I just wanted to start a thread that kept track of Obama's biggest lies. By lies, I mean things he promised the MoveOn.org wing of the Democratic Party to get their support, only to throw them under the bus after he beat Clinton.

I'm not one to sugar coat the lies by labeling them "flip flops". That's just more doublespeak to soften what he really did, which was lie to his supporters to get their support in the primaries, only to change what he told them after they voted for him.

Let's start with...

Bringing troops home from Iraq immediately
FISA bill
No-precondition talks with Iran, N. Korea, Cuba, Syria
Welfare reform
Social Security payroll tax
Public funding of campaigns

Feel free to add others I may have overlooked...

I will go out on a limb and predict the ONLY area where he isn't going to back track is on offshore drilling and funding of alternative energy. That's because his boyz at Perseus and George Soros are too heavily invested with their venture cap to throw them under the bus.

Everything else will be on the table. You name it, Barry O. is going to change what he says about it. The only thing new about this type of politics is Barry O. is the first guy to have the audacity to do the things he does and then claim he's the only one who's not doing it.

I'll also predict that unless he picks Clinton for VP, he has no chance of winning in November. Liberals are going to find it much easier to cross over and vote for McCain, especially Hillary supporters. Obama can try to move to the center as much as he wants. There is no way moderates are going to fall for it. They're the most skeptical already. That's why they're moderates -they don't trust either side. They'll never side with somebody who comes across as trying to con them.

I dunno Jamie, I have a feeling Obama will succumb to voter pressure and reverse his stand on drilling. I have another thread going on it. Right now, according to Zogby, 74% of voters want the U.S. to start drilling. That's a big number in favor.

Oil closed at $145 today. Analysts predictions was that oil would close at $150 by July 4. That wasn't far off. The percentage of voters in favor of drilling is bound to rise as the cost of oil/gas rises higher. The pressure on Congress and Obama will increase as a result. In fact, scandals aside, and depending on the price of oil, Obama's stand to not drill may be the sole issue that costs him the election in November.

Um.....they ALL "flip-flop" and "lie" they ALL tell.... right into the camera that's going to give them the 30 second sound bite....the lie that fires you up to vote....beyond that?

Do any of you really think they give a darn?

Seriously, ATS is a smart segment of the population on the whole....

Are there REALLY people on ATS that think that Obama OR McCain really mean what they say???? To me? That would be more amazing then a "UFO" I saw and photographed myself!

Obama's biggest lies. With a question mark. Does that mean you are asking for more, with a question mark, or does that mean you will post anything without proof by adding a question mark?

I have a couple of questions of my own.

Is it wrong to change your position after learning new information?

Is it wrong to change your position based on polls because maybe you were wrong and that your new position is what the majority of the people want?

Name one candidate that hasn't changed their position to try to gain support.

OK that last one is not a question, so I left off the question mark.

[edit on 7/4/2008 by Hal9000]

Originally posted by LateApexer313
Are there REALLY people on ATS that think that Obama OR McCain really mean what they say????

There are a lot of people who actually believed Obama meant what he said. Why? Because he claimed he was a different type of politician. His entire campaign was based on that premise. He's not running on his accomplishments (because he has none), he's running on what he says he's going to do.

I have never seen a candidate with such a gap between who he claims to be and who he really is.

I believe Obama is caught between a rock and a hard place.

Just like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton before him, he is the Liberal Elitist pick to carry out an NWO agenda.

He wants the prestiege of being President so comes across as easy to mold by these investment bankers and other NWO architects.

If Obama can't make America a psuedo-Nation of Islam and major money supplier to Africa (his two favorite things when voting - pro-Muslim and Africa-support), then he will be butting heads with those that put him in place to be POTUS.

Granted, NWO architects want Africa and the Middle East under their control as when combined they supply 2/3 of the world's energy.

Obama is not a humble man, which means (and it's obvious) that he is arrogant, selfish and disrespectful, not only to a nation that is allowing him to run for POTUS, but for people that do not take on his views.

Bush is the same way, but feel Obama has some hatred for what America stands for and some bitterness, that up to this point has only been disclosed in small barbs here and there.

He also wants Constitutional rights for Terrorists.



[edit on 4-7-2008 by jetxnet]

Originally posted by Hal9000
Obama's biggest lies. With a question mark. Does that mean you are asking for more, with a question mark, or does that mean you will post anything without proof by adding a question mark?

To clarify, I'm asking for more of Obama's lies because I wrote the original thread quickly and the lies I listed were off the top of my head and I wasn't sure if I missed any.

I didn't think these needed to be documented with sources. The FISA bill is still pretty recent (the promise to filibuster any bill that gives telecoms retroactive immunity vs voting FOR a bill that gives telecoms retroactive immunity). The whole bringing troops home immediately vs. redeploying the troops to Afghanistan is fresh.

Let's see.... Oh... the whole thing about not knowing the things Rev. Wright said is probably in the top 5 of Obama's lies. At least it's the one most Obama supporters actually admit that he lied about.

I have a couple of questions of my own.

Is it wrong to change your position after learning new information?

No, that's what McCain seems to have done regarding offshore drilling. What Obama has done is shift to the right on every single issue based on no new information.

What he said about FISA is crystal clear. If he didn't intend to follow through with his vow to NOT vote for any bill that offered retroactive immunity he shouldn't have said what he did. There's no new information at play here.

Same with Iraq. There is no new information here. And he didn't make his unequivocal claims about immediately bringing the troops home based on certain facts that have suddenly changed.

Is it wrong to change your position based on polls because maybe you were wrong and that your new position is what the majority of the people want?

Yes, of course this is wrong. If a candidate pledges he's going to do something to get you to vote for him, he's not saying, "Hey... I'll bring the troops home as long as more people than not want me to." Or, "If elected, I'll protect your civil liberties unless doing so becomes unpopular."

Of course it's wrong for Obama to tell voters he's going to do one thing to get their votes and then put his finger to the wind later on to see what to say next to get elected.

Name one candidate that hasn't changed their position to try to gain support.

OK that last one is not a question, so I left off the question mark.

Ed Rendell
John Kennedy
George W. Bush
Ronald Reagan
Bill Clinton
Harry Reid
Dick Durbin
Ron Paul
Joe Lieberman
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Jimmy Carter
Christopher Dodd
Ted Kennedy
Chuck Schumer
Dennis Kucinich
Frank Lautenberg
Kathy Sibelius
Bobby Jindal
Sarah Palin
Rick Perry
Carl Levin
Debbie Stabenow
Elizabeth Dole
Kay Bailey Hutchinson
Al Gore


Those are just some of the people I can think of off the top of my head.

See, this whole notion that all politician's "flip flop" for political expediency is false. It's far and away the exception. Most politicians are successful because they are who they say they are.

A notable exception was John Kerry in 2004. It's no wonder Kerry is on Obama's team. In 2004 Howard Dean took the party by storm and was going to get the nomination because he catered to the far left of the Democratic party. So Kerry had to out-liberal Dean to win the primaries. Then when it came time to campaign in the general election, Kerry found himself on both sides of every issue.

Obama's doing the same thing this election. He took positions to the left of Hillary Clinton so he could win the primaries, and now he's moving to the right of Hillary Clinton now that the primaries are over.

What's really most disgusting about this is the underlying premise that allows Obama to even attempt to pull this off -he must believe the general population is so stupid that they won't notice or won't care. Kerry tried the same thing and was proven wrong.

My prediction is that the backlash from former Obama supporters will be even greater for two reasons. First, McCain is liberal on many issues and he'll be easy to vote for, and second, Obama campaigned on the premise that he was a different type of politician.

It's going to be like finding out your first true love cheated on you when Obama supporters one-by-one start realizing how he's sold them out on so many core issues.



[edit on 4-7-2008 by jamie83]

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin

OMG a politican who told a few lies to get to where he is.

Thats like saying "new flash, winehouse smokes crack"

No, it's not hilarious at all Andew. It's disgusting. People like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich who tell the truth get slammed by the MSM, while people like you want to make lying about war acceptable just because somebody is a politician and he's on "your side."

Bush lied about the reason to go to war. Now it looks like Obama was lying about his plan to bring the troops home from Iraq. I'm not sure what's more disgusting, Obama's pandering for votes with the lives of young men and women volunteering to sacrifice and serve their country or Obama's supporters being so weasly and pretending it's ok.

If a person can recognize that Obama is lying and excuse it and still vote for him because he's a "politician and that's what politicians do" then that person is the epitome of what's wrong with this country.

it is hilarious you think there's a single politician who's not lying.


Last i recalled, no 'mentally sound' obama supporter has claimed he's anything perfect.

Your posts are aimed at the 'whack jobs' that think he is.
Just realize that you're preaching to the wrong crowd.

Thats really all about i have to say - this is the same old argument - again - like the last 830.

Im getting bored. I guess we'll wait until Obama's reptilian skin is found on the white house lawn, and then ill come back and talk about that

If a person can recognize that Obama is lying and excuse it and still vote for him because he's a "politician and that's what politicians do" then that person is the epitome of what's wrong with this country.

what are we supposed to do?
Not vote?





[edit on 7/4/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
what are we supposed to do?
Not vote?

I've been thinking about this a lot recently. 90% of the people who are going to vote are going to vote for McCain or Obama because they BELIEVE that everybody else is going to vote for McCain or Obama and they want to have their vote "count."

I think I'm voting for Ron Paul just on principle.

Obama is the typical liberal running for office.

First he energizes his kook liberal base by saying things like "tax the rich" "immediately withdraw from Iraq" "Free healthcare for everyone" then throw in some vague slogans like "hope" "change" and "future." Then accuse your opponents of being racist. Then boom! you got the kook base hooked.

But then you realize "Hey, I can't win with just my kook base, I have got to swindle others into voting for me" That is when you start being all things to all people. That is when your speeches are tailored to the group you are talking to today, nevermind that you said something totally different to a different group yesterday.

And just think, it's only July, which means there are alot of flip-flops and backtracks to come. The informed will get it, the indoctrinated won't!

[edit on 4-7-2008 by RRconservative]

Originally posted by jamie83
To clarify, I'm asking for more of Obama's lies because I wrote the original thread quickly and the lies I listed were off the top of my head and I wasn't sure if I missed any.

OK, then that means you won't be posting any questionable rumors?

I didn't think these needed to be documented with sources. The FISA bill is still pretty recent (the promise to filibuster any bill that gives telecoms retroactive immunity vs voting FOR a bill that gives telecoms retroactive immunity).

The FISA bill is a no win situation. If Obama doesn't vote for it he appears to not support protecting our privacy as well as the bill has no chance of passing without the compromise. If he goes along with the compromise he appears to go back on his word. This is called negotiating. Politicians do this all the time in order to get what they want.

Do I like it? No, I think the telecoms should be liable for any American citizen that was listened to without a warrant. First you would have to find out if you were being listened to and if not you can't make a case and should not receive any money. I don't think there should be some huge settlement where people get money when their rights were not violated.

The whole bringing troops home immediately vs. redeploying the troops to Afghanistan is fresh.

No one wants to see our troops leave Iraq more than me, but I was actually concerned when he said he would bring them home immediately. I think it needs to be done responsibly just as he is now saying. I think the original position was due more to his inexperience than trying to please everyone. So he is learning fast.

Let's see.... Oh... the whole thing about not knowing the things Rev. Wright said is probably in the top 5 of Obama's lies. At least it's the one most Obama supporters actually admit that he lied about.

I don't know, and really don't care. The whole deal with his church doesn't bother me. I live in a part of Ohio where we have televangelists on every corner many that I am sure you've heard of. Earnest Angely's Grace Cathedral is right down the road from me where people walk up to the stage and get healed. Everything he does is a lie, but people still go to his church.

Is it wrong to change your position after learning new information?

No, that's what McCain seems to have done regarding offshore drilling. What Obama has done is shift to the right on every single issue based on no new information.

I see, when McCain changes position, it is due to new info. Mmkay.

Actually offshore drilling will not do anything for the price of gas nor the tea in China, but eliminating oil speculators will, which is what Obama says he will do. I think this will be done before he takes office anyway so it doesn't matter.

Is it wrong to change your position based on polls because maybe you were wrong and that your new position is what the majority of the people want?

Yes, of course this is wrong. If a candidate pledges he's going to do something to get you to vote for him, he's not saying, "Hey... I'll bring the troops home as long as more people than not want me to." Or, "If elected, I'll protect your civil liberties unless doing so becomes unpopular."

Here is a concept that I wish more politicians would consider. How about they don't vote the way they personally believe, but rather vote the way the majority of their constituents would like? Isn't that what a representative is supposed to do?

Name one candidate that hasn't changed their position to try to gain support.

Ed Rendell
John Kennedy
George W. Bush

I stopped it there on purpose. No need to go further. Everyone on your list I'm sure has changed their position at some point, but it surprises me you would list GB.

Wasn't it George Bush that said he didn't believe in nation building? If so, why are we still in Iraq spending billions of our money? Don't bother answering. It is off topic, but points out your flawed list.

I would continue, but have to be going, but there is one more thing.

Obama campaigned on the premise that he was a different type of politician.

How many others throughout history have said the same thing? Too many to count.

How many have actually ordered his party to no longer accept money from lobbyist? Only one and that is Obama. He is a different kind of politician, but he is not superman.