• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Obama's SOTU: Stuck On Stupid Lies

Yep, America needs to cling desperately to the glory days of its past while the world is changing around it, and Obama is the devil for not going along with that. And for being a Democrat. Have I got that right?
 
Let's remember last year, BAC called Obama a liar for saying the recession was the worst since the great depression and then (when data proved him right) BAC called him a liar for it being worse than Obama had stated.


There's really only one thing stuck on stupid in a BAC thread....
 
Let's remember last year, BAC called Obama a liar for saying the recession was the worst since the great depression and then (when data proved him right) BAC called him a liar for it being worse than Obama had stated.

You know, joobz, every time you post this you only end up making a fool of yourself. I'll just review what I posted the last time you tried this dishonest tactic. And please note, everyone, that joobz made no attempt to actually address the substance of the current OP because this is ALL he has. :D

I called Obama a liar in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=135124 because at the time he made the claim, on February 5th, that "all of the indicators show that we are in the worst recession since the Great Depression", numerous indicators (unemployment rate, inflation rate, the delta in real GDP, the delta in industrial production, the 30 year mortgage rate, and the "misery index") actually were far less severe than during the recession in the early 1980's. And you didn't contest any of those figures in that thread, joobz. And haven't since.

In particular, unemployment, which seems to be the parameter of most concern, was at the time far less than the peak (over 10%) that occurred in the 80's recession. In fact, I linked you a February 27th issue of the leftist New York Times that supported my assertion. It stated (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/business/economy/28recession.html?_r=1) "Current conditions are not even as poor as during the twin recessions of the 1980s, when unemployment exceeded 10 percent". So I hate to bust your balloon (AGAIN), but Obama clearly lied. And you'd have to be SOS not to see it.

In fact, Obama lied even earlier than February 5th of last year because on January 11th, 2009 he stated to ABCNews (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a3YMkstD3JzA ) that "Whether it’s retail sales, manufacturing, all of the indicators show that we are in the worst recession since the Great Depression". That statement was simply not true at that time. Given that a President has to have been apprised of the real facts, a rational person should conclude that the statement was a lie intend to garner public support for his leftist spending agenda.

As further proof he was lying, just consider the fact that in selling the stimulus bill in February, his own administration claimed that without the stimulus, the peak unemployment would rise to about 9% ... still well below the peak unemployment that was actually reached in 1981-82 recession. That being the case, how can he have claimed the recession was already worse than any since the Great Depression? He had to have known that number at the time, else we can only conclude he and his staff are incompetent. Is that what you'd like us to believe, joobz? That Obama and his staff or woefully incompetent? That's hard to believe given their education. So yes, I still stand by my claim that Obama LIED when he told the public back on January 11th and February 5th of last year that "all of the indicators show that we are in the worst recession since the Great Depression".

Finally, this has to be at least the 7th time you've now attacked me in this manner on one of my threads … threads that otherwise you ignored. Which doesn't speak well for you ability to learn from your mistakes or your honesty. Maybe you like Obama so much because you're kindred souls, joobz. :D
 
Here's another SOTU lie by Obama:

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/19511

How do you spell brazen?

In listening to the State of The Union Address, and other recent pondering of President Obama, I am constantly amazed at his ability to say things that he knows can be fact checked. Let me give you a few examples.

Lobbyists.

President Obama promised during his campaign that lobbyists “won’t find a job in my White House.”

Then, once he was in, and hired a lobbyist a day for several weeks, he explained that there had to be exceptions.

In the State of the Union Address, he nuanced it further.

“That’s why we’ve excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs, or seats on federal boards and commissions.”

Now, I grant that he may have many lobbyists in non policy making positions, but here are a few that definitely DO make policy.

Eric Holder, Attorney General, lobbied for Global Crossing, a telecommunications firm.

Tom Vilsack, secretary of agriculture, lobbyist for the National Education Association.

William Lynn, deputy defense secretary, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for defense contractor Raytheon where he was a top executive.

Trying not to lose readers with mind numbing detail, here is a list of names, and you can google them if you want, but the one thing that they all have in common, is that they are all in policy making positions.

William Corr, David Hayes, Mark Patterson, Ron Klain, Mona Sutphen, Melody Barnes, Cecilia Munoz, Patrick Gaspard, Michael Strautmanis, and there’s more. This isn’t counting the ones that didn’t take the job, or the ones who couldn’t pass muster. Tom Daschle comes to mind.

Hiring the very type of people that he swore not hire, and do it from the very first day of his presidency, is the epitome of brazen.

Did he think that no one would notice?

A brazen liar. That's accurately one way to describe him.
 
I think BaC's new tactic is to accuse everyone who posts of the things he's actually guilty of.

For example, now he likes CBO predictions? After all that arguing against them? Really?
 
You know, joobz, every time you post this you only end up making a fool of yourself. I'll just review what I posted the last time you tried this dishonest tactic. And please note, everyone, that joobz made no attempt to actually address the substance of the current OP because this is ALL he has. :D

I called Obama a liar in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=135124 because at the time he made the claim, on February 5th, that "all of the indicators show that we are in the worst recession since the Great Depression", numerous indicators (unemployment rate, inflation rate, the delta in real GDP, the delta in industrial production, the 30 year mortgage rate, and the "misery index") actually were far less severe than during the recession in the early 1980's. And you didn't contest any of those figures in that thread, joobz. And haven't since.
because he was right about the recession. You were wrong. people can go back to that thread and see the numbers were contested. In general, Obama was right abuot some numbers wrong about others, but history proved him right on the whole.

If that makes a person a liar, well, I guess it's good to be a liar. :rolleyes:

You know, joobz, every time you post this you only end up making a fool of yourself. I'll just review what I posted the last time you tried this dishonest tactic. And please note, everyone, that joobz made no attempt to actually address the substance of the current OP because this is ALL he has. :D

In particular, unemployment, which seems to be the parameter of most concern, was at the time far less than the peak (over 10%) that occurred in the 80's recession. In fact, I linked you a February 27th issue of the leftist New York Times that supported my assertion. It stated (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/business/economy/28recession.html?_r=1) "Current conditions are not even as poor as during the twin recessions of the 1980s, when unemployment exceeded 10 percent". So I hate to bust your balloon (AGAIN), but Obama clearly lied. And you'd have to be SOS not to see it.

Why not give a full quote to that article???

"Current conditions are not even as poor as during the twin recessions of the 1980s, when unemployment exceeded 10 percent, though many experts assert this downturn is on track to be significantly worse."

They were right, as was Obama.

And you were wrong. As you tend to be...

Since I just proved you to be a quote miner, who is completely divorced from reality, I don't really need to go any farther.

Finally, this has to be at least the 7th time you've now attacked me in this manner on one of my threads … threads that otherwise you ignored. Which doesn't speak well for you ability to learn from your mistakes or your honesty. Maybe you like Obama so much because you're kindred souls, joobz. :D

I am happy to be kindred souls with someone who was right about the economy. But then again, I'm not Stuck on stupid.
 
There's really only one thing stuck on stupid in a BAC thread....

And this might give you a clue who it is, joobz.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ministration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 33% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -7 (see trends).

This is the first update based entirely upon interviews conducted since the State-of-the-Union Address and it reflects a bounce for the President. The number who Strongly Approve is the highest in more than four months (since September) and the overall Approval Index rating is the best in more than three months (since October).

The bounce comes almost entirely from those in the president’s party. Sixty-four percent (64%) of Democrats now Strongly Approve, up from 50% before the speech. However, the speech appears to have had the opposite impact on unaffiliated voters. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 50% now Strongly Disapprove. That’s up from 42% before the speech.
 
So tell us joobz ... did Obama really truly inherit a projected $8 trillion increase in the National Debt like he said? Hmmmm? :D
 
Public opinion is a measure of how stupid something is? Do we really have to name that fallacy for you?
 
For example, now he likes CBO predictions? After all that arguing against them? Really?

You'd better get your facts right and not "pull a joobz". In other words, make sure you are accurately describing my views about the CBO's predictions. :D
 
You'd better get your facts right and not "pull a joobz". In other words, make sure you are accurately describing my views about the CBO's predictions. :D

Your views on them are apparently whatever view best suits your attacks on Obama at that time.
 
Your views on them are apparently whatever view best suits your attacks on Obama at that time.

You have examples or are you just mouthing off? I gather from your attack you are trying to defend Obama's assertion that he inherited a 10 year projected increase in the National Debt of $8 trillion. Do you have any source you can cite to back up this number? Hmmmmm? Or are you just mouthing off again (out of frustration at not actually being able to defend Obama from the MANY charges I've leveled against him in this thread)? :D
 
You'd better get your facts right and not "pull a joobz". In other words, make sure you are accurately describing my views about the CBO's predictions. :D
BAC, would you mind explaining what "pulling a Joobz" is?

Does it involve providing evidence of one being a quoteminer who ignores reality? Or are you attempting an Ad Hom attack? I would hate to think that later. :)
 
You have examples or are you just mouthing off? I gather from your attack you are trying to defend Obama's assertion that he inherited a 10 year projected increase in the National Debt of $8 trillion. Do you have any source you can cite to back up this number? Hmmmmm? Or are you just mouthing off again (out of frustration at not actually being able to defend Obama from the MANY charges I've leveled against him in this thread)? :D

You know that I actually just tried to search for that thread where you accused Obama of lying even though the CBO reports proved that he was not, but it turns out that you use the words 'Obama' and 'lie' in just about every other post you do, so that's rather difficult. But for you to deny that you did indeed argue against the CBO, going as far as to call it a 'political' entity, makes you the liar. But we already knew that.

I have no idea what sources Obama was using for his projection. Neither do you. You will just pick the one that happens to best fit your attack. The fact that it is from the CBO.

And your 'many' charges are so much argument by verbosity. Why do you think no one takes apart all the wrong in your posts, or defends them, any more? It's gotten stale. An old act. This isn't me 'mouthing off', but my assessment. You like to link to articles saying they say one thing, when they don't, taking quotes out of context (quote mining) and twisting anything to be as rabidly negative about liberals as possible. Why go through that when there are reasonable conservatives worth debating here? I have to say that I'm a little perplexed as to why I've taken even this much time.

But you live in a world where no one can exaggerate, use hyperbole, make honest mistakes, or hell, even be completely right, without being either a liar or incompetent. Almost all of your assertions are textbook 'excluded middle' fallacies. The sad part is that somewhere you might be right, but one can't see it through the bs lathered all over it.

EDIT: In closing...

 
Last edited:
You have examples or are you just mouthing off? I gather from your attack you are trying to defend Obama's assertion that he inherited a 10 year pro



You know that I actually just tried to search for that thread where you accused Obama of lying even though the CBO reports proved that he was not, but it turns out that you use the words 'Obama' and 'lie' in just about every other post you do, so that's rather difficult. But for you to deny that you did indeed argue against the CBO, going as far as to call it a 'political' entity, makes you the liar. But we already knew that.



I have no idea what sources Obama was using for his projection. Neither do you. You will just pick the one that happens to best fit your attack. The fact that it is from the CBO.



And your 'many' charges are so much argument by verbosity. Why do you think no one takes apart all the wrong in your posts, or defends them, any more? It's gotten stale. An old act. This isn't me 'mouthing off', but my assessment. You like to link to articles saying they say one thing, when they don't, taking quotes out of context (quote mining) and twisting anything to be as rabidly negative about liberals as possible. Why go through that when there are reasonable conservatives worth debating here? I have to say that I'm a little perplexed as to why I've taken even this much time.



But you live in a world where no one can exaggerate, use hyperbole, make honest mistakes, or hell, even be completely right, without being either a liar or incompetent. Almost all of your assertions are textbook 'excluded middle' fallacies. The sad part is that somewhere you might be right, but one can't see it through the bs lathered all over it.



EDIT: In closing...



an honest, accurate and completely reasonable post. one can only hope bac will reply in kind.
 
You know that I actually just tried to search for that thread where you accused Obama of lying even though the CBO reports proved that he was not, but it turns out that you use the words 'Obama' and 'lie' in just about every other post you do, so that's rather difficult.

So in other words you can't back up what you claimed.

But for you to deny that you did indeed argue against the CBO, going as far as to call it a 'political' entity, makes you the liar.

Like I said, you'd better get your facts right
Edited by Tricky: 
Edited for rule 12.
Because if nothing else, you are most certainly taking my comments on the CBO completely out of context. And that make YOU dishonest.
Edited by Tricky: 
Edited for rule 12.

Now you claim I've called the CBO a "political entity". And that I've denied ever arguing against numbers put out by the CBO. Again, I challenge you to provide a link to back up both those claims. Because, in fact, neither is true. But then the context of what I said about the CBO when I did argue against certain numbers they produced is important. But apparently the context was simply lost on you.

In any case, this is simply diversion by you to avoid facing the unpleasant facts in this case. What I don't see in this thread is anything to suggest the CBO was wrong in it's January and March statements about the projected 10 year cumulative deficit under current law (Bush administration laws/rules/etc). And unless you can do that (which would require you provide either the specific logic why they were wrong or links to sources that provide that logic), a rational person can only side with the CBO in this case. In which case, Obama either lied, was lied to, or is Stuck On Stupid.

I have no idea what sources Obama was using for his projection. Neither do you.

Actually, that's not completely true. Turns out that all the numbers he cited in his May health care speech, wherein he claimed the 10 year projected deficit he inherited was $9.3 trillion and that his efforts had reduced it to $7.1 trillion, came from the March CBO report and the Whitehouse Budget Office. Obama either didn't understand what he read from those groups, or he chose to lie about what the CBO report stated.

As to his SOTU claim, aren't you the least bit curious about the source of the $8 trillion figure? Don't you think we should know, given that we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the number is completely wrong? Is Obama being given bad advice by his staff? Is his staff incompetent or lying to him? If so, this is serious because as a result, Obama's made a $5 TRILLION dollar mistake in his reasoning … a mistake influencing policy. That could have serious implications for the country. Now don't you think we should get this straightened out or are you content with $5 trillion dollar errors on his part? Are you content with his staff giving Obama bum advice? Hmmmm?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So in other words you can't back up what you claimed.

Everyone can see just what BaC thinks about the CBO in this thread.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=152037&highlight=forcast

Want to retract your support now? After all, they're supposed to be incompetent or in bed with Obama.

Like I said, you'd better get your facts right and not "pull a joobz". Because if nothing else, you are most certainly taking my comments on the CBO completely out of context. And that make YOU dishonest. Just as dishonest as joobz has demonstrably been on this thread.

Out of context? Care to reread that old thread?

Now you claim I've called the CBO a "political entity". And that I've denied ever arguing against numbers put out by the CBO. Again, I challenge you to provide a link to back up both those claims. Because, in fact, neither is true. But then the context of what I said about the CBO when I did argue against certain numbers they produced is important. But apparently the context was simply lost on you.

You don't remember what you wrote now? You certainly seemed under the impression that the CBO was in on the error in the economic forecast.

In any case, this is simply diversion by you to avoid facing the unpleasant facts in this case. What I don't see in this thread is anything to suggest the CBO was wrong in it's January and March statements about the projected 10 year cumulative deficit under current law (Bush administration laws/rules/etc). And unless you can do that (which would require you provide either the specific logic why they were wrong or links to sources that provide that logic), a rational person can only side with the CBO in this case. In which case, Obama either lied, was lied to, or is Stuck On Stupid.



Actually, that's not completely true. Turns out that all the numbers he cited in his May health care speech, wherein he claimed the 10 year projected deficit he inherited was $9.3 trillion and that his efforts had reduced it to $7.1 trillion, came from the March CBO report and the Whitehouse Budget Office. Obama either didn't understand what he read from those groups, or he chose to lie about what the CBO report stated.

As to his SOTU claim, aren't you the least bit curious about the source of the $8 trillion figure? Don't you think we should know, given that we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the number is completely wrong? Is Obama being given bad advice by his staff? Is his staff incompetent or lying to him? If so, this is serious because as a result, Obama's made a $5 TRILLION dollar mistake in his reasoning … a mistake influencing policy. That could have serious implications for the country. Now don't you think we should get this straightened out or are you content with $5 trillion dollar errors on his part? Are you content with his staff giving Obama bum advice? Hmmmm?

We get it, you hate Obama, and thing that everything his staff tells him is junk. You've come to that conclusion then set about looking for evidence of it. We all get it.
 

Back
Top Bottom