Speaking at a fundraising
event for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in Los Angeles,
President BO (the amateur president) asserted that Republicans filibustered 500
pieces of legislation.
Here’s what he said:
“Here’s what’s more
disconcerting; their willingness to say no to everything — the fact that since
2007, they have filibustered about 500 pieces of legislation that would help
the middle class just gives you a sense of how opposed they are to any progress
— has actually led to an increase in cynicism and discouragement among the
people who were counting on us to fight for them,”
TheWashington Post recognized the error of this statement. They wrote:
“On just
about every level, this claim is ridiculous. We realize that Senate rules are
complex and difficult to understand, but the president did serve in the Senate
and should be familiar with its terms and procedures. Looking at the numbers,
he might have been able to make a case that Republicans have blocked about 50
bills that he had wanted passed, such as an increase in the minimum wage. But
instead he inflated the numbers to such an extent that he even included votes
in which he, as senator, supported a filibuster.”
The Post said that in reality, “there have just been 133
successful filibusters...since 2007.”
Now he claims that he only
learned of the VA wait-list scandal on TV.
Does that have a familiar
ring to it? It should.
He said the same thing
about Operation Fast
and Furious, the IRS's targeting of tea parties and a DOJ seizure of two months of
Associated Press phone records.
NOTE: The following video was added to this post Thursday evening at 10:15.
NOTE: The following video was added to this post Thursday evening at 10:15.
Why does the man in charge not know what is going on in his
administration? Doesn’t he learn about them from his cabinet meetings?
Wait! President BO (the amateur president) doesn't even HOLD
cabinet meetings (except when forced to do so).
If he did not know about them, then he is a very poor
leader.
If he DID know about them, then he is a bald faced liar.
He has pretended ire in each case, gone before the public and
revealed how angry he is about each and how he was going to fix each. After the
fact, of course.
If he had been at the helm, he would have known about them
from the start and would have been able to take care of them forthwith.
I think he knew, don’t you?
13 comments:
During the Iraq War, President Bush, and his Admin, made a series of serious errors in prosecuting the war and the reconstruction of Iraq.
We were wrong about WMD's, wrong about it being a cakewalk, wrong about necessary troop strength and wrong to totally disband the Iraqi military.
Using your simple logic, which I admit, liberals have often wrongly employed too, couldn't we craft similar statements about Bush, and perhaps every former president?
He was either too stupid to know, or chose to lie. Or was to dumb to know better.
How do we know when any President is telling the truth?
Pres. Reagan while we were negotiating with terrorists, said repeatedly we don't negotiate with terrorists.
Nixon denied Watergate.
Clinton completely dodged questions about Monica.
Sadly, many, from both sides, feel a need to demonize, mock, and score political points.
Does President Obama, like you or me, lie? I'm sure he does. Is that wrong? Depends.
SHould we give him the benefit of the doubt?
Probably. But I've tried to do so with most presidents in my lifetime.
DM: "...couldn't we craft similar statements about Bush, and perhaps every former president?"
Sure. What has that to do with anything in the universe? I was not blogging about Bush or Clinton or Bush or Carter or any other president. I was talking about THIS one.
Look. I'm an equal opportunity chastizer. I castigated Bush for the "Patriot Act," which I think has nothing patriotic about it at all.
There is no doubt of which to give him the benefit. A lie is a lie no matter who tells it.
He lied. I don't trust people who lie to me. If a person lies to me, I then require him/her to give me a list of other things he might lie to me about. I also require him/her to give me a list of things I can trust him/her on. Then I tear up the list and refuse to trust what he/she says.
DM: Besides, the question was,"How Do We Know When PBO (tap) Is Telling the TRUTH?
I guess no different than Harry Reid saying that Romney pays no taxes,or Americans who said they lost their healthcare plans were lying. Of course when poiticians lie to us it's politics or they "mispoke"but if we lie to congress it's a felony.
Joe, you forgot Benghazi?
Joe - "He lied. I don't trust people who lie to me. If a person lies to me, I then require him/her to give me a list of other things he might lie to me about. I also require him/her to give me a list of things I can trust him/her on. Then I tear up the list and refuse to trust what he/she says."
I know this is off topic (so I won't protest if you delete it on that grounds. Your blog, your rules.), but I've never understood how you can hold the politicians that you oppose to such an exacting standard of truth, while giving your God and every single passage of the Old and New Testament a complete pass.
Because nothing in the Bible is true. Not a shred of evidence for any of it anywhere.
I guess we all choose which lies we want to believe.
XO: "Because nothing in the Bible is true. Not a shred of evidence for any of it anywhere."
That is a demented statement born of ignorance. You just HAVE to be smarter than that...don't you?
Joe - "That is a demented statement born of ignorance."
No,it is a statement of fact.
There is absolutely no historical evidence that anything recorded in the Bible ever actually took place.
There is no geological evidence of a Great Flood.
There is no Egyptian record of Hebrew slavery, Moses confronting the Pharaoh, the 7 Plagues, the revolt of the Hebrew slaves, the parting of the Red Sea and the drowning of the Egyptian Army in hot pursuit.
Now, one would think that these would be subjects of note.
But there is not a single hieroglyph or statue or monument or temple or even a simple bauble of Egyptian jewelry that makes any mention of any of that ever happening.
How odd. It's almost as though it never actually happened!
Same thing with the New Testament.
There is no mention in any records of Jesus and his exploits until well over 100 years after he died.
Now, one would think that the Romans, being meticulous record keepers, would have made some passing mention of a virgin birth, a carpenter from Nazarene healing the sick, feeding multitudes with a single fish and a single loaf of bread, turning water to wine, violently turning the whip on money changers in a synagogue, walking on water, raising the dead and preaching an insurrectionist sermon against Roman rule who they arrested, brought to trial, tortured and publicly crucified only to have him rise from the dead and appear to his followers.
But no. Not one word about Jesus anywhere in any Roman record. Nothing. Zip. Nada.
There is no historical record that anything recorded in the Bible ever actually took place.
Yet you believe it all without evidence, while calling politicians on the carpet for far less egregious lies and deceptions.
Why is that?
Because you want to choose which lies you believe?
It's been a very long time since I've seen such ignorant statements made about the Bible, but X.O. has topped them all.
Just one thing - the evidence for a world-wide flood is all around, but you have to look at the evidence without the bias of evolution. When your religion is based on evolution, all you have are lies.
Nothing else in X.O.'s diatribe is even worth the time to address.
XO: "There is absolutely no historical evidence that anything recorded in the Bible ever actually took place."
That is a false statement. Period.
There are many references in the Bible to things and places that still exist today. Therefore, when the Bible speaks of them, the Bible is telling the truth.
Just because you don't know about them is not evidence that they don't exist.
The Bible said Jerusalem fell. Jerusalem fell. Therefore what the Bible said about it was true.
The Bible said the Jews would be scattered. The Jews were scattered. Therefore what the Bible said was true.
Come on, man. You're smarter than that, aren't you? You know that statement is blatantly false, don't you? I mean, "anything?"
Give me an ever-lovin', blue-eyed break!
Joe - "The Bible said Jerusalem fell. Jerusalem fell. Therefore what the Bible said about it was true.
The Bible said the Jews would be scattered. The Jews were scattered. Therefore what the Bible said was true."
Oh thank you, thank you, thank you!!! That's awesome!
Because my favorite author is J.R.R. Tolkien. I read The Hobbit, The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers and The Return of the King religiously at least once a year.
I always loved the idea that Tolkien wanted to create a mythology for the British Isles that was on a par with the Norse mythology of the Vikings, the ancient mythology of the Romans and Greeks and all the way back to the Sumerian mythology of Gilgamesh.
I loved the Tolkien books, but I always assumed they were nothing more than well written fiction.
Until now!!!
"The Bible said Jerusalem fell. Jerusalem fell. Therefore what the Bible said about it was true.
The Bible said the Jews would be scattered. The Jews were scattered. Therefore what the Bible said was true."
GUESS WHAT??? A passage in The Hobbit describes how the game of golf was invented!
"Old Took's great-grand-uncle Bullroarer knocked king Golfimbul's head off with a wooden club. It sailed a hundred yards through the air and went down a rabbit hole, and in this way the battle was won, and the game of Golf invented at the same moment."
Golf actually exists! I know golfers! I've even played golf! I have a set of golf clubs in my trunk RIGHT NOW!
Clearly this means that everything else mentioned in Tolkien's books, Middle Earth, Noldor Elves, Sindarin Elves, Dwarves, Hobbits, Dragons, Balrogs, Goblins and Orcs are real!
Because GOLF!
XO: Demented logic.
Joe - Your logic.
Post a Comment