Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by lordtyp0
I originally was not going to reply to this, its too pedantic in the commentary. But you need a bit of an education. Of course, I have come to the
conclusion that "Libertarians" and current "Conservative Republicans" don't care about facts, rationality or evidence-they only care about
winning. I am predicting now that you will ignore every point I make and instead focus on a single typo, or create a straw man, or perhaps, just
ignore the post all together while "hrumphin" with sympathetic ears.
The party of LIES??? This thread never mentioned democrats!
Let’s take a look at the Liar-in-Chief:
*Open and transparent government? NOPE!
*No pork barrel spending? NOPE!
*5 days to read every bill before he signs it? NOPE!
*Meetings with lobbyists will be online and on Cspan for all to see? NOPE!
OP didn't cite political party, but did call for Evangelicals to swarm to the polls, Chuck Norris is also all about "taking back 'merica for
Jesus". Am I to infer it was a call for Democratic political action? The transparancy-which you cite 3 times when in fact it is one-so lets condense:
This is a: President doing pork barrel spending and B: Lack of advertised transparency.
Perhaps you didn't know-but Pork Barrel Spending comes from CONGRESS putting riders onto bills. Usually the bills are named something contradictory
like "SAVE THE PRECIOUS CHILDREN FROM EVIL COMMIES AND SATANISTS SO THEY CAN PLAY WITH PUPPIES IN CHURCHES!!!" when the law actually reads something
like "Give open wire tap laws over all internet traffic, add 100million dollars to Lockheed for another plane project, buy all the miniature monkey
statues in Deluth Iowa for 50,000 dollars a piece".
Cept that law, if struck down suddenly becomes "OBAMA HATES WHITE CHILDREN!" and the same riders get attached to every other bill. Eventually they
make it into one that are mandatory like-keeping agencies funded for the quarter (Though technically ONCE congress gave the president power of a line
item veto-that is only applicable on budgets). So eventually those barrel projects get pushed through and the president gets slammed either way. In
Oregon the same techniques were employed. The Democrat Gov promised to fix roads. Every road budget plan which came from the state congress had a
rider to do mandatory prayer in school. Which-the Republicans pounced on him for purposely vetoeing every bill to fix the roads.
He was a one term Gov.
For transparency-it is all very complicated legally. IMO Lobbyists should be drowned in bags. But commonly those meetings include legally protected
information like corporate and trade secrets. Obama should not have promised some of the things as if he actually did them-it would have made
tax-payers liable for all sorts of lawsuits. This was naivete, not deception.
*Lobbyists will not work in my administration? NOPE!
*We will develop a full budget to eliminate waste? NOPE!
*We will cut the deficit in half in my first term? NOPE!
*I will close GITMO? NOPE!
*If you make less than $250,000 your taxes will not go up? NOPE!
Lobbyists are crap, I am willing to say it was a political favor to someone to get something done, and was a huge mistake-like Monsanto in charge of
the FDA?? That is unconscionable.
He tried to cut the deficit, tried to close Gitmo too: The Cons halted all efforts. Calling this a lie and his fault is as Chris Rock said: Since the
man can't cure Cancer, I'm gonna vote for Cancer! The problem was the Cons, the rest is smoke screening to perform the mandate of "Doing everything
in their power to make Obama a one termer"
*If you like your doctor, under Obamacare you can keep him? NOPE!
*I don’t want to run auto companies or banks? NOPE!
*Shovel ready? NOPE!
First is wrong. Obamacare does nothing to change your doctor. Im guessing you actually know nothing about the law.
What do banks and autocompanies have to do with this discussion?
Is this some sort of random crazy rant like one sees in a cornfield sign sometimes?
Would you like me to keep going???
I invite you to present rational arguments and evidence. I have never heard of Obama promising to not raise taxes on those over 250k. In fact it seems
one of the biggest critiques has been his attempts to "Spread the wealth". Can't have it both ways.