OF COURSE PRESIDENTS LIE

[warrior1972]

And you KNOW they lie. But when a President on YOUR side lies, you claim it WASN'T a lie.

And when you AGREE that they lie, you'll claim that the OTHER side lies MORE.

Or you'll claim that the OTHER side's lies are WORSE than your side's lies.

And you know what?

THAT'S a lie.



(CNN) -- "I cannot tell a lie."

That's the signature line from a classic American story. When the nation's first president was asked as a boy if he had chopped down his father's cherry tree, he didn't say "I can neither confirm nor deny those reports," or "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

George Washington told the truth even if it got him in trouble. The moral of the story -- Washington was a great leader because he would not lie, and all presidents should be as honest as our founding father.

Well, guess what? That story about Washington and the cherry tree is a lie. Never happened. And the notion that a good president doesn't lie to the American people -- that's an illusion as well. Historians say many of our greatest presidents were the biggest liars -- and duplicity was part of their greatness.

"Every president has not only lied at some time, but needs to lie to be effective," says Ed Uravic, a former Washington lobbyist, congressional chief of staff and author of "Lying Cheating Scum."



www.cnn.com/2013/11/24/politics/presidents-lie/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

[101ABN]

Oh...well...

I guess that makes it OK.

Sorry, Mr. President.

Carry on.

[warrior1972]

Nov 25, 2013 7:19:06 GMT -8 101ABN said:

Oh...well...

I guess that makes it OK.

Sorry, Mr. President.

Carry on.

Didn't SAY that, DID I?

[101ABN]

Didn't say you did.

The article, however, DOES appear to minimize Obama's multiple Pinnocchios.

[warrior1972]

Nov 25, 2013 11:39:15 GMT -8 101ABN said:

Didn't say you did.

The article, however, DOES appear to minimize Obama's multiple Pinnocchios.

Not where I am coming from, and no, it doesn't. (Of course, if an article mentions OIbama's NAME, and doesn't condemn him to the Ninth Circle of Hell, its purpose is to DEFEND him...right?)

The article talks about Democrats AND Republicans lying, and acknowledges that fact.

I am personally amazed by people's sense of self -righteousness when it comes to politics and lying. You've just GOT to find something that makes your side better than the other side, you know? And if somebody tries to make the point that both sides lie, then the point to be made is that the other side lies more often, or what the other side lies about is worse than what our side lies about, or....SOMETHING that makes one side worse than the other.

ANYTHING.

And if THAT fails, why then the article ITSELF, or the author, or the source; why, THAT'S impeachable (no pun intended.).

You simply cannot accept the fact that both sides lie, both sides use questionable tactics, and both sides get mad at anybody who dares to accuse them of that.

I really don't give a shit about Obama, you know? I've said that several times in the past (though obviously not enough for certain people's satisfaction.)

The President before him lied. So did the President before that, and before that, and before that, and before THAT.

EVERY President since I've been alive has lied, and I'd bet a mountain of gold against a barrel of bullshit that NONE of them before THAT DIDN'T lie, since there have BEEN Presidents.

That's the point I'm trying to make.

That's it, and that's all.

[101ABN]

If you think the article is about anything other than running cover for Obama by saying 'Everybody does it," you are dreaming.

[warrior1972]

Nov 25, 2013 18:22:23 GMT -8 101ABN said:

If you think the article is about anything other than running cover for Obama by saying 'Everybody does it," you are dreaming.

....yeah, right.

You KNOW that ALL politicians lie. You're too stubborn to admit even THAT.

That, sir, is nothing less than pathetic.

And you want to talk about MY "dreaming"?




Political obsessions don't look good on you, 101. I've been saying that ALL politicians lie for YEARS before this article appeared.

Say what you will.

All politicians LIE.

[101ABN]

As if that somehow excuses it.

As usual you miss the point.

The point of the article is to run cover for Obama.

Pretend otherwise as you will

[warrior1972]

No, didn't say that, and we went there once before.

As usual you miss the point.

As usual, you IGNORE the point, and anything that doesn't agree monolithically with your agenda while keeping to your obsession about Barack Obama.

The point of the article is to run cover for Obama.

The point of your argument is to condemn anything that mentions Obama's name without condemning him to the Ninth Circle of Hell. Thank GOD, I don't think like that.

Pretend otherwise as you will.

Bullshit.

nine-tenths of the article is about politicians lying, and you refuse to even acknowledge THAT.

I feel sorry for you.

[101ABN]

Spare me your sorrow, I have no need of it.

I'm sure you must believe in your heart of hearts that CNN ran this article on November 24 of this year COMPLETELY CONICIDENTALLY with NO THOUGHT to the fact that Obama has been under fire for the past two weeks for his REPEATED lie, "IF you like your plan, you can keep your plan, period."

Bullshit, indeed.

[101ABN]

Coincidence or Cover.

So which is it?

[Sailor]

After having read the CNN article end to end and taking a while to digest it I have to agree with 101.

It was written as an attempt to justify the lies (plural) told by the current President and his administration.

I couldn't help but note how Mr Blake glossed over the consequences to 2 past presidents over their lies.

One was impeached over deliberate lies told under oath in a courtroom. The only thing that saved Clinton's sorry ass was that the Democrats in the Senate took the choice to close ranks around one of their party, excusing perjury.

The other was forced to resign or face impeachment himself over lies told to cover up a relatively minor crime. Nixon's accomplishments in foreign policy (China) and disengaging the US from Vietnam are pretty much ignored today as a result as are his very left wing wage and price controls (remember those?).

This opinion article (to me) is clearly written to give Obama political cover and excuse his conduct at a time when faint rumblings are beginning to be heard of consequences up to and including impeachment.

One last point ... once the sitting President looses his credibility through blatant and repeated lies and cover ups on a number of subjects he becomes the proverbial "lame duck" and will usually get nothing else meaningful accomplished in his remaining time in office.

I know warrior won't like my opinion, but there it is.

Now, I have to split and head off to work. I'm trying to cram 5 days of crap into 3 so I can have Friday off with my family.

Be safe and well all.

[warrior1972]

After having read the CNN article end to end and taking a while to digest it I have to agree with 101.

It was written as an attempt to justify the lies (plural) told by the current President and his administration.


All right. I tried to make a non-partisan observation of fact. EVERYBODY knows that ALL politicians lie. ALL OF THEM. But I haven't gotten ONE FUCKING COMMENT on the main subject of this article. NOT ONE.

It's just more of the same old anti-Obama bullshit.

ALL PRESIDENTS LIE. You can't even agree with THAT???

So, you guys want another political bitching session?

Okay. I've had enough.

Let's go.

I couldn't help but note how Mr Blake glossed over the consequences to 2 past presidents over their lies.

One was impeached over deliberate lies told under oath in a courtroom. The only thing that saved Clinton's sorry ass was that the Democrats in the Senate took the choice to close ranks around one of their party, excusing perjury.

Right. Lying over a blowjob, and cheating on your wife. The ultimate crime (and he wasn't even a GOOD liar.)

The other was forced to resign or face impeachment himself over lies told to cover up a relatively minor crime. Nixon's accomplishments in foreign policy (China) and disengaging the US from Vietnam are pretty much ignored today as a result as are his very left wing wage and price controls (remember those?).

This opinion article (to me) is clearly written to give Obama political cover and excuse his conduct at a time when faint rumblings are beginning to be heard of consequences up to and including impeachment.

One last point ... once the sitting President looses his credibility through blatant and repeated lies and cover ups on a number of subjects he becomes the proverbial "lame duck" and will usually get nothing else meaningful accomplished in his remaining time in office.

I know warrior won't like my opinion, but there it is.

Now, I have to split and head off to work. I'm trying to cram 5 days of crap into 3 so I can have Friday off with my family.

Be safe and well all. [/quote]




Yeah?

A "relatively minor crime"?

Nixon, Agnew and Mitchell each had separate investigations. Mitchell had the honor of becoming the first Attorney General to do time:

"On November 17, 1973, during a televised question and answer session with the press,[201] Nixon said,

People have got to know whether or not their President is a crook. Well, I'm not a crook. I've earned everything I've got.[202]

The legal battle over the tapes continued through early 1974, and in April 1974 Nixon announced the release of 1,200 pages of transcripts of White House conversations between him and his aides. The House Judiciary Committee opened impeachment hearings against the President on May 9, 1974, which were televised on the major TV networks. These hearings culminated in votes for impeachment, the first being 27–11 on July 27, 1974 for obstruction of justice.[199] On July 24, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the full tapes, not just selected transcripts, must be released.[203]

Even with support diminished by the continuing series of revelations, Nixon hoped to win. However, one of the new tapes, recorded soon after the break-in, demonstrated that Nixon had been told of the White House connection to the Watergate burglaries soon after they took place, and had approved plans to thwart the investigation. In a statement accompanying the release of the "Smoking Gun Tape" on August 5, 1974, Nixon accepted blame for misleading the country about when he had been told of the truth behind the Watergate break-in, stating that he had a lapse of memory.[204] He met with Republican congressional leaders soon after, and was told he faced certain impeachment in the House and had, at most, only 15 votes in the Senate to vote for his acquittal—far fewer than the 34 he needed to avoid removal from office.[205]"


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon




"During his fifth year as Vice President, late in the summer of 1973, Agnew was investigated by the United States Attorney's office for the District of Maryland, on charges of extortion, tax fraud, bribery, and conspiracy. In October, he was charged with having accepted bribes totaling more than $100,000 while holding office as Baltimore County Executive, Governor of Maryland, and Vice President of the United States. On October 10, 1973, Agnew was allowed to plead no contest to a single charge that he had failed to report $29,500 of income received in 1967, with the condition that he resign the office of Vice President. Nixon replaced him by appointing then House Minority Leader Gerald Ford to the office of Vice President."


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiro_Agnew



"Mitchell's name was mentioned in a deposition concerning Robert L. Vesco, an international financier who was a fugitive from a federal indictment. Mitchell and Nixon Finance Committee Chairman Maurice H. Stans were indicted in May 1973 on federal charges of obstructing an investigation of Vesco after he made a $200,000 contribution to the Nixon campaign.[15] In April 1974, both men were acquitted in a New York federal district court.[16]

On February 21, 1975, Mitchell was found guilty of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury and sentenced to two and a half to eight years in prison for his role in the Watergate break-in and cover-up, which he dubbed the "White House horrors". The sentence was later reduced to one year to four years by United States district court Judge John J. Sirica. Mitchell served only 19 months of his sentence, at Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery, Alabama, a minimum-security prison, before being released on parole for medical reasons and mental instability, in what one official prison report called "paranoid delusional mindset."[17] Tape recordings made by President Nixon and the testimony of others involved confirmed that Mitchell had participated in meetings to plan the break-in of the Democratic Party's national headquarters in the Watergate Hotel.[citation needed] In addition, he had met, on at least three occasions, with the president in an effort to cover up White House involvement after the burglars were discovered and arrested."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_N._Mitchell





Shades of "Sweet Home Alabama"....

"Now Watergate does not bother me.

Does your conscience bother you, tell me true."


I repeat:

ALL PRESIDENTS LIE, and NIXON WAS PROBABLY THE WORST. [/u]

"And you KNOW they lie. But when a President on YOUR side lies, you claim it WASN'T a lie.

And when you AGREE that they lie, you'll claim that the OTHER side lies MORE.

Or you'll claim that the OTHER side's lies are WORSE than your side's lies.

And you know what?

THAT'S a lie. "


P.S. I don't care if you don't acknowledge it.

Not....one.....bit.

[Sailor]

All right. I tried to make a non-partisan observation of fact. EVERYBODY knows that ALL politicians lie. ALL OF THEM. But I haven't gotten ONE FUCKING COMMENT on the main subject of this article. NOT ONE.

It's just more of the same old anti-Obama bullshit.

ALL PRESIDENTS LIE. You can't even agree with THAT???

Excuse me, but where in the hell did I say that I don't agree? Yes, all Presidents (and all politicians for that matter) lie.

But you seem to be missing the point I tried and apparently failed to make, that this OPINION PIECE was written by a partisan who tried to make the point (and succeeded with some) that since all Presidents tell lies, great and small, then by extension any lie told by the current occupant of the Oval Office should be okay. I tried to make the point that they are not "okay" and that actions (and lies) have consequences.

BTW, the "relatively minor crime" that Nixon and company tried to cover up was the botched burglery of offices of the Democratic Party at the Watergate. It was the coverup (the lies) that eventually brought Nixon down, not the burglery itself.

If he had just kept his big mouth shut and tossed Liddy and a few of his staffers who were involved to the wolves I think Nixon would probably have survived.

I'm done, probably until the other side of the weekend.

[warrior1972]

ALL PRESIDENTS LIE. You can't even agree with THAT??? [/b]

"Excuse me, but where in the hell did I say that I don't agree? Yes, all Presidents (and all politicians for that matter) lie."

You didn't say that you DID agree, either....until right now.

If you and 101 had, this conversation would be over.

"But you seem to be missing the point I tried and apparently failed to make, that this OPINION PIECE was written by a partisan who tried to make the point (and succeeded with some) that since all Presidents tell lies, great and small, then by extension any lie told by the current occupant of the Oval Office should be okay. I tried to make the point that they are not "okay" and that actions (and lies) have consequences."

No, it does NOT say that lies are "okay". It says SOME lies are "forgivable", while others are not. (History has PROVEN that.) It does NOT say that Obama's lies should be "okay". And the article's author is a DAMNED SIGHT LESS PARTISAN than some of the OTHER OPINION PIECES that get treated like the FIFTH GOSPEL around here because they are written by RABIDLY PARTISAN OBAMA HATERS, and MOST of the posters on this board AGREE with rapidly partisan Obama haters, no matter WHAT they say.


HERE IS WHAT IT SAYS REGARDING BARACK OBAMA:

"Presidential lying is a hot topic because of a promise made by President Obama. While promoting Obamacare, Obama told Americans that they could keep their health insurance if they wanted to. That turned out to not be true for some, and Obama has been accused of lying.

Some political pundits warn that Obama's "lie" will undo his second term. They say Americans won't forgive a president who violates their trust. It's a good sound-bite, but it's bad history. A great leader must "be a great pretender and dissembler," Machiavelli said in "The Prince." And so should a president, some historians say.


Obama's statement will be judged by the same standard: Did it help the country, or did he say it just to save his bacon?
Obama apologized for saying people could keep their insurance if they like it. But some Americans who buy policies on the private market recently received cancellation notices because their plans don't meet Obamacare requirements for more comprehensive care.

Americans may forgive Obama if Obamacare improves their lives, says Christopher J. Galdieri, who teaches a course on the U.S. presidency at Saint Anslem College in New Hampshire."


THAT IS IT. THAT IS ALL.


And for THAT, it's supposed to be a "partisan opinion piece" in defense of Barack Obama??[/b]

About 90 percent of the article is about Presidential lying.

And yes, it's an "opinion piece".

SO WHAT?

Is there ANYTHING in it that is NOT true?

Republicans AND Democrats are accused of lying. THAT is the main topic of conversation, and THAT is MOST DEFINITELY true.

"BTW, the "relatively minor crime" that Nixon and company tried to cover up was the botched burglery of offices of the Democratic Party at the Watergate. It was the coverup (the lies) that eventually brought Nixon down, not the burglery itself."

Nothing wrong with authorizing the burglarizing of the offices of the opposition Party while looking for information that can be used in the upcoming Presidential campaign during an election year..... right?

"Now, Watergate does not bother me.
Does your conscience bother you, tell me true?"

Old Sailor, you would have puppies AND kittens, and DEMAND impeachment, if even so much as an ALLEGATION of such an offense were to happen regarding the Democrats and Republicans today, with the Democrats being the perpetrators, and Republicans as the victims, and you KNOW it.

"Relatively minor crime"?
You're kidding....right?

"If he had just kept his big mouth shut and tossed Liddy and a few of his staffers who were involved to the wolves I think Nixon would probably have survived."

No,if he hadn't authorized it in the first place, he WOULD have survived, or if he came clean as soon as possible, he MIGHT have survived. But being the slimeball Nixon was, it didn't even OCCUR to him, and so he didn't.

Sorry, Old Sailor, but you don't get anywhere with me defending Nixon.


He is indefensible, IMHO. And it's not due to Party politics. it's what he did to the integrity and credibility of AMERICAN politics, and the AMERICAN political process[/b].


"I'm done, probably until the other side of the weekend.[/quote]"

Have a good Thanksgiving, and do your damndest to gain weight.