Re: Top 5 Obama lies of 2009
Rob Cypher aka "The Anti-Bob"
>http://www.411mania.com/politics/columns/125662
>
>I seem to recall reading somewhere that people like to read list-based
>articles when they browse the web. There are several reasons: the
>headline reassuringly promises what the article contains; lists can be
>read quickly; it's fun to argue about lists; it's fun to think about
>what you'd put on the list. They're easy on the reader, and easy on
>the writer. Everybody wins.
I seem to recall that you're a bitch. And that I can kick your ass.
So this WILL be fun to think about. Everybody WILL win, indeed.
>With that in mind, I've put together my top five lies of President
>Barack Obama of 2009. I'll make the disclaimer that Obama's lies
>aren't really much worse than you'd expect from a powerful elected
>official from Chicago, and there's a chance that when he told them he
>wasn't being willfully deceptive per se. On the other hand, what's he
>done lately to earn the benefit of doubt?
>
>The story so far�
>
>(Note: Not all lies below were told during 2009. Some were promises
>made previously that were broken in 2009. So, you know, FYI, that's
>the standard I'm operating under here. Like I said, easy on the
>writer.)
So why didn't you do your own homework and find something current
regarding these supposed lies? You're fucking sloppy already.
>5. "When there is a bill that ends up on my desk as President, you
>will have five days to look online and find out what's in it before I
>sign it."
>
>Now that he's been president for a year, it's funny to reminisce about
>candidate Obama's high ideals. Apparently, at one point, this Obama
>fellow just tossed out this "I'll put bills online before I sign them"
>line on a whim. He must have thought it sounded good at the time, but
>I can't imagine he ever intended to keep it. It's one of those pie-in-
>sky platitudes politicians toss out because they don't expect anyone
>to hold them to it.
>
>So let's have a laugh and hold him to it. The first major legislation
>executed by the Chief Executive was the so-called stimulus act in
>February. With a price tag of $787 billion, and at a length of over
>400 pages, this was precisely the type of bill worthy of five days of
>public scrutiny. As it happened, Congress passed the bill late on a
>Friday, and Obama signed it on a Tuesday. It's nice they gave us the
>weekend to work on it, but would it have been too much to delay
>signing it for a few more days, just to keep up appearances? The
>infamous healthcare reform bill that just passed Congress is a couple
>thousand pages long. Does anyone believe the public will have
>sufficient time to scrutinize the final version before Obama puts his
>autograph on it? In the internet age, there's no excuse for a
>government not to put bills online and allow people enough time to
>read them.
"Wah, he didn't let it sit there long enough because I can't fucking
read!!!!!"
>4. "I will not sign a [healthcare reform] plan that adds one dime to
>our deficits -- either now or in the future. I will not sign it if it
>adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period."
>
>He says it twice, as if to taunt us. The purported cost of the
>recently-passed healthcare reform bill is in the neighborhood of $850
>billion. It would take a wild imagination and/or shady accounting
>tricks to claim such a bill won't add to the deficit, not to mention
>complete ignorance of the entire recorded history of the federal
>government's financial wisdom. Government programs/projects that come
>in under budget are exceedingly rare, and entitlements achieving cost
>savings is bloody un-fucking-heard of.
>
>Now, you may have heard the Congressional Budget Office has said
>health care reform won't add to the deficit in the first ten years.
>Fair enough, but that depends on what you mean by the first ten years.
>Most of the spending doesn't begin until 2014, so if you start
>counting with 2010, then the bill is, ahem, deficit neutral (and
>that's assuming many unpopular cost-cutting measures will be enacted
>at some unspecified future point). If you start counting in 2014, the
>CBO numbers add up to $1.8 trillion. I'm usually skeptical of
>information that comes from government agencies, but when they talk
>about spending money, I find them pretty convincing.
This guy probably jacked himself off when Bush invaded Iraq. Where was this
idiot when they were budgeting that war? Probably bitching at some kids
about their "pants saggin".
>3. "Let me be clear: The United States government has no interest in
>running GM. We have no intention of running GM."
>
>This one was notable for its sheer piss-in-your-ear-and-tell-you-it's-
>raining brazenness. Again, he says it twice, just to rub our pudgy
>faces in it. Two paragraphs earlier, he announced Rick Wagoner was
>"stepping aside" as GM's Chairman and CEO. In fairness, GM is a
>longstanding welfare queen, and the government's de facto ownership of
>GM didn't start on Obama's watch. But Obama's too smart not to know he
>was bullshitting. HE SAID IT TWICE.
>
>In GM news, the company posted a $1.15 billion loss in the Q3 2009,
>and the U.S. Government Accountability Office has said it doesn't
>expect their $50 billion bailout to ever be fully repaid. But there is
>some good news. I just saved a bunch of mon Some guy named Fritz
>Henderson, who happens to be GM's current CEO, "told reporters it is
>his �mission' to prove the [GAO] wrong." He sounds like a plucky
>fellow. I wish him well.
>
>What? Henderson resigned two weeks after he said that? Mission
>accomplished, so to speak. At least he didn't say it twice.
What, did you expect Obama to be "oh yay, we own GM!!!!!!!". Fuck,
that shit could be an albatross unless they're streamlined for
efficiency instead of cost. You're fucking weird, yo.
>2. "Our [stimulus] plan will likely save or create three to four
>million jobs. 90 percent of these jobs will be created in the private
>sector."
>
>Yes, of course. And then there was the pre-presidential white paper
>with the infamous graph that suggested the stimulus would help cap
>unemployment at 8.0%. It's probably not fair for me to hold Obama
>accountable for politically-motivated economic projections that are
>never right, no matter who makes them. But it would be fair for me to
>hold him accountable for his sleazy insinuation that government
>stimulus would primarily benefit the private sector.
>
>As Michael Barone notes, public employment has remained largely
>constant in 2009, while private sector employment declined. In
>addition, about one-third of the $787 billion stimulus was meant for
>state and local governments. I'm no statistician, but Obama's idea of
>90% seems to conflict with mine. Maybe it's me. Is it me?
So it's "sleazy" when Obama makes jobs for the "private" sector (whatever
that means), but when Cheney puts his people Blackwater et al. in prime
positions to make money off dead Iraqis you idiots don't say shit. Yep.
>1. "If you make under $250,000, you will not see your taxes increase
>by a single dime � not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not
>your capital gains taxes. Nothing. Because the last thing we should do
>in this economy is raise taxes on the middle-class."
>
>Longtime readers will know this particular lie is dear to my heart.
>After being in office less than one month, Obama raised the federal
>tax on cigarettes by 71 cents to $1.00 per pack. Since Obama is a
>former (?) smoker himself, I find it hard to believe he doesn't know
>cigarette taxes primarily affect middle- and low-income Americans.
>This lie is number one not only because of how quickly it became
>manifest once Obama was in power, but because he's a bloody traitor.
>
>Now, I understand some Americans don't think smokers are "real" poor
>people or whatever. But even if you don't count cigarettes, Obama's
>scheduled to break his tax promise on the first day of 2010, when 50
>previously-enacted tax cuts will expire. So there.
God, this is supposed to be a real complaint? "He taxes our cancer sticks higher".
Fuck outta here. Get off that shit, you've already been made aware about what it
does to you. I'm trying myself, currently weaning myself off with Camel snus.
We'll see if it works or if I need Chantix.
>In any event, I think we can all agree 2009 was crap. But at the same
>time, it had its moments. And really, it could have been worse. It
>could always be worse. Best wishes for a not-worse 2010, dear readers.
>
>--rafiki
>
>Thank you drive through.
"2009 was crap because my party was exposed as a bunch of greedy old pedophiles."
--
Rob Cypher
Livejournal: http://robcypher.livejournal.com
Myspace: http://www.myspace.com/robcyphercollective
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/robcypher
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/robcypher
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/robcypher
Music Reviews: http://apps.facebook.com/visualcdrack/people/1713595594
Book Reviews: http://apps.facebook.com/facebookshelf/people/1713595594
Movie Reviews: http://apps.facebook.com/dvdshelf/people/1713595594
TV Reviews: http://apps.facebook.com/livingsocial-tv/people/1713595594
Video Game Reviews: http://apps.facebook.com/videogamerack/people/1713595594
RATINGS GUIDE: ***** - essential **** - must have *** - worth a look
** - for fans only * and under - Crap
WARNING - THE SHROOMERY IS FULL OF RACISTS. Proof is presented here: http://robcypher.livejournal.com/68904.html
Karolina Dean
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Every single Tea Party event is all white people, so its a White
America Tea Party
Phin
alerted? They should look into this.
-=-Phin
Grebo
Lord Gow 333, not a White House approved poster!
"Phin" <som...@somewhere.net> wrote in message
news:8olak5pg9unqsic55...@4ax.com...
> WHAT??? A politician LYING?? When did this start?? Has the media been
> alerted? They should look into this.
Just ignored all the evidence and voted for the black guy, huh?
LG
--
"Failure is the opportunity to begin again more intelligently." - Henry Ford
Grebo
On Jan 7, 11:27 am, "Lord Gow 333, not a White House approved poster!"
<lord...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Phin" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote in message
Sueki Tartridge
Then why have campaigns if your candidate will do nothing but lie and
smear his opponent? Why not just march your boy to the podium and
place the crown on his head? George Soros couldv'e saved hundereds of
millions.
You probably weren't born then but the progressives were pissing and
moaning after the 2000 election about "Bush is ACTUALLY doing what he
promised during the campaign" !! OOOHH !! THE HUMANITY !!
Zapanaz
<hoofhe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jan 6, 9:38�pm, Phin <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>> WHAT??? A politician LYING?? When did this start?? Has the media been
>> alerted? They should look into this.
>>
>> -=-Phin
>
>Then why have campaigns if your candidate will do nothing but lie and
>smear his opponent?
Why are you asking him?
It wasn't his idea.
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
I SUGGEST GRANDMA NEEDS TO PUT HER DAMN SHIRT ON AND GET HER TITTIES
OUT OF MY DRINK.
:: Currently listening to Briefcase, 2004, by Tom Rothrock, from "Collateral Soundtrack"
Mhoram
news:7e88b4e0-013b-4468...@u41g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
************************
You raise a valid point since a large majority of Americans are sheep who
pull their party's lever without thought in every election despite the
candidate being offered.
Grebo
Rev. 11D Meow!
Go back to Yemen, you goat-fucking raghead!