any sense and would still be an untruth, because whether or not to fund Obamacare most certainly is a budget item and debt-reduction method.
What kind of twisted bizarro-world are we in where we even have to look to history to figure out how dumb this statement was? The guy is just plain stuck on stupid.
It wasn't a lie, it was more of an "aspirational statement," you know, like "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan."
Besides, Republicans are worse!
avwh said...
Is Obama that ignorant of history, or just a congenital liar?
It has to be one or the other.
No, it doesn't have to be one or the other. In his case, both are true.
avwh said...
Is Obama that ignorant of history, or just a congenital liar?
It has to be one or the other.
No, it doesn't have to be one or the other. For Obama, he's that ignorant of history AND a congenital liar.
That's a step up from their usual not saying anything.
If,while Pinocchio is calling you a liar, his nose grows alarmingly, can that be accepted as a testament to your character. If the Post calls Obama a liar does that indicate that there might, in fact, be elements of honesty and sincerity in the man that we have not yet appreciated.
avwh @ 9/19/13, 7:55 PM said...
Is Obama that ignorant of history, or just a congenital liar?
It has to be one or the other.
Or both. Good liars tell believable lies. Obama tells lies that are obvious falsehoods to anyone with a minimum of knowledge. Quite possibly he is so ignorant he doesn't know how obvious his lies are.
Example: asked why he is unpopular in Texas, he answered "Texas has always been a pretty Republican state, you know, for historic reasons." For Obama, "always" seems to mean "Since 2000 or so." Or else he was just lying, and he didn't know how ludicrous his lie was.
Our esteemed hostess commented on this absurdity.
All of the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but NOT all off the people all the time.
I believe the United States is now in part three of Lincoln's epigram.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा