Previous 11 - 20 Next
3.) Far too many citizens do not believe such numbers. They are of the position that "right-wingers" are doing everything to derail their Messiah's best laid plans, including the trumping up of minor speed bumps. ( okay now everyone, it's time to chant: "OBAMA...OBAMA...OBAMA..)...
2.) They've largely tuned out the details of Obamacare. WHY? Those who've come to understand the massive FAIL regarding the website do not "feel" the need to be burdened with additional flak. Those who remain uninformed will continue as such. They simply do not care.
Katie, Sorry to break it to you; this info will simply not resonate with at least half America's voters. FACT. There are simply too many reasons to list, not the least of which: 1.) Liberals believe that with the startup of Obamacare, these initial costs are necessary to build infrastructure. They are fine with it.
Stimulus #1, #2, and #3 did not help our economy? Now that is baffling. And how many $Billions are missing and unaccounted for? Holy ****, that is baffling...
C'mon now---get serious. We did not sell guns to Mexican drug runners and then let them walk away without following them.....
Wait, all of those green companies receiving federal loans were headed up by, Obama "bundlers"? Now that is baffling... Hold on there, only Tea Party 501c-3's were harassed, intimidated, singled-out for stall tactics? Now that is really baffling...
Baffled? Pretty much describes a Liberal's normal state. Healthcare website? Now that is baffling. Four Americans died in Benghazi? You are joking, right?
Every pundit and most reporters are asking the questions, "Did he misspeak, did he lie, did he know what he was talking about, was it just that he is so inept......?" No, folks, he is a LIAR. Bald-faced LIAR. Shameless LIAR. Look-you-in-the-eye-with-that-toothy-grin, LIAR.
Yes, he is lying about the lies. In such a pathological manner, it DEFIES explanation. He is a pathological LIAR. FACT
Believe it or not, the Times’s Andrew Rosenthal is defending the word choice. The paper’s public editor, Margaret Sullivan, wrote a post yesterday afternoon responding to the criticism the Times has received on the editorial. She asked Rosenthal for an explanation. Here is his response: “We have a high threshold for whether someone lied,” he told me. The phrase that The Times used “means that he said something that wasn’t true.” Saying the president lied would have meant something different, Mr. Rosenthal said — that he knew it was false and intended to express the falsehood. “We don’t know that,” he said.
Previous 11 - 20 Next