doublegunshop.com - home Forums Libtard Liars - YES They ALL Do It!

Pure Gold: Obama Slams Bush for Expanding Executive Power, Ignoring Congress

Townhall, by Guy Benson

As you may recall, we tend to reserve the "pure gold" descriptor for uniquely egregious instances of Obama hypocrisy. This one surely qualifies. Behold:

�I taught constitutional law for ten years. (Liar. That was Black Liberation Theology pretending to be constitutional law.) I take the Constitution very seriously. (Constitutional law and the Constitution are 2 different things.) The biggest problems that we�re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all, and that�s what I intend to reverse when I�m President of the United States of America.� (Huzzahs, cheers and some fainting by useful idiots who had no clue to what he was talking about, but heard a pause so knew it was time to huzzah, cheer and faint.)

Here is a man who, as a lame duck president, is openly vowing to thwart, ignore, and bypass Congress whenever possible. Here is a man whose administration has made more than two dozen on-the-fly changes to a law duly passed by Congress, without offering even the faintest sniff of a compelling legal justification for some of the most brazen alterations.

Here is a man who asked for new lawyers when he didn't like his team's legal analysis regarding the limits of his power in unilateral foreign interventions. Here is a man who ordered an executive action for which he'd explicitly stated he didn't possess the authority 15 months earlier. This is a man who leftist law professor Jonathan Turley describes as "the president that Richard Nixon always wanted to be."

Although fully 74 percent of the public understands that Obama's actions betray the manner in which our government is supposed to function, only 60 percent disapprove of them. That gap is filled by hardcore, ends-justify-the-means, undemocratic sycophants. (Undemocratic sycophants, useful idiots, what difference does it make?) And these are the same people who spent 2001 to 2009 screeching about Bush's powers run amok. (The good news is the difference between those 14% who approve of Barack�s banana democracy and the 19% who call themselves liberals. The really horrible news is that every single Democratic congress critter is part of that 14% as exhibited by their standing ovation when he said, during the SOTU Address, that he was going to take dictatorial powers and circumvent they, the very people, who were standing up for him.)

I added the BOLD: I would have to agree with King Brown when he says "They all do It" when the statement is confined to Libtards. There's some real whoppers in the above article!!

Jim, our conservative prime minister, finance minister and justice minister are respected Canadians. Each has broken solemn promises to the party and electorate, more than 10 per cent of the party currently doesn't support the party because of its broken promises, its core is in open revolt in the House of Commons.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, as Irish as they come, is currently rethinking the Conservative income-splitting promise because, to hell with the promise, "I'd like to think I'm analytical as finance minister." It's a great deal for the comfortable but an enormous cost to Canada, cutting heavily into anticipated surplus.

Income-splitting is described by the Canadian Centre of Policy Alternatives as "Canada's tax gift to the rich." The C.D. Howe Institute says it's "a windfall" for those with one parent at home. On top of earlier broken promises involving serious fiscal and tax mismanagement, this is hurting the party big-time politically. He will put country before party.

Yes, they lied. Yes, they are conservatives in the most influential and responsible posts in public service. You and I and every adult member here know that all politicians lie. Even in your congressman's case, unanimity is so rare in anything that all voters may not ascribe to your opinion of his probity.

All politicians lie as we all do to keep peace in the family. Did you every tell little lies (of no damage to anyone) to encourage and please your wife and family, sons and daughters, grand-children and greats as I have? What about that shotgun? Claiming only libtards lie is sandbox politics.

This isn't an excuse for lying, Jim. I've heard nothing but liberal lying for as long as I've attended the board. Not a word about conservative lying. After 10 years of it, I was obliged to show that lying is endemic even among saintly conservatives who are so disrespectful with filthy language of others who don't think as they do.

Those who make a distinction that only liberals lie are bigots. Look it up. Sartre said naming things changes things. It forces us to come to grip with it.

King:
In any large group you will find exceptions. When I get on the case Liberals lying it doesn't mean that conservatives never lie. Just think back to Richard Nixon.
My point is that liberals lie to a much greater extent than conservatives and it's getting to the point that I perceive everything coming out of their mouths as lies until I see evidence to the contrary.
I honestly believe it's an ethics thing and I also perceive liberals as having far lower standards of ethicss then conservatives.
There was a huge check kiting and overdraft scandal some years ago in the House of Representatives. Dozens of Congressmen were cited for abusing their checking privileges. Of those cited one(exactly one) was a Republican. Draw your own conclusions.
Obamas lying has brought a whole new perspective of low ethics to the White House and demeaned the office along with the individual occupying it.

Thanks. On the current evidence, it's the opposite in Canada. Two senators, both reporters brought by prime minister into the non-elected Senate for their gift-of-gab fund-raising prowess, ignited most far-reach scandal in memory, looming criminal charges. The Liberal party, thrown out by its own scandal, has removed its senators from caucus, ostensibly to make the Senate more independent but likely to remove the party from investigation into similar shenanigans among its senators. I've had a front-row seat at this punk's game for more than 65 years.

I think one concept that needs to be addressed is the idea that someone can change their mind, based on new information.

Politicans often lie, when what they are saying they know to be untrue at that time. Politicians sometimes lie when having made a statement, they learn something new or events change that then forces them, in their minds, to pursue a different course.

I personally think Harper and Flaherty are wrong about income splitting. It is clearly, under our tax laws, a penalty for being married. Don't marry and you can income split all you want. But I view their recent pronouncements as an evolution of their thinking, not a lie.

Instead of lamenting the incessant lies of politicians and the media King, why don't you light one small candle by making a resolution to begin telling the truth... as an example to other lying reporters and politicians.

Maybe you should go easy at first. Your immune system might attack your tongue since it wouldn't recognize the truth as anything but an invader.

I sort of---wait for the caveat--- see it the same way as you do, James. I led my post with Harper and Company being respected in the country. We're adults. We know that changing minds from changing circumstances is a sign of intelligence. It's a raison d'�tre of this board: exchanging information to increase our knowledge and enjoyment of doubles.

If Flaherty brings caucus around to his way of thinking, I believe it will be seen as a plus for the party and democracy. Problem is that all politicians pander, promise beyond resources to pay for goodies to get elected, then say Jeewhiz I didn't know it was so complicated, it looks like we can't do it.

Betrayed voters say they lied. I believe they lied with the caveat that this is normal, standard statecraft; every voter has seen this movie. Our new Liberal government barely four months in office is reneging on major promises and, as the federal Conservatives, there's no Tea Party to say boo.

It's what politicians do.

Promising without knowing you can deliver is deceptive, a trick, a sham. Depending on circumstances, it's criminal, a fraud. If I break a promise to you, I have lied unless there are extenuating circumstances and I make good my promise. We cut politicians slack because we know what they do.

What's most interesting to me is dissatisfaction with the Conservative new "evolution of thinking" is emanating from the western Canada core that put the party in power. Perhaps Jim Flaherty, in failing health and not likely to re-offer, wants to make amends and set the stage for a new party leader.

If Flaherty puts the country before party---and I think he will hammer it into the head of the prime minister---I'd be the last one to call him a liar. If he doesn't, it would still be be boorish to go around calling him a liar.

Further to my earlier comment about lying vs evolving thinking, here's an excerpt from today's column from one of our more articulate and common sense filled political analysts:

Rex Murphy, National Post Feb 15, 2014

"Now it is quite a leap, I agree, from the articulacy of a Francis Bacon to the stammering half-sentences, the periodic mauling of verbs, nouns and their attendant modifiers whenever George H.W. Bush (even more than when that malaprop, his son, G.W.) began the painful long and hopeless entanglement with an English sentence. Herbert Walker Bush did have one moment of unattenuated clarity, however; a bare utterance of six words which fell from his Elmer Fudd lips with a force and sound (for once) of real determination and the accents of a real pledge. You remember it: �Read My Lips. No New Taxes.�

He recited this mantra word by word, pausing between each of them, as if the force with which he spoke them was a warrant for the deep promise he was making. This pledge was fundamental. This was not the ordinary campaign muttering about the future, lazily general.

And when the time came to break it � this clarion call of a promise, this promise clear even to lip-readers � he broke it � and thereby broke his presidency. What I call here fundamental promises, promises seen by electors as fundamental to their vote, cannot be broken without great injury to a number of parties. And so George Bush�s �Read My Lips: No New Taxes� is now, I think even more than the rescue of Kuwait, the signature moment of his dminished presidency.

It�s only parallel is one made by Barack Obama. The Obama pledge surpasses even Bush�s in the urgency with which it was made, and for the clarity of its utterance. It was � as you may see on a hundred clips from a hundred speeches � no one-off, flip, off-the-cuff moment of empty puffery. Over and over he promised: If you like your health-care plan, you can keep you health care plan. Period.
Related


Americans by the millions, and even a national press long besotted with their �historical� president, now know that was not true. This broken promise has wrecked Obama�s poll numbers, and eaten nearly fatally into the trust (ever fewer) Americans have for him.

It was central to Obamacare as presented to a voting America. And it was from the lips not of some campaign manager, some background �spokesperson.� It was coming from the lips of � as he presents himself � an idealist President, one who claimed to be, in his very person, a departure from the old politics of equivocation and promise-breaking.

Nor was this a pledge like his promising that this was the time to halt the rising of the oceans and begin the healing of the planet in which he, in one of his more astral moods, went full Oprah. Pledges dealing with the cosmos are always a piece of vanity on the speaker�s party, and embarrassing to every adult listener. This was specific: This new plan will not interfere with your old plan. So you may safely vote for me, and it. I permit myself no escape hatch. Period.

The question all this brings to me is a plain one: When does a fundamental lie invalidate an election. What kind of duplicity, and of what scale, is required before Americans can say of their President, the executor of their laws, symbol of trust, �You have broken faith � and it appears you have done so knowingly.�

I�d argue that a knowing falsehood, one that is intended to get people to approve what they would dismiss if they knew the real truth, a lie coming repeatedly from the mouth of a President who has sold himself as something of a �truth-teller,� poses a political question of the deepest kind.

To be elected on what turns out to be a core falsity is to put that election in the shadow

So now that all America knows this, knowing now their health plans are gone, their doctors unavailable, their usual hospitals theirs no more, it goes to the heart of Obama�s legitimacy as President. To be elected on what turns out to be a core falsity is to put that election in the shadow.

The difference of his lie from Bush�s is this: At the time Bush was speaking he probably meant what he said. Later events, in his judgement, forced him to depart from what, at one time, he really intended to do. Obama�s promise was never true, not in its intention, not in its utterance.

But more than any other statements, this promise won Obama the election and enabled passage of Obamacare. Can a policy enabled by a lie be legitimate? Or was Obama�s deception so gross and commanding that it it vitiates his Obamacare policy, and perhaps even his claim to his office?

What is truth? That depends on whether it�s coming out of the mouth of politician and a president. No wonder Pilate walked away. He was a politician and could not bear to hear the answer."

Bravo! No matter what Rex says it's always appreciated if only at times for his inimitable style. He makes the point we're discussing. Note he says Bush's broken promise parallels Obama's---side by side---with Obama's surpassing in urgency and clarity. Bush is more forgiveable because he hadn't a clue to make that kind of promise. It's impossible for me to believe Obama was so dumb to not know what he was doing.

Members should know that unbelievably erudite and gentlemanly Rex Murphy, courteous to a fault, couldn't get hired for American television. He looks like a skinny alcoholic hick with hair awry and baleful eyes who had just fallen off a hay wagon. Brains to burn and courage to go. He writes for the right-of-centre National Post and is a regular contributor to the CBC public news commentaries, including a couple hours Sunday afternoons. We were separated by a couple offices in CBC Halifax.

He is truly a national treasure.

King, the fundamental difference was that Bush believed his statement. Obama, cynically, did not. That's the point Rex is making.