Obama Lies And Liberals Are Stupid

This is a continuation of the “Why Romeny Will Win Thread” and I admittedly am violating my new rule of only speaking positively of Romeny and trying to stay away from posting Obama bashing threads, but as I previously mentioned, there is a lot of material to bash Obama over, so once again I succumb to the target rich environment.

Obama is not even trying to conceal his lies anymore as he continue to get away with it, so like any criminal, he is becoming more brazen. Add to that, his minions don’t seem to care, or worse, don’t know the difference, and of course, most of the Obama loving media will gloss right over it. Let’s start with his most recent lie on the embassy attacks in Benghazi, of which for days, his regime continued to define the attacks as “spontaneous”, and continued to blame the attacks on the Internet video, of which everyone knew from the onset that neither of those statements were true. Yet he even continues to parrot that line at his most recent UN speech just the other day, and again, not much mention in the media, or from his completely stupid base. Let’s continue with his lie about Romney’s taxes, of which he is still lying about Romney’s tax rate being lower than the middle class, which in reality, it is not. The net effective tax rate for those making $50,000 to $75,000 is approximately 7% -8%, and those making $75,000 – $100,000, pay approximately 10%- 12% effective rate. Romney paid approximately 14%, which was his effective  cap rate tax, and is obviously higher than the other effective tax rates, so once again, Obama lies and his base is stupid.

Now let’s move on to the Affordable Care Act, which contained the personal mandate that was questionably constitutional, and was sold to the American people as a mandate and not a tax. This also dovetails into Obama’s pledge not to raise any taxes on those making $250,000 or less. Enter the Supreme Court, which passed the mandate by turning it into a “tax”, following the arguments put forth by the Obama regime. So, Obama lied twice on this issue – once by selling it as a mandate, not a tax, and secondly, by breaking his promise not to raise taxes on those making $250,000 or less. Finally, let’s revisit Obama’s 2008 campaign promise to cut the deficit in half, of which he hasn’t even tried, by submitting budgets that contain $1 trillion plus deficits, and raising the debt by more than $5 trillion dollars in one four year term. So once again, Obama lied and his base is stupid.

These are just four blatant examples of Obama’s dishonesty, and his loyal bases ignorance. I invite everyone to add more. Have fun.

82 thoughts on “Obama Lies And Liberals Are Stupid

  1. tiredoflibbs September 27, 2012 / 9:25 pm

    “I admittedly am violating my new rule of only speaking positively of Romeny and trying to stay away from posting Obama bashing threads..”

    Not to worry Cluster…

    obAMATEUR is bashing Romney from all directions. That is what happens when he has nothing to run on…. try to convince the average uneducated voter to run from Romney and vote for him.

    He is not even running on his (even though he did not write it) stellar “health care” success (lots of arm twisting and give aways).

    obAMATEUR has brought a new low to Presidential politics.

    • James September 27, 2012 / 10:53 pm

      Cluster is a notorious coward. He guaranteed victory for McCain…and when McCain lost, he acted like he never guaranteed anything.

      Now he is doing the same thing..except this time, he has company…Mark thinks this will be a Reaganesque blowout…Spook thinks there will be riots and civil war if Obama loses….(he secretly wishes for it)….and Cluster thinks all the polls in the world that show Obama winning are wrong…and ONLY Rasmussen is right…

      This is my comic relief on a daily basis..reading this blog.

      • js02 September 27, 2012 / 11:05 pm

        I see your alligator mouth is overloading your hummingbird arse.

        Why dont you link to that guarantee? Doesnt exist, only thing thats going on here is that you are opening your mouth and proving over and over that you are a complete fool.

        Way to go poster boy.

      • James September 27, 2012 / 11:08 pm

        right, guarantee doesn’t exist. keep ignoring the truth.

        Cluster changed his handle after the 2008 election. ask him about it…let’s see if he puts his cowardice in the closet for one post…

      • Cluster September 27, 2012 / 11:11 pm

        You really are an angry little man aren’t you? You’re like a Seinfeld character.

      • James September 27, 2012 / 11:12 pm

        dodge, dodge, deny, deny, deny.

        I am not angry, I simply hate liars and cowards like yourself. I hate what you stand for, I hate what you believe, and most of all, I hate your idea of America.

      • Cluster September 27, 2012 / 11:14 pm

        Sure is a lot of hate there. I thought you came here for comic relief. Why do you put yourself through this?

      • js02 September 27, 2012 / 11:28 pm

        you are not smart enough to know what angry is James…

      • Amazona September 28, 2012 / 10:46 am

        “I hate what you stand for, I hate what you believe, and most of all, I hate your idea of America.”

        And here we have the essence of the Rabidly Radial Left.

        What we believe, and what we stand for, is the America envisioned, brought to life, and established by our Founding Fathers. It is a nation built upon the concepts of a national government severely restricted as to size, scope and power, with authority residing for the most part with the sovereign states or with the people, an it is based upon personal liberty and personal responsibility. It is a concept of equal opportunity.

        And James hates all of this.

        James hates our very IDEA OF AMERICA which is the same thing as saying he hates the America put together by the people who fought for our freedom from England and then worked so hard to establish a bold new template for government, one which, when implemented, allowed a raw and disorganized bunch of former colonies to leapfrog over the rest of the world in economic prosperity, scientific achievement, and personal liberty.

        What does James support? A political model which, when fully implemented, has resulted in economic misery so profound citizens have literally starved to death, the establishment of a central government with unrestricted power which has then been used to oppress and even slaughter its own people, and the limitation (sometimes to the point of elimination) of personal freedom.

        (When only partially implemented, it has just led to the economic failure of the nations under its governance, as we see now in Europe, and the personal misery of those whose security is destroyed.)

        I am glad James’ posts have been allowed to remain, because when a Conservative says that the RRL believes what James states, over and over, he is called a liar. We need to hear it boldly stated, in no uncertain terms, by one of the RRL.

        This is the precise reason I have goaded Lefties here to state their political philosophy. It is because I KNOW what it is, and I also know that most will refuse to come right out and say so. James does, and in doing so provides a valuable service.

      • Retired Spook September 28, 2012 / 11:26 am

        What does James support? A political model which, when fully implemented, has resulted in economic misery so profound citizens have literally starved to death, the establishment of a central government with unrestricted power which has then been used to oppress and even slaughter its own people, and the limitation (sometimes to the point of elimination) of personal freedom.

        Including the loss of freedom to say the things he says here. Talk about advocating against one’s own self-interest. Humorous in a sad, pathetic sort of way. Unfortunately, if James’s view prevails, it won’t be America any more, and it’s become abundantly clear that that is exactly what his hero, Obama wants.

      • dennis September 28, 2012 / 7:23 pm

        This presumes that to loosen the grip of capitalism one iota – for socialized medicine, education, public transportation or anything else ultimately ends up as Soviet-style communism. The real world and community of nations just don’t bear this out, and a real retired spook would know this.

        As for what Obama wants, I can’t plumb his thinking but neither I nor any rational American believes for one second he wants to destroy America’s freedoms. Unfortunately the random placement gremlin put my post above way up thread, but it demonstrates the fantasy world some of you here live in. I know Amazona belives this claptrap but you really are old enough to know better than this.

      • dbschmidt September 28, 2012 / 8:54 pm

        Dennis & Dave,

        Obama is an anti-colonialist (and a narcissist) that believes America should not be the “shiny city on the hill” that so many people risk their lives to get to, not away from. I, personally, watched many people test the land mines of Cuba (their side of the fence) to request asylum in Gitmo. The same can be said before the wall was torn down or any athletes that complete near a site in America or American “soil.”.

        What Obama wants, from his books and other direct quotes, is to make America just another country among countries–another third-world shit hole. Just look at the UN trying to impose itself as the new order and folks like Soros making the Koch brothers look cheap as he tries to destroy the final world power for one world rule where he sees himself as king or emperor.

        I would welcome other countries as soon as they agree to our standards and not the other way around. I mean, a little off topic, but just yesterday (in 1821) Mexico gains its independence from Spain, Obviously a bright example of good government ever since…

      • dennis September 29, 2012 / 12:38 am

        DB, your extrapolations are about as out there as anyone can get and still be moored provisionally to physical reality. That’s the whole situation with the right end of the political spectrum now.

        Casper asks the proper question above – do you want Barack Obama (or the U.S.) to be colonialist? I’m an anti-colonialist too – but not in the pejorative way presented by Dinesh D’Souza. I spent four years of my childhood in India and can say with assurance he is a nut job. A smart guy, a college president and all that, but he’s a certifiable nut job. D’Souza has a pathological need to prove himself “American” enough for the right wing, he obsesses to the point of irrationality concerning his own roots and has the means to impose his obsessions onto impressionable folks like you and millions of others. None of this make him right.

        Chill, my friend. Barack Obama is a lot more ordinary and boring than you (and D’Souza, and millions of other Americans both left and right) make him out to be. Good grief, your intellectual life must be seriously wanting to seize onto something as contrived as D’Souza’s movie and allow it to form your world view.

      • Cluster September 29, 2012 / 8:13 am

        Dennis, your post is exactly what I would expect from you. Irrationally judgemental, of a gentleman you don’t even know based solely on a documentary he put forth that you obviously disagree with. I haven’t seen 2016, but plan to, and have only listened to interviews with D’Souza who admits he only served up Obama in Obama’s own words and actions, and this is what people find objectionable.

        I am, and I would think many others would be, highly offended by your assumptioon that we need to be pandered to, and would accept someone like D’Souza only if he does pander to our sensitivities.

        Again Dennis, you sit in judgement of D’Souza and half the population of this country, and are too stupid to understand that. You are an insufferable idiot.

      • Retired Spook September 29, 2012 / 9:45 am

        Chill, my friend. Barack Obama is a lot more ordinary and boring than you (and D’Souza, and millions of other Americans both left and right) make him out to be.

        Dennis, an “ordinary and boring” individual who, by his own words, wants the working poor and welfare recipients to be a “majority coalition” for the purposes of expanding government. Do you understand what that means? He wants the working poor and welfare recipients to be THE MAJORITY IN THIS COUNTRY, so he and his fellow Democrats can buy their votes with other people’s money. As a professed Christian, how can you give countenance to that?

        I, and most Conservatives I know, want the middle class to be the majority in this country, and we want the working poor and welfare recipients to move up the economic ladder to where they aren’t poor and don’t need welfare any more. The only way that can happen is in an expanding economy, and Obama has overseen the worst recession recovery since at least WW2.

      • Amazona September 29, 2012 / 9:57 am

        Actually, casper’s coy little question was silly, and based on the presumption that to be anti-colonialist now, in this time, in this place, means to be in favor of colonializing.

        It is a very simple-minded paradigm and what’s more, reading casper’s posts as I have for so many years, I do not believe it was meant as anything more than his usual effort to be cute.

        No, the question involves far more intelligence than casper can bring to the table, and far less bias than you invest in your own posts.

        No one has even mentioned contemporaneous colonization or a desire for it or an intention in that direction. The entire context of the term, blatantly clear, is the use of the historical term.

        D’Souza has very clearly, very concisely, addressed the deep-seated bias of Obama against nations who once colonized other nations. Surely not even you two can pretend that his antipathy toward England is based on a distaste for current efforts at colonization. Surely not even you two can pretend that the RRL’s complaints about the U.S. are based on current efforts to colonize any nation.

        I am so sick of this incessant game playing, this nonstop determination to twist and distort and out-and-out lie, just to smear an Other that all of you have to twist and distort and out-and-out lie about to justify your irrational hatreds.

        It is a simple fact that Obama’s grandfather held a deep seated personal hatred for the British. It is a simple fact that his son, Barack Obama Sr., had a deep seated hatred for the nation as well, and a dislike for the United States, both of which were based not only on dislike of capitalism but on hatred for England for its prior colonialization and the belief that the US had also colonized other nations. It is made clear in Obama Jr.’s own books, starting with the admission that he carries dreams not OF his father, which would be his father’s dreams, but his own dreams that he got FROM his father. To identify the source of these dreams as being, at least in part, based on resentment of the fact that England had colonized parts of Africa including the part that later became Kenya is simply an accurate historical accounting of fact.

        I read D’Souza’s first book and found him quite generous to Obama. It was not a hit piece. But it did explain his antipathy toward England and gave a reasonable explanation of his Leftist inclinations. Perhaps if casper and dennis could be bothered to actually look into things instead of just dashing off coy little smirks about who would be pro-colonialist, they would appear at least marginally less foolish. I found nothing sinister in an accounting of a man whose formative years were all spent in atmospheres of resentment toward colonization, from Kenya to Indonesia to Hawaii, who then appears to be driven to some extent by dislike and resentment toward nations who colonized these places, or were accused of doing so.

        I am intrigued by dennis’s odd claim that living in India for four years qualifies him to assure us—ASSURE US—-that D’Souza is, to use his clinical term, a “nut case” and then offer the pseudo-psychological insight that this is because of a desire to be accepted as an American. What makes it so funny is that this is a response to D’Souza’s analysis of what drives Obama. dennis clearly lacks the insight to see that he is doing what he accuses D’Souza of doing.

        And, hearing D’Souza speak many times and reading his book, I have to say I find D’Souza to be far more balanced, credible, and reasonable than dennis.

      • dennis September 29, 2012 / 3:39 pm

        Amazona, I spent years of my childhood in India and can assure you D’Souza is nuts. I didn’t say those years qualified me for anything – it’s D’Souza’s methodology and claims that make that judgment inevitable. My experience is just an additional fact that gives me some living memory of the culture D’Souza comes from. Plus I’ve known educated Indian people in the U.S. all my adult life because of my background, so D’Souza’s milieu is familiar to me through the present. This gives me some basis for perceiving the strangeness of his views, even compared with those of his peers.

        D’Souza makes uncritical inferences about Obama that aren’t justified by known facts. The evidence doesn’t lead inevitably to his conclusions, instead his preconceived ideas determine the way he assembles his data and presents it to viewers. He travels abroad, interviews all sorts of people and goes through the motions a journalist might, without the objectivity or rigor of a real journalist or documentarian. He presents his material in a manner that appears to support his theories about Obama, but it only works with an audience as intellectually uncritical as Obama’s detractors. I watched him build his case for Obama’s anti-colonialism on the Glenn Beck show and it was a joke. To an objective viewer his assumptions are seen to be exactly that, unsupportable by anything other than conspiratorial threading together of circumstantial pieces of information. They do not hold up under logical scrutiny.

        Of course uncritical inferences are highly utilized on this blog – they are a kind of logical fallacy that often emerge where there are extremely prejudicial views, typically accompanied by a lack of intellectual rigor. I realize this conversation is mostly futile to pursue in this venue, at least with the true believers here. Short of some epiphany you will stand by your prejudices and uncritical inerences until your dying day.

        Meanwhile even knowledgeable people who abhor Obama and his policies hold their nose at D’Souza’s intellectual pretense, see http://tinyurl.com/8llvvd8

      • M. Noonan September 29, 2012 / 3:55 pm


        Seems to me that the knowledgeable people in your link are just mad at D’Souza for not hitting Obama on entirely different issues D’Souza never had any intention of addressing.

        As for whether or not D’Souza has it wrong – don’t just say he does, prove to us that his facts are wrong or show a logical chain in how D’Souza misunderstood the facts.

      • Amazona September 29, 2012 / 4:19 pm

        Mark, Liberals seem to take the position that Obama was just hatched at the age of 28 or so, with no history and therefore no influences that might have shaped him. This is particularly weird as he has told us so much, in his own words, that it doesn’t even involve much of an analytical leap to come to a theory if not a conclusion.

        But realistically, we know we are shaped by our pasts, by the experiences of our lifetimes. There is nothing nutty about that.

        And it is Obama’s fault that there are such large gaps in what we know about him, gaps that have to be bridged by applying what we know of how similar influences have affected other people.

        Obama has told us that he spent his high school years not just drunk and stoned, but active in the drug culture of his school and scolded by his mother for his poor academic performance. He has told us that he was in search of a racial identity. He has told us of his reverence for the father who abandoned him, and made it clear that he yearned for his father’s love and approval and respect. He has told us that he showed his disdain and contempt in ways like grinding cigarettes out on the carpets. He has told us that he actively sought out Marxists and radicals to hang out with. These are his words. Whether he wrote them or not, he spoke them when he read his books for audio books.

        A normal child in a normal family with a normal father and mother will still try to earn his father’s love and respect, but we are supposed to believe that a boy abandoned by his father, rejected by his father, would not try at least that hard, if not harder, to do the same thing? The man TOLD us that he has dreams he got FROM his father, but dennis whines that we should not look at what the dreams of his father were. Really? He did not title his book Dreams OF My Father, which would have indicated that he was writing about the dreams his father had had. No, he carefully worded it to tell us that he has dreams he got FROM his father, but when we look at the dreams OF his father we are told they are not relevant.

        No, dennis is just typically apologetic for anything Obama, and typically hostile to anything that might be considered to come from the Right.

        As I said, I actually read the book, and I did not find D’Souza hostile to Obama at all.

        But then I also read Obama’s books, so I know what he said, too.

      • dennis September 30, 2012 / 2:26 am

        Ama: “dennis whines that we should not look at what the dreams of his father were.”

        I’ve never read “Dreams of my Father” and have never made the least commentary on it. This accusation is fabricated out of whole cloth. As I have noted before, Ama conjures up imaginary realities and then weaves shamelessly contrived narratives to support them.

      • Amazona September 30, 2012 / 9:19 am

        No, you did not actually comment on the book “Dreams FROM My Father” and I did not say you did. Talk about conjuring up an imaginary reality and then shamelessly weaving a contrived narrative!

        What I SAID was that I actually read D’Souza’s first book about Obama, one of two upon which he based his movie, so I actually know what he said in it and know the references he made.

        I then went on to say that I had actually read Obama’s books, including “Dreams FROM My Father” .

        Just look at the inherent dishonesty in your petty snarl. What I said: “But then I also read Obama’s books, so I know what he said, too.”

        And from this you invented (what we call ‘lying’) an assertion that I claimed you had commented on it. “I’ve never read “Dreams of my Father” and have never made the least commentary on it. This accusation is fabricated out of whole cloth.”

        No, what was “fabricated out of whole cloth” is the lie that I made any accusation whatsoever.

        It is very funny to see someone like you accuse ANYONE else of being shameless.

        And BTW, there is no such book as “Dreams Of My Father” by Barack Obama. That is the point, which you, as usual, completely missed.

      • Amazona September 30, 2012 / 9:41 am

        “Ama: “dennis whines that we should not look at what the dreams of his father were.””

        Please note that I did not use the title of Obama’s book, which is by the way NOT titled “Dreams Of My Father”.

        Punctuation is the traffic cop of language, and you might find yourself less befuddled if you understood it. My comment has in it no capital letters, indicating a book title, nor does it mark the words “the dreams of his father” in quotation marks. Therefore, the statement is not about a book, but a comment —-it taken in context—–that to understand a man who has written a book about the dreams he got FROM his father, it is necessary to examine the dreams that father had.

        WHAT the dreams of his father WERE

        It’s really not all that complicated.

        If Obama had written a book titled “Cats Of My Father” you would know he was writing about his father’s cats. If he wrote a book called “Cats FROM My Father” you would know he referred to cats he had received from his father.

        So a man, an academic, DID understand this, and thought it of interest to take a look at the dreams Obama clearly stated he got FROM his father, to try to understand what had formed his world view, the world view of the President of the United States being a pretty important thing to understand.

        Mr. Hedges, and evidently you, find Mr. D’Souza to be without credibility, and furthermore you appear to have a dislike for him, given your snarls about him. So you do not agree with the theories he developed, which were, after all, based upon Obama’s own history and his own words and the history he openly admitted he carries with him in the dreams the got FROM his father. But your opinion is not only of no greater credibility or importance than D’Souza’s theories and opinions, it is far less, as it is so clearly rooted in your own bias against the man himself.

        I happen to think that we are the product of our histories, to a great extent, and I found D’Souza’s theories about Obama’s view of the world quite consistent with the dreams he admitted he got FROM his father. D’Souza speculated on the origins and nature of what formed Obama Jr. and what drives him now. I don’t understand why you find it so necessary to attack him, and me, personally because you don’t agree with him.

      • Amazona September 29, 2012 / 6:37 pm

        dennis, you refer to “.. the objectivity or rigor of a real journalist or documentarian. …”

        Can you by any chance name such a “real journalist or documentarian”?

      • dennis September 30, 2012 / 2:27 am

        Amazona, Chris Hedges is a real journalist. I’ve been reading his reportage for a long time. He’s done a lot more than journalism recently with books and other projects, but his reportage is sterling. As was Dhar Jamail’s, one of the few unembedded journalists during the Iraq War. Anthony Shadid, who died earlier this year near the Syrian border was a superb reporter; Dexter Filkins is another. Tyler Hicks is a great photojournalist as was Chris Hondros, killed last year in Libya. There are many others, known and much less well known, people who feel it’s their job to report the news and not make it themselves. These people typically put themselves at risk to bring the rest of us hard facts and some lose their lives doing it.

        Dinesh D’Souza is not a journalist, he’s a conservative political commentator and a public personality. He doesn’t report news but interprets events according to his personal eccentricities and the world view of a privileged class within India, transplanted to the U.S. where that same class has different hurdles to clear in order to gain popular respect. I’m not aware that Dinesh has ever put his life at risk to make the objective facts of any given situation accessible to the public. To confuse or conflate him in any respect with a journalist is to devalue the whole concept of journalism.

        Mark, the reason Hedges doesn’t care for D’Souza has everything to do with objective reality, not personalities. As for proving D’Souza wrong, any logical person knows better than to set about proving a negative. The burden is on D’Souza to prove he is right by objective facts, not by circumstantial, conspiratorial nonsense. That you would have it otherwise reflects poorly on your logical sensibilities.

      • tiredoflibbs September 29, 2012 / 8:16 pm

        First denny says: “I spent four years of my childhood in India and can say with assurance he is a nut job.”

        Then says: ” I didn’t say those years qualified me for anything”

        Well according to the definition of assurance…. THOSE FOUR YEARS in India gave you confidence in qualifying that statement about D’Souza in the first place.

        Really, denny. Do you even read what you write?

      • tiredoflibbs September 29, 2012 / 1:25 pm

        Denny: “I spent four years of my childhood in India and can say with assurance he is a nut job. A smart guy, a college president and all that, but he’s a certifiable nut job.”

        Wow Denny, spending 4 years as a child in India makes you an expert to JUDGE Dinesh D’Souza? I thought you did not pass judgement on people?

        We already know you have no interest in facts concerning obAMATEUR. Why should you? You already admitted that you will not criticize him nor will you hold him accountable for anything.

        You have pledged your undying loyalty to him – nothing will shake your faith on big government or those that push it.

        Typical and pathetic.

      • Amazona September 29, 2012 / 10:18 am

        dennis, even you have to admit that once we started to expand the scope of the federal government, the speed with which additional expansion has taken place has accelerated.

        We made it what?—-160 years?—-of following the Constitution, before we expanded the scope and power of the federal government under FDR. Years in which we astounded the world by vaulting over every country in the world to set new standards of economic prosperity, scientific achievement, and personal liberty. We encountered wholly predictable and unavoidable economic rises and downturns, we came through recessions and depressions, and we flourished.

        Then, suddenly, we had federal interference in the marketplace, and the depression this was supposed to cure ended up lasting a decade, a decade of misery. Then, suddenly, we had the government in the business of charity.

        We lunged from Social Security to the War on Poverty in 30 years, and it has been downhill ever since.

        And you seem to be claiming that there IS no slippery slope, that we can dabble in socialism without falling prey to its excesses. That argument was made when the Left was trying to push through their programs in the 1930s, and now, less than 100 years later, we have the federal government taking over private industry, taking over health care, involved in local public transportation, taking over education, feeding and housing a huge segment of our population, even telling us what kind of toilets we can flush and what kind of light bulbs we can use. We have the feds dictating how cars will be built, and interfering with private enterprise in areas such as oil and gas exploration and coal extraction. We have the feds meddling in energy production, shutting down domestic programs and using our tax money to prop up foreign energy industries, promising we will buy our oil from THEM when they produce it using our money. We have the feds dictating to banks what they will lend, and to whom, regardless of the fiscal recklessness of their demands.

        Once the bar is moved, it becomes movable, and it will be moved every time a new Lefty comes up with a new social engineering scheme. If we look at the expansion of the federal government’s size, scope and power in the last 75 years and extrapolate that growth for the next 75 years, at the same rate, then yes, we WILL be pretty much as far Left as it is possible to be. At this rate it will not take nearly that long, as this is the kind of erosion of Constitutional limits that gains momentum, with each new expansion of power coming faster, and being bigger, than the one before it.

      • Amazona September 29, 2012 / 10:36 am

        I forgot the federal rulings establishing the Thought Police—that is, dictating that the severity of a crime not depend on the actual crime committed but on the THOUGHTS behind the crime. This is another step onto another slippery slope.

      • dbschmidt September 28, 2012 / 8:39 pm

        Must really be pissed at the Democrats in general and the Liar-in-Chief then??? Hillery???, The entire Democratic side of the Government and it’s spokespeople??? No???

      • js02 September 27, 2012 / 11:27 pm

        hey, defect all ya want…it just proves you are nothing but a mental midget with a big hole if your face that makes noise

      • Amazona September 28, 2012 / 10:48 am

        “Cluster changed his handle after the 2008 election…”

        I don’t know about that, but your assertion proves that YOU have been here a long time, under different names.

        And the squealing about “cowardice” sounds awfully familiar. We have had a couple of psychos post here over the years who were quite addicted to calling people cowards.


    • Jack in Chicago September 28, 2012 / 12:12 am

      How many REPUBLICANS have called Mitt a liar during his career? Practically all of them. No matter who you support, they’ve bashed Romney…and NOT because he differs from them politically or they think they’d be a better President. They think he’s a dishonest man at his core.

      Gingrich, Santorum, McCain, Huckabee, Giuliani, Powell, Paul…the list goes on and on and on. You want to see a devastating video showing exactly why this two-faced shape-shifter shouldn’t be president. Here you go:


      • Cluster September 28, 2012 / 7:58 am

        So Jack, I am assuming this is an addmission on your part that Obama does lie, you are ok with it, and instead just choose to deflect the issue. Am I right on that?

      • Amazona September 28, 2012 / 11:01 am

        Remember, when Barry changes a position, HE is EVOLVING

    • Mike September 28, 2012 / 2:22 am

      Casper, he is not only a troll, but HE IS GETTING PAY by his King Ozero!!

    • Amazona September 28, 2012 / 11:15 am

      casper thank you so much for contributing, yet again, to the body of evidence of your miserable reading comprehension.

      Or your passion for smearing people based on half truths and lies.

      I’m heading out to Wyoming now, so don’t have time to go into detail, deconstructing what you so foolishly think is a list of Romney “lies”

      But here is one that just jumped out at me.

      The “lie” is supposedly “When Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts, “we didn’t just slow the rate of growth of our government, we actually cut it.” ” Well, the “fact” that allegedly proves this to be a lie is a statement that spending went up 5% a year under Romney.

      What you are either too stupid to understand or too dishonest to care about is that both are true.

      Let me give you a really really REALLY simple example, knowing how much trouble you have with facts.

      Let’s say that the rate of growth for a company has been 10% a year. Let’s say the this rate of growth went down to 5% a year. (Clearly a company during the Obama administration.)

      Anyway, are you following me so far?

      OK—-was 10, is now 5. Rate of growth CUT. Decreased, diminished, reduced, CUT, by a whole 5%.

      Now, if you have managed to keep up, the rate of growth is still going up 5% a year.

      This is typical of the kind of semantic gamesmanship your sources love to play, knowing that the people who go to them are either too stupid to see through the games or too biased to care, as they are not looking for the truth but only for snot nuggets they can post on conservative blogs.

  2. casper September 27, 2012 / 9:28 pm

    Of course many of Romney’s lies have been repeated on this blog.

    • Amazona September 28, 2012 / 11:01 am

      Really? Do go on.

  3. dbschmidt September 27, 2012 / 10:38 pm

    Well, since the gang is all having a circle-jerk moment tee-hee’ing their imaginary list on the previous post–I thought I would repost this entry from the previous with an honest question. Can anyone name anything similar that “the One we have been waiting for” has done that is similar? No “Obama gots me a phone” or “Obama stash” entries please.

    7 Incredible Personal Stories About Mitt Romney That You May Not Know
    by John Hawkins


    • James September 27, 2012 / 10:51 pm

      yes! this is so relevant…I elect my President on what kind acts he has committed in his life!

      db, I thought you and all other conservatives vote for someone based not on emotion, or feelings…but based on facts and ideology?? Isn’t that Amazona’s whole meme??

      • Amazona September 28, 2012 / 11:00 am

        Actually, James we have no idea of WHAT criteria you base your voting decisions on. Based on your recent rants, you apparently voted for Obama because you think he shares your vision for America and what it SHOULD be, how it should be “fundamentally transformed”.

        And this is what we have been saying all along—-that Obama’s vision for this nation is really very much like yours.

        If that is not the case, then your decision must have been made on things like skin color or just simple loathing of the opposition.

        And do be sure to jump right in and hammer those who whine about Mitt being so UNLIKABLE, now that you have dismissed kind acts as relevant.

      • James September 28, 2012 / 11:06 am

        I dont think Mitt is unlikeable. He seems like a nice family guy with a great family who loves him and vice versa.

        I don’t plan on voting for him because I disagree with his ideology and policies. Period.

        I didn’t vote for Obama, or Clinton because they were white or black, but because I agree with their positions on almost everything.

      • Amazona September 28, 2012 / 11:35 am

        James, that is what I said: ..you apparently voted for Obama because you think he shares your vision for America and what it SHOULD be, how it should be “fundamentally transformed”.

        As for your coy effort at a gotcha— “..I thought you and all other conservatives vote for someone based not on emotion, or feelings…but based on facts and ideology?? Isn’t that Amazona’s whole meme??” —yeah, the decision is based on ideology, which is why I say I don’t want to date Romney, I just want to hire him.

        But when you bleating Lefties start fretting over how “unlikable” he is and how “cold” he seems and how distant you think he is from people less wealthy than he is, blahblahblahblahblah, it is appropriate to balance that with some facts about his warmth and generosity.

        And, contrary to the Leftist “meme” during the Clinton years, character DOES matter.

      • dbschmidt September 28, 2012 / 8:28 pm


        With all of the comments about how “wooden” or other like descriptive terms about Romney–I thought I would post this article that helps display he is a real person. Nevertheless, the shallow minions roll in but miss the question asked.

        Can anyone name anything similar that “the One we have been waiting for” has done that is similar? and you can pretty much not even try to claim wonderful things about the Annenburg Challenge (with his friend he had never met Ayers) or, IIRC, Hyde Park where he was an agitator that left it and the people off worse than he found it. Both of those helped line his pockets but never really helped the people he claimed to.

        I vote on proven results of the candidate and my self-interest. Currently, that is to save the America I grew up in from Progressives while returning to the Constitutional model–I do not believe Romney is that person but he is a hell of a lot better than our current anti-colonialist, narcissist in thief. He should Thank Romney for saving the ice cream shop where a plague now stands as the first place Obama kissed Queen Mooch.

        Go ahead and answer the question I posed rather than deflect–if you think you can.

  4. dbschmidt September 27, 2012 / 10:40 pm

    Dave, Only the TAX portion is Constitutional–nothing else at this point as it can not be contested until after it effects someone in 2014 (aside from the already rising rates, etc.)

    • James September 27, 2012 / 10:48 pm


      are you ignorant on purpose? what are you talking about?

      the Mandate is the only part of the law that was challenged even though it has yet to take effect…now you claim that the rest of the law, as soon as it affects someone will be challenged?

      please do tell, what part of the law will be challenged other than the mandate?

      its beyond ridiculous how entrenched you are in this imaginary world where the law is unconstitutional…

      • Amazona September 28, 2012 / 10:56 am

        “…please do tell, what part of the law will be challenged other than the mandate? ”

        The part of the law that expands the scope of the federal government well beyond the 17 enumerated duties and therefore violates the 10th Amendment.

        While a certain amount of weaseling could, and evidently DID, slide the penalty for not entering into a private contract into becoming a “tax” , and taxation is allowed in the Constitution, there is no mention of charity or health care in the enumerated duties, and therefore this will be challenged.

        If the entire act is not repealed, of course.

        But those of us who followed the Court ruling and read it understand that it is quite specific and quite limited to ONLY the penalty/tax argument.

  5. Cluster September 27, 2012 / 10:46 pm

    It must be a boring night in Massachusetts.

    • James September 27, 2012 / 10:49 pm


      debating you is like debating a mentally challenged person. no matter what facts you are presented with, you still repeat the same lie over and over again…

      tell us about that 23 million unemployed number again? or maybe the imaginary 8000 dollars income has fallen in 4 years? Maybe, just maybe you will tell us that runaway inflation is responsible for rising grocery prices…..

      • James September 27, 2012 / 10:59 pm

        Nowhere in that link does it state, or confirm your statement that people have lost 8000 compared to 4 years ago.

        In fact, high earners and seniors both had RISING incomes…

      • js02 September 27, 2012 / 11:02 pm

        The nominal unemployment rate is still high, but the real jaw-dropping fact is the number of working-age Americans who are not working. Today that is 100,000,000 Americans out of a total population of about 310,000,000. Demographically, about 80,000,000 Americans are minors and about 40,000,000 are age 65 or older. That leaves approximately 190,000,000 Americans who are adults of working age. About half of those do not have a full-time job.

        The situation, according to the very statistics of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, show an increasingly dismal picture, when the number of people who could be working but are not is counted. In April 2011, the number listed in those statistics as “unemployed” was 13.8 million. That number actually dropped in February 2012 to 12.8 million, then to 12.7 million in March and 12.5 million in April. The unemployment rate over those four months also declined: 9.0 percent in April 2011, 8.3 percent in February 2012, 8.2 percent in March 2012, and 8.1 percent in April 2012.

        When those “Not in the labor force” are adding to those “Unemployed,” then those who are not working is growing: 99.5 million in April 2011, 100.3 million in February 2012, 100.5 million in March 2012, and 100.9 million in April 2012. When counting both those “Not in the labor force” (though in the age in which most Americans work) and “Unemployed” as a single group, then those who are not working, but are in the age group in which Americans normally work, has remained steady and high: 41.6 percent in April 2011, 41.5 percent in February 2012, 41.5 percent in March 2012, and 41.6 percent in April 2012.

        Polls shows that Americans are feeling the pinch of hard economic times and of adult children forced to live in their parent’s basements to keep body and soul together. The value of homes continues to remain very low, and homes have historically been the primary investment of most American families. Student loans these days are often not repaid for decades after students graduate from college. All of this strongly suggests that large numbers of Americans want and need more income and that they are looking for jobs. And yet the 42 percent of Americans who are of working age are not working. Despite trillions of dollars spent on “shovel-ready” jobs, the jobs are conspicuous by their absence. (credit)

      • Cluster September 27, 2012 / 11:03 pm


        Do you care to address any of the lies Obama has told? And here’s some excerpts from article genius:

        Big losers: people in their prime earning years. All age groups between 25 and 64 suffered income drops in 2011. Households headed by 45- to-54-year-olds — when earnings typically peak — have seen a 13.4% decline in median earnings over a decade, a drop of nearly $10,000 a year.

        Household income in 2011 was down 4.1% from 2009, when President Obama took office. It was 4.7% lower than in 2008, George W. Bush’s last year in office, and 6.7% lower than in 2001, Bush’s first year as president.

      • James September 27, 2012 / 11:11 pm

        You list Obama’s supposed lies, and I will address them point for point.

        as far as your article goes. you once again ignore the high earners and the retired. you ONLY mention and concentrate on the parts you want, and ignore others. That’s typical conservatives for you.

        That’s why you will lose on november 6th, thats why you will not only be defeated, but you will be tossed in the dustbin of history and no compromise will be made with your ilk.

  6. js02 September 27, 2012 / 10:52 pm


    The SCOTUS have made errors in the past, this one is no different. The last greatest error was Roe v Wade.
    The biggest problem with the SCOTUS calling this a tax is that the actual law didn’t make it a tax, in addition to that, the supreme court failed to apply the constitution because when they ruled it a tax (and it isn’t declared to be a tax under the law), and that it is not apportioned. Art 1, Sect 9 of the Constitution forbids congress from enacting any tax unless it is portioned to the census or enumerated in an amendment like the income tax. This is backed under the provisions in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, which provides that “all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
    A “Uniform” tax would require that all Citizens pay the tax, not only those who cannot pay for health insurance. So the tax is also illegal.

    • James September 27, 2012 / 11:01 pm

      Oh right, because JS02 with the silly dog avatar knows better than the constitution! off course! I should have known.

      I wonder why Justice Roberts didn’t call you for advice Js before he made his decision! duh!

      Obviously, you’ve never heard of selective taxation to influence behavior…

      Hey, maybe you should send your number to the SCOTUS, they might just call you to tap into your infinite source of constitutional knowledge.

      • js02 September 27, 2012 / 11:03 pm

        why piss and moan about my pup when your head is hidding up your duff…go figure

      • James September 27, 2012 / 11:05 pm

        so do you know better than the Supreme Court? Just answer the question

      • js02 September 27, 2012 / 11:07 pm

        When you can prove me wrong, you might have a right to open the fat hole you use to make noise james…till then its an obscene problem you really should sew up…

      • James September 27, 2012 / 11:13 pm

        hey js02,

        the SCOTUS already proved you wrong and proved me right. deal with it sport. start living in reality…

      • js02 September 27, 2012 / 11:25 pm

        more back yard BS james

        show me exactly where SCOTUS covered the constitutionality of such a tax…under Art 1, sections 8 and 9…

        go for it, prove that you are not a mental midget…till them, its about all you have shown us…

        go for it mental midget…if you can find it…

  7. Cluster September 27, 2012 / 10:58 pm

    James posts are indicative of the typical Obama voter – uninformed, irrational, over emotional, and quick to hatred.

    • James September 27, 2012 / 11:02 pm

      right, that’s why your buddy db is posting Mitt’s emotional top 7 achievements!

      have fun losing on November 6th. but wait, you think you’re candidate is up 5% because ALL the polls are incorrect and there is no way you’re being an idiot.

      • js02 September 27, 2012 / 11:04 pm

        Why do you always run about playing the mental midget James?

      • Cluster September 27, 2012 / 11:05 pm

        James, you are one of the most easily toyed with liberals on this site. I thank you for that.

      • James September 27, 2012 / 11:07 pm

        just like you’re one of the most easily made fun of conservatives anywhere. I love you for that.

        you and neocon are my comic relief on a daily basis.

        have fun in “Phoemix”……

      • Cluster September 27, 2012 / 11:10 pm

        You copy me on many occasion James, you should try and be more original. And Phoenix is a great town. Great Hispanic culture that I enjoy.

      • js02 September 27, 2012 / 11:26 pm

        he is brain dead cluster…he doesnt have what it takes to be original

      • dbschmidt September 28, 2012 / 8:34 pm

        I will enjoy your downfall to screaming about lawsuits after the polls are in on the 7th. I am ready in case our current Moron-in-Chief survives the count but wondered if you are when we start to take back this country and you have to leave Mommie’s basement.

  8. Cluster September 27, 2012 / 11:13 pm

    James, you say you come here for comic relief, but you quickly devolve into name calling and angry outbursts. It sure doesn’t seem like you’re having much fun.

    • Cluster September 28, 2012 / 8:08 am

      The last paragraph from your article Watson:

      In some cases, the Ohio tea party researchers have correctly identified voters who have died or moved, speeding up the official updating of registration files. They also found voters registered at a Cincinnati trailer park that no longer exists.

      It’s a process son, to ensure the integrity of electing the most powerful position in the world, and they are doing a good job. If that means some people need to correct their address’s, or get an ID, well then that seems like a pretty simple task to have the privilege to vote.

    • js02 September 28, 2012 / 8:42 am

      A lot of BS there redux…

      Lost info…omission…whatever…its author…or the so called professional journalist who wrote it…bears the blame for this articles bias. It’s almost as if he know it would stoke the hatred against the GOP when it was published more because of what he failed to put into it, which makes him and his publisher liars and cheats, leaving the public misinformed for a political agenda.
      The real story here is that 2 northwestern Ohio’s Wood County show 109 registered voters for every 100 eligible, while in Lawrence County along the Ohio River it’s a mere 104 registered per 100 eligible. Another 31 counties report over 90 percent voter registration, which is a good 20 percent higher than the national average. These facts, which are part and parcel to any story about the OH issue, should be detailed for everyone to know by every publicist/author who brings people’s attention to it. So tell us, why don’t they tell the whole truth, but instead use undue influence through omission to manipulate their readers to oppose something the OH State Atty’s office is investigating before the election…??…

    • Amazona September 29, 2012 / 10:24 am

      the wattle seems quite distressed that the TEA Party’s “true colors” include the desire to have an honest and untainted voting process. Oooooh, how sinister!!!

      Advocating a system in which only qualified people can vote!!!!! No wonder he is so fretful.

  9. Retired Spook September 28, 2012 / 10:33 am

    The point has frequently been made that no U.S. president has been re-elected with unemployment over 7.2% since FDR. Hand in hand with unemployment, and something that isn’t mentioned very often, is the fact that the country under Obama’s leadership has had the worst GDP growth of any U.S. president since WW2.

  10. dennis September 28, 2012 / 12:13 pm

    That this thread is titled to denigrate the lies and stupidity of the other side (in this case President Obama and liberals) demonstrates the unproductive and dysfunctional thinking of the extreme right. It also begs the questions of who really is truthful or honest in this conversation. And as for stupidity, is there anything to envy or admire in those whose entire worldview is based on false premises and stereotypes?

    Amazona said on the prior thread: “those of us who have fought the good fight to slow, if not completely stop, the encroachment of radical Leftism on our Constitutional form of government are quite proud of it.”

    There is no “radical Leftism” encroaching on our form of government. That is a bogeyman as baseless and nonexistent as the man in Clint Eastwood’s chair at the RNC. And where was all this patriotic fervor when the so-called Patriot Act was being passed, when habeas corpus was being trashed, when warrantless wiretapping was sprung on the American people, when unprecedented executive powers were being amassed by the White House in the prior presidential administration, when two unfunded wars were being waged, one of them based completely on falsehoods? There isn’t enough time or space to catalogue all their Constitutional violations and offenses against common sense.

    Admittedly Obama has done next to nothing to reverse these trends (except winding down the two official wars), but Ama’s Constitutional devotion doesn’t ring true to those of us who remember and were fighting the good fight to stop the Bush administration’s attacks on “our Constitutional form of government” back then.
    “What you people absolutely do not get is that this is not a personality contest, this is not a petty ego struggle to see who ‘wins’, this is a very serious, very real, battle between two opposing ideologies.”

    Maybe, but the sides are not as Ama says they are. For most here the ideological battle has been absurdly miscast, as Obama himself has been represented as a communist or socialist, when in fact he is as much a capitalist and a champion of Wall Street and corporate interests as his predecessor was. Some of us hoped there might be more difference, but there isn’t much daylight between them, using left vs. right as a measuring stick. The differences are of degree much more than kind. Both of them increased the deficit, although Bush wildly accelerated big government growth whereas Obama has put the brakes on it.

    There aren’t many ways to interpret all the absurd slanders against President Obama from the right (socialist, un-American, Muslim, Kenyan, danger to the republic, traitor, incompetent, etc) except as either personality slurs or plain bigotry. They have no basis in objective reality. Few pause to consider where our economy and world standing might be now had the Republican candidate and his woefully underqualified running mate been handed the disaster Obama inherited after the last election. That (unknowable, of course, but certainly could be the subject of some qualified conjecture) would be a far more telling comparison than the present ad nauseum complaints about where we are now vs. where people wish we were. This is the narrowest of all possible thinking, and seems to be the basis of the Romney campaign’s psychology. The fact is, nobody was going to dig us out of the hole Bush dug us into, compounded by an international economic crisis and historical events abroad, in just one presidential term.

    “Your abject ignorance of what is really at stake never fails to come through.”

    Whose ignorance is on display here? The real ideological battle to watch is between traditional Conservatism and the virus that is now overtaking the GOP. Traditional Conservatism and Liberalism had constructive tension between them, they each helped keep the other in balance and in the best of times were congenial toward each other. That time is gone. Traditional Conservatives have been nearly expunged from the House of Representatives by the Tea Party, and if Mitt Romney loses in the coming election it will be mainly because moderate Americans are alarmed by the extremism that has taken over the Republican party, that will not even allow Mitt Romney to be his authentic, competent self.

    Of course there are the Congressional races as well, and the American people, to their credit, are waking up to the reality of who actually has been causing the gridlock and dysfunction on Capitol Hill. More and more are beginning to see what is at stake if the radicals win control of the Republican party. The primary casualty, of course, will be any kind of civilized political process in America for the foreseeable future. And that just could be the death knell for America’s historical role as a leader among nations.

    • Amazona September 29, 2012 / 10:42 am

      dennis, your overwrought screed reminds me of the decisions made when looking at a decrepit house—-is it worth trying to fix, or should we just tear it down?

      Your rant is so thoroughly fact-deficient, so utterly ridiculous on all fronts, that there is no reason to even try to address it point by point. The only parts left would be the punctuation.

      If it were a house, I’d tear it down. As it is only a shrill whine about BOOOSH!!! , et al, combined with a litany of foolish lies, it’s just worth passing by.

  11. casper September 28, 2012 / 10:53 pm

    dbschmidt September 28, 2012 at 8:54 pm #

    Dennis & Dave,

    “Obama is an anti-colonialist ”

    Why would we want someone that’s pro-colonialist?

Comments are closed.