Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The question, as we all know, arises from the Wilson "You lie" outburst, and the core claim that notwithstanding specific bill language barring illegal immigrants from participating in the "exchange," as a practical matter, there is no way of verifying the citizenship of applicants -- which is the current state of play. Republicans say that then means illegal immigrants would end up being enrolled in plans -- bill language or no bill language. Today, for the first time as far as we know, the administration is backing a provision that would require proof of citizenship before someone could enroll in a plan selected on the exchange.
The bold part tells one that if the administration is now backing a provision to a bill, that someone lied and now it's CYA time with a provision... Why the need for the provision if everything was already as 0bama stated ?! Duhhh
Is that specific enough of a lie for you ?
So did he lie about there being a provision in the bill already? Or are you assuming he's lying because he stated that the bill wasn't intended to cover illegal immigrants and yet, it didn't contain specific language outlining exactly how illegal immigrants would be denied access in detail?
There is a difference. But I see how calling him a liar has a much more dramatic affect than just calling him "not detail oriented" or "ineffective bill writer" or "not specific enough"... LOL! Gotta stay on the offensive, right?
Spin it how ever you want. The dude tried jamming a bill down the throats of Americans saying it didn't cover illegals (just one issue of many)... then AFTER being called a lier on the grand stage and his claim put under a microscope it was determined it was necessary for a provision to correct his claim...
Now, a few things can be concluded from this. 1) the dude is a straight up lier, knows what's in the bills and mis represents them in hopes the sheelpe will blindly follow him down the path of some agenda not in the best interest of the people. Or 2) the dude has no clue what is in the bills he is promoting and pushing upon the American people and therefore can't represent what is in the best interest of the people. Or 3) the dude is just too dumb to know what is going on under his nose and has no business as the leader of the free world.
Either way it is not how the leader of the free world should lead... Suppose one of these bills actually got pushed through and this grave "oversight", if you want to call it that, puts the American people TRILLIONS more in debt. Who's responsible ? And more importantly... WHO PAYS FOR IT ?
Only following your lead, as you're spinning it just as well the other way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephan_K
The dude tried jamming a bill down the throats of Americans saying it didn't cover illegals (just one issue of many)... then AFTER being called a lier on the grand stage and his claim put under a microscope it was determined it was necessary for a provision to correct his claim...
To "correct" his claim, or "solidify" it? He said the bill did not cover illegals, which is technically true. But it didn't outline specifically how it would prevent illegals from gaining coverage. So technically, it can also be seen as untrue because it left open a loophole - God forbid a lawmaker not close every single loophole in every bill, as that never happens! So because it doesn't specifically outline how it won't cover the family dog/cat, he'd be lying if he said the bill isn't meant to cover pets? Seriously...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephan_K
Now, a few things can be concluded from this. 1) the dude is a straight up lier, knows what's in the bills and mis represents them in hopes the sheelpe will blindly follow him down the path of some agenda not in the best interest of the people. Or 2) the dude has no clue what is in the bills he is promoting and pushing upon the American people and therefore can't represent what is in the best interest of the people. Or 3) the dude is just too dumb to know what is going on under his nose and has no business as the leader of the free world.
Either way it is not how the leader of the free world should lead... Suppose one of these bills actually got pushed through and this grave "oversight", if you want to call it that, puts the American people TRILLIONS more in debt. Who's responsible ? And more importantly... WHO PAYS FOR IT ?
I would imagine Obama is smart enough to know the people won't blindly follow him down a path of some agenda not in the best interest of the people - but then again, Bush did get reelected, so I guess there's a chance Obama COULD have been banking on the sheep being a little blind once again, though I doubt it. The point is, you have no way of knowing or proving that he was actually lying. But you continue to toss around the accusation anyway for dramatic effect. I'm not saying they didn't make a mistake by not closing the loophole in the beginning, but this reaction is a little extreme.
How many times did you call Bush a liar (or any other Republican leader, for that matter)? I only ask because I want to see if you hold everyone to the same standard, or if this is just another partisan jab by someone who is extremely critical of the party they oppose.
To "correct" his claim, or "solidify" it? He said the bill did not cover illegals, which is technically true. But it didn't outline specifically how it would prevent illegals from gaining coverage. So technically, it can also be seen as untrue because it left open a loophole - God forbid a lawmaker not close every single loophole in every bill, as that never happens! So because it doesn't specifically outline how it won't cover the family dog/cat, he'd be lying if he said the bill isn't meant to cover pets? Seriously...
I would imagine Obama is smart enough to know the people won't blindly follow him down a path of some agenda not in the best interest of the people - but then again, Bush did get reelected, so I guess there's a chance Obama COULD have been banking on the sheep being a little blind once again, though I doubt it. The point is, you have no way of knowing or proving that he was actually lying. But you continue to toss around the accusation anyway for dramatic effect. I'm not saying they didn't make a mistake by not closing the loophole in the beginning, but this reaction is a little extreme.
Bottom line... He should have made sure that all the loopholes were closed before claiming something. He got caught in a lie by not doing so and had to play the CYA game no matter how you look at it with a provision. It's irresponsible for the president to claim something is in a bill and then get caught lying about it in an address to the world. The words of the bill do not lie and allowed for them to be covered... Period ! Maybe he should have read it before making such claims... nothing extreme about the reaction. What is extreme though is the potential cost to the American people !
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludachris
How many times did you call Bush a liar (or any other Republican leader, for that matter)? I only ask because I want to see if you hold everyone to the same standard, or if this is just another partisan jab by someone who is extremely critical of the party they oppose.
I feel like a broken record here... Do you not remember my response to virtually your same assumption in this thread a few posts ago ?
I am upset that he push tort reform off the table... I hate scumbag lawyers and I hate scumbag politicians who benefits from scumbag trial lawyer lobbyists even more...
I am upset that he push tort reform off the table... I hate scumbag lawyers and I hate scumbag politicians who benefits from scumbag trial lawyer lobbyists even more...
It's called the Gov agenda... and it rarely has the best interest of the people in mind !
Bottom line... He should have made sure that all the loopholes were closed before claiming something.
Can't argue with that. He should have made sure there were no loopholes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephan_K
He got caught in a lie by not doing so and had to play the CYA game no matter how you look at it with a provision.
I still don't see how he was "caught in a lie". Again, you're insisting he was purposely trying to mislead the people, which is a BIG assumption on your part - you have NO proof to support that claim. Calling him a liar is extreme and unreasonable, no matter how you look at it. Faulting him for supporting an imperfect bill that had text in it saying it wouldn't cover illegal immigrants but not outlining exactly how it would prevent covering them, now that's something I can't blame you for. It wasn't a smart move.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephan_K
I feel like a broken record here... Do you not remember my response to virtually your same assumption in this thread a few posts ago ?
What speech? Did he give yet another propaganda speech? Gee, I must have missed it. Too bad.
Why can't this guy understand we aren't buying his B.S.? And that is exactly what it is. Nobody wants to give up there great health care for a government run system that promises to be no better than that of Canada or the UK.
If you want to die young, vote for the Obama plan. It's that simple.
I still don't see how he was "caught in a lie". Again, you're insisting he was purposely trying to mislead the people, which is a BIG assumption on your part - you have NO proof to support that claim. Calling him a liar is extreme and unreasonable, no matter how you look at it. Faulting him for supporting an imperfect bill that had text in it saying it wouldn't cover illegal immigrants but not outlining exactly how it would prevent covering them, now that's something I can't blame you for. It wasn't a smart move.
As in my previous post, this potential TRILLION DOLLAR "mistake" (as you put it in so many words) categorizes him as one of the following in my eyes (as well as many others) being the leader of the free world:
Now, a few things can be concluded from this. 1) the dude is a straight up lier, knows what's in the bills and mis represents them in hopes the sheelpe will blindly follow him down the path of some agenda not in the best interest of the people. Or 2) the dude has no clue what is in the bills he is promoting and pushing upon the American people and therefore can't represent what is in the best interest of the people. Or 3) the dude is just too dumb to know what is going on under his nose and has no business as the leader of the free world.
Pick one... All of them have very serious long term dangers to go along with them ! Something America doesn't need. This whole HC charade is a political game and has nothing to do with the best interest of the people. My mind won't be changed of that with the bills on the table... especially after his "mistake".
Why can't this guy understand we aren't buying his B.S.? And that is exactly what it is. Nobody wants to give up there great health care for a government run system that promises to be no better than that of Canada or the UK.
Nice that you can speak for everybody. Wish my health care was as great as yours and everyone else that you're speaking for. Maybe I'm the only one that has noticed the 20-40% jumps in cost each year the past 5 years and is covering less... which is the main reason I had to put off being self employed and get a full time job recently. It's much more difficult for the self employed and small business owners. Maybe it's fine for the full time employees, but even those people are starting to feel the effects the rest of us are talking about.
It's been stated several times that people won't have to give up their health care. If anything, it will be another option for you to consider for your family if you choose to. Why do people keep running with the same rhetoric that has been addressed over and over?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So because it doesn't specifically outline how it won't cover the family dog/cat, he'd be lying if he said the bill isn't meant to cover pets? Seriously... 
