Is Obama a Liar?

[Auctoritas 2,828]

What it comes to is that you are conflating my issue with comparative statements ("most corrupt president ever", which means that he's #1 out of 44 - a comparison) and your perception that I'm an apologist for Obama. I'm not, I'm an apologist for nuance and for fairness in argument.

"Jamming through a law today" is not something that has been shown to kill hundreds of thousands of people (you may think it will, but that's like, just your opinion, man). If you can't see the difference between a law that was voted on legally, and was attempting to try to make the health system in the US "healthier,"" and a country splitting in two halves and clashing swords until one cried "uncle", I can't help you with that. And to denigrate the Civil War as just "something that happened 100 years ago" is a shame - either to your worldview, or to the educational system.

Also, if you were attempting to insult me because of my religious views, you missed badly. Insinuating that I have no morals is something we hear all the time - it's demonstrably wrong. Calling someone an atheist is not a bad thing. It's like me trying to make you feel bad by calling you a Christian...not effective.

[Auctoritas 2,828]

The Civil War didn't affect everyone in the country? That's a decidedly odd view.

The Civil War didn't affect everyone in the country? That's a decidedly odd view.

Actually there were quite a few citizens whose lives were completely unaffected by the Civil war, in fact, the entire population west of Texas was totally unaffected.

Source? And remember, effects can be something as simple as a disruption of local economy or psychological fear that it may spread west. I think that's a awfully broad statement to make.

[autigeremt 6,629]

The Civil War didn't affect everyone in the country? That's a decidedly odd view.

The Civil War didn't affect everyone in the country? That's a decidedly odd view.

Actually there were quite a few citizens whose lives were completely unaffected by the Civil war, in fact, the entire population west of Texas was totally unaffected.

Source? And remember, effects can be something as simple as a disruption of local economy or psychological fear that it may spread west. I think that's a awfully broad statement to make.

Not really. The railroad wasn't completed that far west so it's very possible that a few hundred thousand may have been unaffected.

[TheBlueVue 177]

The Civil War didn't affect everyone in the country? That's a decidedly odd view.

The Civil War didn't affect everyone in the country? That's a decidedly odd view.

Actually there were quite a few citizens whose lives were completely unaffected by the Civil war, in fact, the entire population west of Texas was totally unaffected.

Source? And remember, effects can be something as simple as a disruption of local economy or psychological fear that it may spread west. I think that's a awfully broad statement to make.

Not really. The railroad wasn't completed that far west so it's very possible that a few hundred thousand may have been unaffected.

Im speaking directly affected not psychologically..every single American will be directly affected by this healthcare law. There were populations out west that were totally unaffected by the Civil war. The gold rush of 1849 had seen huge numbers of people rushing to the west coast. There were far more than a couple hundred thou people living west of Texas in the 1860s. It would be hard to convince me that citizens of California, Iowa Oregon were affected in the least by the Civil War and they were all states before it began:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_date_of_statehood

[Auctoritas 2,828]

https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/reconstruction/essays/civil-war-and-reconstruction-american-west

There's some good info there. The effects of the war were felt out west - I know that California sent gold and formed units and fought off attempts of secession from the southern half of the state, Nevada was granted statehood just in time for the 1864 presidential election to ensure the Republican victory, Arizona and New Mexico were both divided (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_Territory) and played a large part in the war.

[Auctoritas 2,828]

The Civil War didn't affect everyone in the country? That's a decidedly odd view.

The Civil War didn't affect everyone in the country? That's a decidedly odd view.

Actually there were quite a few citizens whose lives were completely unaffected by the Civil war, in fact, the entire population west of Texas was totally unaffected.

Source? And remember, effects can be something as simple as a disruption of local economy or psychological fear that it may spread west. I think that's a awfully broad statement to make.

Not really. The railroad wasn't completed that far west so it's very possible that a few hundred thousand may have been unaffected.

Im speaking directly affected not psychologically..every single American will be directly affected by this healthcare law. There were populations out west that were totally unaffected by the Civil war. The gold rush of 1849 had seen huge numbers of people rushing to the west coast. There were far more than a couple hundred thou people living west of Texas in the 1860s. It would be hard to convince me that citizens of California, Iowa Oregon were affected in the least by the Civil War and they were all states before it began:

http://en.wikipedia....te_of_statehood

Will http://en.wikipedia....rican_Civil_War

http://en.wikipedia....rican_Civil_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_in_the_American_Civil_War

work for you?

http://www.amazon.co...s/dp/0806119020

[TheBlueVue 177]

What it comes to is that you are conflating my issue with comparative statements ("most corrupt president ever", which means that he's #1 out of 44 - a comparison) and your perception that I'm an apologist for Obama. I'm not, I'm an apologist for nuance and for fairness in argument.

"Jamming through a law today" is not something that has been shown to kill hundreds of thousands of people (you may think it will, but that's like, just your opinion, man). If you can't see the difference between a law that was voted on legally, and was attempting to try to make the health system in the US "healthier,"" and a country splitting in two halves and clashing swords until one cried "uncle", I can't help you with that. And to denigrate the Civil War as just "something that happened 100 years ago" is a shame - either to your worldview, or to the educational system.

Also, if you were attempting to insult me because of my religious views, you missed badly. Insinuating that I have no morals is something we hear all the time - it's demonstrably wrong. Calling someone an atheist is not a bad thing. It's like me trying to make you feel bad by calling you a Christian...not effective.

What it comes to is that you are conflating my issue with comparative statements ("most corrupt president ever", which means that he's #1 out of 44 - a comparison) and your perception that I'm an apologist for Obama. I'm not, I'm an apologist for nuance and for fairness in argument.

"Jamming through a law today" is not something that has been shown to kill hundreds of thousands of people (you may think it will, but that's like, just your opinion, man). If you can't see the difference between a law that was voted on legally, and was attempting to try to make the health system in the US "healthier,"" and a country splitting in two halves and clashing swords until one cried "uncle", I can't help you with that. And to denigrate the Civil War as just "something that happened 100 years ago" is a shame - either to your worldview, or to the educational system.

Also, if you were attempting to insult me because of my religious views, you missed badly. Insinuating that I have no morals is something we hear all the time - it's demonstrably wrong. Calling someone an atheist is not a bad thing. It's like me trying to make you feel bad by calling you a Christian...not effective.

What I see is a law that was forced through Congress strictly along party lines and the republicans were not allowed to make any input in the law and were in fact locked out of its formulation..literally. Obama was essentially reelected on the promises of his healthcare law..if you like you doctor, you can keep your doctor, period. if you like your insurance you can keep your insurance period, nobody is going to take it away from you if you have insurance in the independent market you wont have to do a thing and the savings will amount to $2500 per year on average per family. After all his lies were proven he refuses to admit the illegitimacy of the law.

Where I come from those are all lies that he told willfully and shamelessly just like his lies about Benghazi being a spontaneous response to a video, not terrorism, all a part of a false narrative to secure his reelection. All the while his minions at the IRS and the DOJ were doing everything in their power to shut down the political speech of his opposition. I just wish the guy treated real terrorist the way he treats his political enemies..he certainly loves to characterize Republicans as terrorists, trying to hurt the American people.

The guy skillfully divides us at home and unites the world against us. I am actually a little surprised there is anyone willing to make excuses for him at this point of the worst Presidency since Jimmy Carter by a WIDE MARGIN.

[Auctoritas 2,828]

Let's back up just a second. The ACA was:

1. Passed by Congress (you may disagree with the strategy)

2. Signed by a President

3. Upheld in large part by the Supreme Court.

Explain to me exactly what makes a law passed legally within the mechanisms of the constitution "illegitimate." You may disagree with his statements or the intent of the law, but those are not things that make it illegitimate.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Let's back up just a second. The ACA was:

1. Passed by Congress (you may disagree with the strategy)

2. Signed by a President

3. Upheld in large part by the Supreme Court.

Explain to me exactly what makes a law passed legally within the mechanisms of the constitution "illegitimate." You may disagree with his statements or the intent of the law, but those are not things that make it illegitimate.

The law is illegitimate simply because the entire premise it was propped up on and sold to the electorate is FALSE. I also find it interesting that you insert the Supreme Court. The interesting thing about that is after Obama and his team had forcefully argued it was not a tax, which the republicans said it was, the SCOTUS upheld it on the basis of it being a tax and the govt has the right to pass a tax. ironic, huh?

[Auctoritas 2,828]

Don't look at me, I'm not John Roberts. I thought it was a logical conclusion, myself.

Still, just because you think that the entire premise was FALSE (which I'm still not clear on) doesn't mean that the law is illegitimate, it just means you don't like it. It's still a duly-enacted law. Rail and rant about it all you want, it's still a legitimate law unless you can prove in court that the procedures (and I am specifically talking about rules of order and administrative code, not vague accusations of dishonesty, which are not against the law in this case) used to enact it were not followed properly.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Don't look at me, I'm not John Roberts. I thought it was a logical conclusion, myself.

Still, just because you think that the entire premise was FALSE (which I'm still not clear on) doesn't mean that the law is illegitimate, it just means you don't like it. It's still a duly-enacted law. Rail and rant about it all you want, it's still a legitimate law unless you can prove in court that the procedures (and I am specifically talking about rules of order and administrative code, not vague accusations of dishonesty, which are not against the law in this case) used to enact it were not followed properly.

Don't look at me, I'm not John Roberts. I thought it was a logical conclusion, myself.

Still, just because you think that the entire premise was FALSE (which I'm still not clear on) doesn't mean that the law is illegitimate, it just means you don't like it. It's still a duly-enacted law. Rail and rant about it all you want, it's still a legitimate law unless you can prove in court that the procedures (and I am specifically talking about rules of order and administrative code, not vague accusations of dishonesty, which are not against the law in this case) used to enact it were not followed properly.

it hilarious to me that SCOTUS upholds the law for being exactly what the Obama administration said it wasn't! That defines legitimacy to me.LMAO

[Auctoritas 2,828]

The point is: You are using the wrong word. It's legitimate because it still has the force of law. Whether you like it or not, or whether it was implemented the way it was envisioned, and regardless of however it has changed or whatever effect it has, the law is perfectly legitimate because it was passed by a majority in both houses of congress, signed by the President, and survived a legal challenge of its constitutionality.

Maybe "improper"? "spurious"?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Aucto......if it's the law as you say passed by Congress, signed by the pres., and upheld by the Supreme Ct., why has Obama changed the law almost 40 times WITHOUT approval of Congress and you don't seem to care.

[Auctoritas 2,828]

Because it's within his powers as the head of the executive branch. Those sorts of things fall under administrative law.

Congress enacts the law as a framework, and creates or empowers agencies within the executive branch to carry out the laws. Those agencies get to make individual rules.

It's basic separation of powers. There's this weird perception that Congress handles the intricacies of administrative rule-making, and it's not reflective of our system of government at all.

[TexasTiger 12,876]

The point is: You are using the wrong word. It's legitimate because it still has the force of law. Whether you like it or not, or whether it was implemented the way it was envisioned, and regardless of however it has changed or whatever effect it has, the law is perfectly legitimate because it was passed by a majority in both houses of congress, signed by the President, and survived a legal challenge of its constitutionality.

Maybe "improper"? "spurious"?

No . He just doesn't like it and is acting irrationally.

[TexasTiger 12,876]

The mad rantings that Obama is unusually deceitful would be humorous if they weren't so pathetic. I wouldn't describe Bush & Cheney in the way you guys are doing and their deceit was pretty special. You guys are suffering from hyper partisan delusion. Lay off Fox "News" and talk radio for about 6 months and take more nature walks. The fresh air may be a Godsend.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

OK all you law abiding purists. A few days ago Congress passed a law banning the proposed Iranian ambassador to the U.n. from being in the U.S. It passed 535-0. That's unheard of. Obama signed it. Then today he said he considered it only guidance. This Little Napoleon I going to do what he wants.......regardless of the law. What scares me is not him but the minions who blindly support his every move.

[TexasTiger 12,876]

OK all you law abiding purists. A few days ago Congress passed a law banning the proposed Iranian ambassador to the U.n. from being in the U.S. It passed 535-0. That's unheard of. Obama signed it. Then today he said he considered it only guidance. This Little Napoleon I going to do what he wants.......regardless of the law. What scares me is not him but the minions who blindly support his every move.

It's called a signing statement. Your boy, Bush, took them to new levels. I remember your outrage at the time:

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5175534

[autigeremt 6,629]

The mad rantings that Obama is unusually deceitful would be humorous if they weren't so pathetic. I wouldn't describe Bush & Cheney in the way you guys are doing and their deceit was pretty special. You guys are suffering from hyper partisan delusion. Lay off Fox "News" and talk radio for about 6 months and take more nature walks. The fresh air may be a Godsend.

He's a liar. Just like Bush. What's so hard about that? The President is rarely honest unless it's beneficial for him politically.

[Auctoritas 2,828]

Actually, there was good reason for this statement. The Constitution gives power to make treaties (i.e. conduct foreign policy via the ambassadors) solely to the President. Everyone is in agreement, including the Obama administration, that the Iranian choice is a non-starter. All Obama did was re-assert his constitutional authority in foreign policy matters, which Congress has no part in since these actions involve treaties.

There's a long history of international etiquette regarding envoys and and ambassadors. This is a signal to the rest of the world that this is an isolated situation (unless someone is dumb and selects a plenipotentiary designed to thumb their nose at the US). As noted, the US is a signatory of the US-UN Host Country Agreement treaty, which basically is an agreement that (since the UN HQ is on US soil) we will not interfere with ambassadorial movement.

But I know I waste my breath. All we are going to hear about is how much Obama loves Iran now, even though there is a clear and correct legal, constitutional, and diplomatic reason for the signing statement (which does not have the force of law).

[TexasTiger 12,876]

Actually, there was good reason for this statement. The Constitution gives power to make treaties (i.e. conduct foreign policy via the ambassadors) solely to the President. Everyone is in agreement, including the Obama administration, that the Iranian choice is a non-starter. All Obama did was re-assert his constitutional authority in foreign policy matters, which Congress has no part in since these actions involve treaties.

There's a long history of international etiquette regarding envoys and and ambassadors. This is a signal to the rest of the world that this is an isolated situation (unless someone is dumb and selects a plenipotentiary designed to thumb their nose at the US). As noted, the US is a signatory of the US-UN Host Country Agreement treaty, which basically is an agreement that (since the UN HQ is on US soil) we will not interfere with ambassadorial movement.

But I know I waste my breath. All we are going to hear about is how much Obama loves Iran now, even though there is a clear and correct legal, constitutional, and diplomatic reason for the signing statement (which does not have the force of law).

Actually, you are wasting your keystrokes, unless you are dictating.

But good post.