Who do you trust? --- REALLY, Mr. President?

Gonzo Rodeo said:

Tell yourself whatever you have to so you can sleep at night.

You voted for an ignorant man, in your own words. The fact that he changes his mind is a reflection of his growth, to you. But you refuse to see the lies when they aren't convenient to your beliefs. HE SAID IT WASN'T A TAX. THEN SAID IT WAS A TAX. AND THEN SAID IT WASN'T A TAX AGAIN!!!!!

"Seriously, baby, I'll president you so good"

Click to expand...

Don't you understand? She already explained that. Lying for political gamesmanship is OK. In fact it is the preferred method of all DEM politics.

obvious Child said:

Generally, it's a bad idea to assume a person voted for a certain candidate or not. It's worse when that person has stated on record that they voted for another candidate.



Oops. When people do what you do, essentially assume whatever they want, all their credibility goes out the window.

Click to expand...

I apologize for my assumption. With how badly Obama has done in his first term, I can't imagine someone supporting him now who didn't earlier. Except for my mother. But she's voted for the loser in every election since Mondale.

Actually I said that he switched it to save a landmark law. That is massively different from switching to gather a few more votes. You seem unaware of the difference between a legal argument to save a law and pandering to get a few more votes.

Click to expand...

You're right. I see no distinction between lying to get what you want... and lying to get what you want.

The fact that he said "it's not a tax," then sent his man to argue that it's a tax (because it is a tax), and then returned to his stance that it's not a tax, is a triple whammy. That you can't see the lie speaks volumes.

Gonzo Rodeo said:

I apologize for my assumption. With how badly Obama has done in his first term, I can't imagine someone supporting him now who didn't earlier. Except for my mother. But she's voted for the loser in every election since Mondale.

Click to expand...

If I was in a state that mattered, I'd be voting Obama purely against Ryan's budget plan. I guess that's not really support though.

You're right. I see no distinction between lying to get what you want... and lying to get what you want.

Click to expand...

How were they lying? Lying implies that the liar is attempting to cast something they know to be false as something true. You have tapes showing that the Obama Administration knew it was a tax from the beginning similar to Nixon's Watergate? I never called Bush a liar on Iraq because I never had proof he himself knew the info was bogus. The intel as bat**** wrong, but that does not make Bush a liar.

Romney is lying when he argues that cuts will boost the economy because in private when he doesn't think anyone is recording (but when they are) he says that cuts will slow the economy. That is a lie.

The fact that he said "it's not a tax," then sent his man to argue that it's a tax (because it is a tax), and then returned to his stance that it's not a tax, is a triple whammy. That you can't see the lie speaks volumes.

Click to expand...

You seem to be unaware of what "lie" means.

obvious Child said:

You seem to be unaware of what "lie" means.

Click to expand...

And you seem to be unaware of this thing called "the truth."

The truth is that Obama set it up as a tax while claiming it was not a tax. Then his argument for the Supreme Court is that it IS a tax. But after, he returned to calling it not a tax.

For example: I think you're really pretty. Now that we've slept together and you're getting clingy, I'm going to revise my earlier position and say you're ugly. And a week later, I'm horny again so you're pretty again.

See?

Rokkitsci said:

You, Mr. President, are a failure of the highest magnitude.

Click to expand...

If you thought the last 4 years were a failure, wait for the next 4 years under Obama.

If you're a Pub, you can't lose in this election. If Obama is elected, he'll be the owner of the worst 8 year stretch of a US economy in 75-80 years. 2016 will be a Red landslide as will the next mid terms.

Compare this turnaround to Reagan's? Please. Reagan in 4 years turned the nation around & didn't do it by having people come off the UE rolls into part time jobs. Five trillion plus in new debt...speaking of which, if it weren't for the stimulus the GDP would have been flat. Imagine that for a moment....

Obama gets nothing done the next 4 years except a USSC seat or 2. The lousy economy, BenghaziGate, another new war in the M.E. b/c he backed the wrong regimes etc will have him bogged down b/c of his complete lack of effective governing...he'll steer his party so far into the ditch, ala Carter, the Cons will rule for a generation again.

When I think of Hope and Change now, I think of the picture of the young black man that was being walked to a cop car for looting in NYC this week......Someone should ask him if he's better off now than he was 4 years ago.

What a failure this administration has been

Zariak said:

My view is that Velvet Elvis is making ridiculous and untrue generalizations about Obama. Which is what I just said. I answered your question.

Click to expand...

Actually, it would be less of a personal attack (ironic, isn't it) if you would have used facts and logic to debunk what I said.

So do you have any facts and logic? Let's see:

There's overwhelming evidence of Obama, in speeches, about how he intends to bleed "the rich" with excessive taxation in the name of "fair share." In fact, there's very little evidence of him actually speaking favorably about "the rich." To me that's abandoning a group of Americans. Instead of whining about it, prove me wrong.

As far as Israel, has he ever addressed the incessant rockets fired into Israel from Hezbollah? Why did he turn down private meetings with Netanyahu, in exchange for flying off to fund raisers in Vegas? Obama's pro-Israel words are overshadowed by his actions, that show otherwise. Instead of whining about it, prove me wrong.

I already provided a link about the coal industry. Betcha you didn't even click on it, 'cause you were too busy whining to other people, about my words.

Gonzo Rodeo said:

And you seem to be unaware of this thing called "the truth."

Click to expand...

You seem to be operating under the notion that your opinion = the truth.

The truth is that Obama set it up as a tax while claiming it was not a tax. Then his argument for the Supreme Court is that it IS a tax. But after, he returned to calling it not a tax.

Click to expand...

Actually The Democrats set it up in a somewhat ambiguous way, likely predicting that it would go to the SCOTUS. They essentially built in a backdoor for defense at the same time writing in a way that could reasonably be called not a tax. This is somewhat devious. But that does not mean they did not believe it was a tax. They merely built a backdoor in for legal defense. Furthermore, the way it is written is quite different from the way they wrote the tax on tanning beds. Furthermore, 4 out of the 5 SCJs did agree it's not a tax. Seems that the most Conservative of the Court disagree with you.

For example: I think you're really pretty. Now that we've slept together and you're getting clingy, I'm going to revise my earlier position and say you're ugly. And a week later, I'm horny again so you're pretty again.

See?

Click to expand...

Your analogies are terrible.

obvious Child said:

They essentially built in a backdoor for defense at the same time writing in a way that could reasonably be called not a tax. This is somewhat devious.

Click to expand...

I couldn't agree with you more.

But that does not mean they did not believe it was a tax.

Click to expand...

Again, you're right! All the while Obama was claiming with his own mouth, "This is not a tax!".... they totally meant it as a tax! And then told everyone after the decision that it's not a tax! How can you not call this double-speak, out of both sides of their mouths?!?

Your analogies are terrible.

Click to expand...

I thought it outlined quite nicely how the Democrats are playing you like a violin.

Gonzo Rodeo said:

I couldn't agree with you more.

Click to expand...

That still doesn't mean they believed it was a tax. Good estate and trust planning puts in backdoors like this all the time.

Again, you're right! All the while Obama was claiming with his own mouth, "This is not a tax!".... they totally meant it as a tax! And then told everyone after the decision that it's not a tax! How can you not call this double-speak, out of both sides of their mouths?!?

Click to expand...

Simple. They didn't believe it was a tax. Same way that Bush didn't think he was lying about Iraqi WMD intel. Furthermore, Obama is saying the same thing that Alito, Scalia and Thomas are saying. It's not a tax. Are you saying they are wrong too?

I thought it outlined quite nicely how the Democrats are playing you like a violin.

Click to expand...

Yeah, so much so I'm not voting for them.

Try again and with less fail.

obvious Child said:

That still doesn't mean they believed it was a tax. Good estate and trust planning puts in backdoors like this all the time.
.....
Simple. They didn't believe it was a tax. Same way that Bush didn't think he was lying about Iraqi WMD intel. Furthermore, Obama is saying the same thing that Alito, Scalia and Thomas are saying. It's not a tax. Are you saying they are wrong too?

Click to expand...

You just said it doesn't mean they don't believe it was a tax, i.e. that that do believe it is a tax. I know, it's really confusing. One might even venture that the entire scenario is intentionally confusing, for this very reason.

It was written citing the Commerce Clause as the constitutional justification. The Commerce Clause. While the national debate raged on whether or not the Commerce Clause has the power to enact an individual mandate (it does not, by the way), Obama was crying from the rooftops that THIS IS NOT A TAX.

Just to recap, really quickly.... Commerce Clause, not a tax.

...then why did Obama send Donald Verrilli to the Supreme Court to argue that THIS IS A TAX?!?

The inescapable fact that you must face, and subsequently concede this portion of the debate on, is that Obama further recanted that this is a tax and takes the official position, when all is said and done, that this is not a tax! By Obama's own words, there is no legal justification for the bill because it is not a tax!

The Justices who dissented agree - this bill is not a tax. That's because it cited the Commerce Clause for its justification... and on those grounds, the bill is unconstitutional. And in your own words, Obama agrees with them!

I'm flabbergasted that you still refuse to see the double-speak. That is the true fail, here.

Gonzo Rodeo said:

You just said it doesn't mean they don't believe it was a tax, i.e. that that do believe it is a tax. I know, it's really confusing. One might even venture that the entire scenario is intentionally confusing, for this very reason.

Click to expand...

Is reading comprehension simply not taught these days?

I wrote that they believed it was not a tax but foresaw that the ACA could go to the SOCTUS and they wrote in a backdoor to make it Constitutional in the event that they didn't have any other better legal arguments. That does not mean they ever believed it was actually a tax.

You need to learn what the word "lie" means because right now you are arguing that anyone who says anything you don't like has lied.

then why did Obama send Donald Verrilli to the Supreme Court to argue that THIS IS A TAX?!?

Click to expand...

Because they needed a legal defense. Furthermore, you are obviously ignoring that they previously did argue it under the Commerce Clause. If they believed it was a tax from the start. why didn't they start there before they even got to an appeal to get to the Supreme Court?

The inescapable fact that you must face, and subsequently concede this portion of the debate on, is that Obama further recanted that this is a tax and takes the official position, when all is said and done, that this is not a tax! By Obama's own words, there is no legal justification for the bill because it is not a tax!

Click to expand...

Where did I ever argue that Obama never admitted it was a tax? I'm arguing that he didn't lie. Did he believe it wasn't a tax during the legislation? Doubtful considering how his administration defended it in the lower courts. You seem to be changing your arguments here, no longer are you arguing he lied (probably because you know you can't defend it). I don't disagree that Obama has flipped on this. You seem to be arguing now with yourself.

I'm flabbergasted that you still refuse to see the double-speak. That is the true fail, here.

Click to expand...

Come again?

I merely pointed out that the bill was written with a legal backdoor. I also pointed out that Obama is likely not lying. You are harping on another issue entirely, one that I was never arguing against.

If you wish to discuss something with me, discuss something I actually said. Not your own fabrication.

obvious Child said:

Is reading comprehension simply not taught these days?

Click to expand...

I'm starting to wonder.

Where did I ever argue that Obama never admitted it was a tax? I'm arguing that he didn't lie. Did he believe it wasn't a tax during the legislation? Doubtful considering how his administration defended it in the lower courts. You seem to be changing your arguments here, no longer are you arguing he lied (probably because you know you can't defend it). I don't disagree that Obama has flipped on this. You seem to be arguing now with yourself.

Click to expand...

He said it wasn't a tax. The Supreme Court would not uphold it unless it was a tax, so the administration argued that it is, indeed, a tax. And then, after the decision, they said it was not a tax again.

So, it's only a tax when it's politically expedient, i.e. when the supreme court is ruling on its constitutionality.

It's not a tax when sold to the American People, and it's not a tax after being foisted on the American People... but it's only legal if it's a tax.

Again, to recap: The ACA is ONLY constitutional if considered a tax. Obama says it is not a tax. Therefore, Obama is LYING to you when he tells you it's not a tax, because it IS a tax. Further, if he truly believes it's "not a tax," then he had his man LIE to the USSC so it would be considered Constitutional. They told the lower courts that it wasn't a tax, but then told a higher court that it was.

Let me try to explain this to you in another way. Say your boss wants you to come in on Sunday for a few hours. You ask him if it's mandatory and if you will be paid for it. He says no, it's voluntary and there will be no extra pay. You decline, so then he makes the event mandatory. You show up for the extra shift on Sunday. You get your paycheck on Monday morning, and there is no extra pay for the Sunday shift. You boss tells you that your shift was voluntary.

Did he lie to you?

Gonzo Rodeo said:

I'm starting to wonder.



He said it wasn't a tax. The Supreme Court would not uphold it unless it was a tax, so the administration argued that it is, indeed, a tax. And then, after the decision, they said it was not a tax again.

So, it's only a tax when it's politically expedient, i.e. when the supreme court is ruling on its constitutionality.

It's not a tax when sold to the American People, and it's not a tax after being foisted on the American People... but it's only legal if it's a tax.

Again, to recap: The ACA is ONLY constitutional if considered a tax. Obama says it is not a tax. Therefore, Obama is LYING to you when he tells you it's not a tax, because it IS a tax. Further, if he truly believes it's "not a tax," then he had his man LIE to the USSC so it would be considered Constitutional. They told the lower courts that it wasn't a tax, but then told a higher court that it was.

Let me try to explain this to you in another way. Say your boss wants you to come in on Sunday for a few hours. You ask him if it's mandatory and if you will be paid for it. He says no, it's voluntary and there will be no extra pay. You decline, so then he makes the event mandatory. You show up for the extra shift on Sunday. You get your paycheck on Monday morning, and there is no extra pay for the Sunday shift. You boss tells you that your shift was voluntary.

Did he lie to you?

Click to expand...

careful the thought police are going to get you.