BaptistLife.Com Forums.

.
.
. It's obvious that is a Liberal Democrat, i.e. the same stripe as Barak Obama & Hillary Clinton...
.
.
.

Well, as far as "lie ability" goes, I don't think even Senator Belfry could beat Dick Cheney and George W. Bush.

David,

You do realize that most of the people who are a part of the fundamentalist takeover of the SBC are ardent Republicans don't you? You think those folks are some how better than Barack Obama and the Clintons? I sure don't see it.

Wow David. Makes no sense to me voting with the same folks who trashed the SBC and chased you out of your job. But hey, I also don't understand why Sandy is a Democrat given how conservative he is otherwise.

Tangled webs, all of us.

David, I would like to use a couple maybe three of the songs from Tsese-Ma'heone- Nemeotȯtse in a shapenote tunebook I intend to publish next summer. Do you know how I can best contact the heirs and assigns of Belle Wilson Rouse to ask permission to use "Jesus Netavovehone"? (The others are by Rodolphe Petter, and look like almost certainly public domain at this point.)

David ole friend, it is good to see your spurt of activity on these board the last few days but I question your idea that seems to put H. Clinton and B. Obama under the same stripe. Democrats are not all of the same stripe any more than Republicans are. And I have been a registered Republican for 59.5 years of my 80.5 but I have never voted a straight ticket.

And Timothy pleas support your statement that "most of the people who are a part of the fundamentalist takeover of the SBC are ardent Republicans" I really do not know the politics of Most of the takeover cable. And A lotof folk in the south have swiched parties since 79 and before.

Hauro you tagged it with "Tangled webs, all of us"

There is a difference between direct lies, and plausible predictions.

Obama certainly hoped that the ACA would provide an additional insurance option for those unable to obtain health insurance and that current insurance policies would not be cancelled. (He did not say the current insurance policies would see no increase in costs; they have seen an increase in costs but the insurance is also better - no annual caps, no lifetime caps, no limitations for pre-existing conditions). That prediction proved wrong - some (but not most policies) have been cancelled. Obama was speaking with rose-colored glasses when he said repeatedly “if you like you insurance, you can keep it”. I’d call that a hoped-for prediction not a direct lie.

GWB declared “mission accomplished” far too early. He too was speaking with rose-colored glasses. Not necessarily a lie. But the claim of weapons of mass destruction in the justification for the second Iraq War was a bald face lie. So too was the staged destruction of the Saddam Hussein statue.

Bill Clinton’s lie about “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” was another lie hanging only on a thread of what “sexual relations” meant.

Now I ask:
1) whose lie or wrong prediction had the worse outcome for the people of the world?
2) whose motivation for the lie/rose-colored prediction was worse?

I see Obama’s /Susan Rice/ Hillary Clinton’s claim of the anti-Muslim video being a cause of the Banghazi attacks as a plea to temper down the anti-muslim rhetoric in this country. Obama did immediately call it “terrorism”. It is plausibly true that the film was known and a motivating point in several of the participants in the attack. But the prime motivation behind muslim terrorism towards Americans goes back to American ill-conceived intrusion into their land over many years. And the second guessing about the State Dept’s protection at the embassy is just that second guessing (politically motivated).

Actually, I believe it was Susan Rice, not Hillary Clinton, who made the statement about the anti-muslim film being behind the violence that was taking place in the Middle East, and prompted the attack in Benghazi. As it turned out, the film did surface as one of several potential motivations in the course of the questioning from several of the futile GOP led congressional investigations, much to their consternation. As to the Obama statement about the ACA, there is still no evidence whatsoever that the provisions of the act are responsible for what insurance companies have done to private policy holders. Based on the provisions and requirements of the legislation, Obama told the truth. It's nothing but politics to say that was a lie, because it is a factually accurate statement. As to Bill Clinton's statement regarding Monica Lewinsky, ultimately it is his word against hers, and her credibility is certainly open to question. Some people are prone to jump to conclusions. This is politics, and since there aren't credible facts proving what actually occurred between the two, it isn't for me to say who is lying.

I did notice that in his self-defense, David didn't touch the proof, and the cataract of facts and testimony that proved beyond any shadow of doubt that Cheney and Bush lied repeatedly, to Congress and to the American people, and actually gave orders to invent evidence that couldn't be found. The cost of their lies, namely a hundred thousand human lives, along with several trillion taxpayer dollars is as heinous a crime as the fact that both of them made themselves billionaires several times over in the profit they reaped from the war.

Ed: Keith I think that due to a personal bias you are being to kind to Obama on this one. I am of the opinion that his motive in repeating a statement that he should have known was unsupportable fit in the Territory of a LIE. In that I believe his motive was to sell his proposal and due to his arrogant thinking that he always knows what is best, he expressed what he preferred as a fact to get his way. Again he is the President of the USA not the king of some serfdom.

And we as a people need to quit giving politicians of all parties, free passes, just because their vocational choice seems to require lying.

Much (most?) of political commentary is limited to the practice trying to get the most "bang for the buck." For instance, the phrase, "Obama acts like a king/dictator/whatever" will sway more voters than any lengthy, well-researched article on the subject of the evaluation of any Democratic or Republican presidency.

The continual reproduction of Obama's "lie" regarding the public's ability to keep their health insurance was obviously aimed at deterring the inference that ACA would not permit them to keep such contracts in force. Obama was simply in the dark as to the orchestrated and masterfully political response of health insurance companies to cancel policies long before the ACA could possibly take any such action, even if it were not part of the requirements of even unintended consequences of the Act. Keith mentioned the same, but did not elaborate . . .

So much for political japery, misinformation, suppressio veri, delusion, equivocation -- always under the guise (disguise?) of political expediency, deportment, and manners.

May God help us.