"To be trusted is a greater quality than to be loved". I think I misquoted this (there is another word instead of quality), but it drives the point home. For me, the President of the United States should be someone who represents the moral, ethical, and all around values of the American people. When a president equivocates due to being given misinformation, I understand this and can forgive him very easily. However, when falsehoods are jammed down my throat and is plain as the writing on the wall that they are false...It really chaps my hide.
When "Slick Willy" lied about his affair with Monica, it not only was a moral disgrace for the national face of our nation, but to lose the trust by lying about it to the people was the tipping point for me. I can no longer trust anything that comes out of his mouth.
The same goes for Barack Hussein Obama...
Here's a report in regards to his "cram HIS health care plan down our throat" speech.
"[The AP story suggests] that he uttered 'a variety of over simplifications and omissions,'" says Noyes. "He talked about how he would not add a single dime to the deficit, when the studies are showing it would add about a trillion dollars to the deficit over the second year of the plan. He talked about not permitting any illegal immigrant to be covered, when in fact it was Democrats who voted down any attempt to verify immigration status."
"The list of things that he talked about [was] very misleading," the MRC spokesman concludes, "added to the arrogant veneer of him scolding anybody else for taking liberties with the truth as liars, as he did."
Noyes says Obama's speech was about as "audacious" as one could possibly get. He says while the AP did do its fact check, there has been little coverage from the mainstream media on Obama taking liberty with the facts during his speech. Until that happens, says MRC, it gives the president "a green light to lie and cry wolf about whatever he wants, whenever he wants -- and it will aid in the most radical government takeover ever attempted in America."Oh, and by the way, Mr. Rodgers from Michigan I believe it is...hit the nail on the head. Thanks for the send Jennerator
20 comments:
Yes, I'd rather be respected than loved.
Obama keeps declaring that Reps are opposing him just to oppose and that they don't have any solutions. Well, they do and here's the link:
http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare
Washington could be nailed down as a liar, as could have:
Jefferson
John Adams
FDR
Harry Truman
Eisenhower
the BELOVED Ronald Reagan
Both Bush's
Yes, Barack
YOu get my point. Every single president in American history can be called a liar...that's why they are called politicians I guess. I don't think Obama is any more or any less of a liar than any other president we've ever had. Even "Honest Abe" is as much the "liar" as Obama.
Politicians get away with this by saing that they look at things, "from a certain point of view" or something like that. I'm not trying to defend the man, but I think it would be silly to "no longer trust anything that comes out of his mouth" as you put it.
If that's the case, I'd expect you to maintain that same standard for ALL presidents.
I agree, isn't it called sophistry or mincing words?
I think it's a little too strong to say that EVERYTHING Obama stands for is a facade. I can't agree there, but I do understand why reasonable people are frustrated and concerned. That makes good sense. However, I think we should be careful with this "liar, liar pants on fire" type stuff. Is Obama a liar? I don't think any of us are in a position to really objectively judge that. From what I see he seems like a guy who believes in his cause. I can question his politics all day, but I think we should pass on questioning his character. There's nothing palpable there.
As for Obama's credentials, I see where you are going but I'm actually going to defend the pres. on this. Yes, Obama is far from experienced in a lot of things, but he has more or equal experience as:
Andrew Jackson
John Tyler
Millard Fillmore
Abraham Lincoln
Ulysses S. Grant
Rutherford B. Hayes
James Garfield
Grover Cleveland
William McKinley
Woodrow Wilson
Dwight D. Eisenhower
John F. Kennedy
Besides, the Constitution states that only three requirements be met:
1.) The person must be a naturally born citizen (and yes, Obama is for any of you conspiracy nuts).
2.)Be 35 years of age
3.)Be a permenant resident of the U.S. for at least 14 years.
Brad says-"Politicians get away with this by saying that they look at things, "from a certain point of view" or something like that."
Okay, okay, you caught me, I added a 'y' in his "saing" word. ;)
Brad, you are now defending Obama with the same reasoning, "From what I see he seems like a guy who believes in his cause." Or "...they look at things, "from a certain point of view".
Yeah, lots of people believe in their cause, and then they lie to get their "cause" into action. What does that tell you? It tells me to question what comes out of the guy's mouth, regardless of what cause he's for.
As for experience, of course he has more experience than the Founding Fathers'. They were founding a nation! I'm sure not a lot of people have done that. As for Garfield and on down the line...I don't know enough about them, except for Bush, he served as governor of Texas, so he was essentially running a state. But I do know that Obama himself said he doesn't have enough experience to be President. In 2004 he said "I am a believer in knowing what you're doing when applying for a job, and I think that if I were to seriously consider running on a national ticket, I would essentially have to start now before working a day in the senate, Now there may be some people who might be comfortable soing that, but I'm not one of them."
Bottom line though, I don't believe a lot that comes out of his mouth, since he's already blatantly lied.
Brad, if you want to quote that, do add a 'd' to the "soing" word, as I misspelled "doing". :)
Again, I cannot understand how we are calling Obama a liar (a blatant liar) but not the others. Bush lied a lot more than Obama.
As for experience, which founding father did I mention Jenn? Not a single one.
Hi Sarah, it's always good to see and hear from you.
Good point Brad. They all have lied at one time or another. So have we.
The question is not "if" they have lied but (to borrow a question used in scientific reasoning) "how much" they have lied.
But again, I guess I agree with you in part Brad on B. Obama lying. I think he's a lying scoundrel like the rest of them and maybe not as bad in some senses of the word. But I have a hard time believing Bush lied more than he has. He has only been in office a fraction of the time Bush had. And by the way, has done much more damage financially to this nation than Bush ever could have. He's added a whole new level to reckless spending, and plans to do more damage!
Anyway, maybe I see how his agenda and how he's trying to shape the nation with it.
His entourage alone with whom he has surrounded himself has made his history very vague and untrustworthy. You are known by the company you keep. He has kept some very very sketchy people close to him who can't even pay their taxes correctly (again, tip of the iceberg). One example comes to mind "Kathleen Sebelius" former governor of Kansas City. And yes her past is very sketchy in Kansas City.
Another example...Van Jones, the supposed green czar, a crazy nut job himself.
Hey by the way, what is up with the CZAR terminology? When I first heard that I thought they were joking about calling these corrupt allocated persons, Czar's. I thought, "it must be a joke, no one would actually use the Russian term for Emperor in this country! How silly. So, yes, I am shocked at the gall of this administration! What place do Czar's have in this free country?
Oh I think Bush CLEARLY lied more than Obama. Independent research think tanks have pointed out over 500 lies on Iraq alone. Also, Bush is the one who came up with the whole "Czar" thing. He had 3 times the Czars as Obama (and in defense of Bush, the "Czar" idea was simply poor wordage. It's not like these guys are actual Czars. Perhaps he should have called them something else).
As for financial damage, I think it's unfair to say that Obama has done more damage than Bush. Bush ran up the all-time highest deficirt in history. Thus far, Obama has not followed suit. Now, some "experts" (like those radio brainiacs) have made projections that Obama would surpass Bush, however, they are simply projections as of now. Perhaps Obama will pass up Bush, perhaps not. Only time will tell.
Isn't it ironic that these "tea party" protesters are yelling and screaming about government growing too powerful, out of control spending, and "Czars" taking things over right at the same time that Obama took office! Where were they when ALL of this stuff was taking place with Bush?
I'm sure it has NOTHING to do with crazy, ridiculous, STUPID partisanship...nothing atall...atall.
You're right, you didn't mention any of the founding fathers', my mistake. I guess I always put Lincoln in that category even though he was the 16th President. Gotta get over that....
Richard made the exact point I was going to after reading Brad's last comment. Obama has been in office for 9 months, Bush for 8 years. Obama's track record thus far isn't too good. And in my opinion, if you lie and the country knows it, it's pretty blatant. It was done openly and unashamedly. Really, how hard is it to be honest? Just tell the people what's up and we'll decide if we agree.
I also agree with Richard about the entourage. The people you surround yourself with is a very telling sign of your character.
By the way Brad, I am really enjoying the articles you put up on your fb.
Thanks, Jenn. I link my group blog (American Creation) to my Facebook page. I don't write all the articles, just FYI.
Here's the thing about Obama: I'd like to know exactly which "lies" we are talking about here. A lot of times a lie isn't a lie but rather a difference of political perspective. For example, Bush really believes that waterboarding is not torture (yet the Geneva Conventions say it is). Now, I don't doubt Bush's integrity in this area. I have no reason to do so...even if I disagree. So, why can't the same standard be given to Obama? I think he really does believe in his healthcare plan and that it won't raise the deficit. I don't agree with the plan but I have no reason to doubt his integrity.
As for the people you keep around you, well, every single politician can be HAMMERED for this. Bush kept some very questionable figures around him. Ronald Reagan could be massacred for this. He had all kinds of messed up/corrupt people around him 24/7.
I guess what I don't like is the "Obama is an evil guy" nonsense that I see from the "doomsday" conservative fanatics these days. Ok, you don't like Obama. Fair enough. He's not my first choice either. But let's keep it real. He's really given us no indication that he's a bad guy or a pathological liar. I think most of his "lying" (like any politician) boils down to perspective.
By the way, I have some really funny political ads from the 19th century accusing Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, Thomas Jefferson, William Henry Harrisson, and others of "lying." I'll try to track them down and post them here.
By the way, after reading over my last post it probably sounds like I am accusing you guys of being "doomsday" fanatics. sorry, that's not what I meant. It came out wrong. I was referring to the nut-jobs on television and radio.
Brad says...
As for financial damage, I think it's unfair to say that Obama has done more damage than Bush. Bush ran up the all-time highest deficirt in history. Thus far, Obama has not followed suit.
I say...
Again, my time is limited for research, but I don't believe Bush ran up the deficit in the same time frame as Obama. 8 yrs, vs. less than one... With that in mind, I still believe Obama has racked up more unnecessary debt (I guess time will tell with the economy to disprove me here), than Bush did.
Okay, regarding Obama Care... Giving him the credit that he is a smart guy (which I think he is), how could he say that his health care won't raise taxes?!? So, if he says this, then maybe he isn't smarter than a 5th grader. Even a fifth grader can tell that if you don't have any money in your pocket, you can't buy candy. Then there will be a low life kid next to him telling him how to rob it from another kid.
Money doesn't grow on trees. Oh, my bad, I guess it grows on Federal printing presses. Maybe that's why about 6 months ago the federal government had a Treasury bond sale where they (fed govt) bought up about 60% of them after printing off a bunch of cash.
Re: Waterboarding...I don't care about the semantics there. Nore should had anyone else...
Perspective...If it was your wife on one of those planes that got her throat slit by one of those holy war terrorists, what perspective would you have then on waterboarding?
My point... We did it. Good for us. Call it whatever you want. What kind of idiot declares to our enemies that we will no longer use mean tactics to get truth out of them if we catch them? Holy warriors have NO fear except of dying without a cause. By torture or non torture, get the information out of those psychopathic holy warriors before they kill any of my family!
Bush 500 lies...Obama ???? lies... we'll never know because the media is in his pocket.
So who were some of the questionable people Bush kept around him anyway? Condoleezza Rice?
She should have been our next president!
Obama evil? How about very very very misguided and misdirected.
Anyone who knows about babies being born and left in closets to die and approves of such late term abortion practices by not voting against it, gets the Evil award in my book. Call me crazy.
Well, there's a lot here to respond to:
1.) Yes, Bush ran up the largest debt in American history. Oh, and here's a question. Do you all know who #2 is? The BELOVED Ronald Reagan! Yep, contrary to what Hannity and others may say, the facts speak clear as can be.
Now, Obama may beat them to it. I have no idea and doubt if anyone else does either. We can't predict the future. However, his plans sure present AT LEAST the possibility.
2.) As for "Obamacare," well, he says he won't have to raise taxes. To be honest, I don't know a lot about this issue so I won't dwell on it. What I do know is that almost every modern president (Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and now Obama) have raised taxes when they said they wouldn't. Most of the time the tax hikes are hidden in something that appears benign.
3.) As for waterboarding, I think the question has NOTHING to do with whether or not I had a family member on the planes or not but whether or not torture is warranted.
I will begin my rebuttal by posing this question: what is it about the United States that makes it great? Our military? No. Other nations have had bigger militaries. Our religion? No. Other nations have the same religions. What TRULY makes America great is our ADHERANCE to the rule of law. Our laws are the closest the world has ever seen to the laws of heaven. But when we fail to follow those laws, can we call ourselves a great nation? I say no.
Reg: waterboarding keep 2 things in mind: 1.) all experts say it is torture and that it almost never works that well. 2.) In the Geneva Conventions the United States agreed to certain terms. And WHO signed the Geneva accords? None other than Dwight Eisenhower, Harry Truman and George Patton (hardy a bunch of inexperienced leaders on the issue of warfare).
4.) As for the media being in Obama's pocket, I personally don't buy many of the conservative conspiracies anymore. Sure, the television media does lean left...no doubt. However, I don't see it as a secret conspiracy. Also, doesn't the right have their own media dorks? All those loony-tunes on the radio?
I guess my feeling on media is this: I see all political media (on the right and the left) as being similar to WWE wrestling. You KNOW it's staged. You have the "good guys" and the "bad guys." Everyone knows what Michael Moore, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Kieth Olbermann, etc. are going to say before they ever open their mouths. There is ZERO critical thining, ZERO objectivity, ZERO intent to discuss the actual issues at hand. Instead, the goal is to invoke an emotional response from their target audience. The goal is rating and dollars not honest debade and inquiry.
In modern American politics, one must be an extremist "shock jock" artist in order to get any attention on the television/radio/internet. That's what people want...dramatic, intense soundbites wrapped in the American flag. The problem is that this has destroyed honest debate, bipartisanship, and any resemblance of rationality and replaced political dialogue with apocalyptic, dramatic, over the top garbage.
It's as if people believe we are currently living in the GREATEST crisis we've ever seen as a nation. Could things get better? Sure, but let's keep it real.
Post a Comment