President Obama Lays A Good One On Fox News

Correction_ character isn't a trait democrats find important. Also throw in honor and morals into that missing democrat trait.

 

Oh please. An Obama cheerleader site. Obama is lying and why anyone supports him is beyond understanding. He fails at everything all the time.

 

Oh ok. So who are these so-called "Liberal overlords who are managing our decline? Can you identify them? Who exactly are these people? and the "liberal minions"; are you stereotyping or actually have the names of these people you so aptly describe?

 

So you watch it,eh?

 

Because I can spare the IQ points.

 

Ahhh,that's right,you're a liberal,according to you,your IQ is limitless.

 

Sure.

Liberal Overlords: Obama, Obama's administration, any Democrat politician, any Democrat in a government job GS9 or above, any member of the state controlled liberal media editor/talent position or above.

Liberal Minions: Regular voters; liberals on this board.

 

So basically your saying that there are perhaps a few thousand of these "Liberal Overlords" in the United States. Since there is no state controlled liberal media, that leaves the perhaps 200+ "liberal minions" on this board. So if you add up the figures and i'm being very generous in my figures, we are looking at 3,200 combined "Liberal Overlords" and "liberal minions" in the United States out of over approx 350,000,000 US Citizens. I think the ratio is rather low, don't you?

Now let me ask you: how many "conservative Overlords" are there in the United States?? How many "Conservative minions" (you can refer to them as "dittoheads" if you'd like) would you estimate are on this board?

Be honest with us now.

 

faux news is the propaganda arm of the right-wing movement, so they are a perfectly legitimate political target.

 

I think it's just a bit petty for presidents to target news networks they disagree with.

 

So much for tolerance and compromise eh?

 

The President sure can be very proud. He was able to get it passed when the majority of Americans opposed it and didn't want it. They still do not want it, but never mind, I am sure he takes pride and is laughing at the majority of Americans who opposed his ACA.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html

Also when the ACA was passed, as you can see the majority of Americans were against it then and still against it now. But when you are a politician with an agenda, who the heck cares what the American people think, want or do not want. After all, Washington knows best, not the American people.

Below are the polls thanks to RCP of public opinion on the ACA when the Senate passed it in November of 2009

CNN/Opinion Research 12/2-12/3 36% for 61% Against/Oppose +25
Rasmussen Reports 11/29 - 11/29 41% for 53% Against/Oppose +12
Gallup 11/20-11/22 44% for 49% Against/Oppose +5
Ipsos/McClatchy 11/19 - 11/22 34% for 46% Against/Oppose +12
Rasmussen Reports 11/21 - 11/22 38% for 56% Against/Oppose +18
FOX News 11/17 - 11/18 35% for 51% Against/Oppose +16
PPP (D) 11/13 - 11/15 40% for 52% Against/Oppose +12

Below are the polls thanks to RCP of public opinion on the ACA when the House passed it in March of 2010

Bloomberg 3/19 - 3/22 38% for 50% Against/Oppose +12
CNN/Opinion Research 3/19 - 3/21 39% for 59% Against/Oppose +20
CBS News 3/18 - 3/21 37% for 48% Against/Oppose +11
Rasmussen Reports 3/19 - 3/20 41% for 54% Against/Oppose +13
Quinnipiac 3/16 - 3/21 36% for 54% Against/Oppose +18
Democracy Corps (D) 3/15 - 3/18 40% for 52% Against/Oppose +12
FOX News 3/16 - 3/17 35% 55% Against/Oppose +20

So did the Democratic controlled Senate and House give the people what they wanted or did they go against the peoples will? Was it a case of political agenda top the people’s will? I think so.

 

. . . and a hundred times more sign-ups than MSNBC has viewers.

 

Chavez achieved a great deal for his country: http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/12/14/the-achievements-of-hugo-chavez/

 

Only a commie would say such a thing (Putin, Castro, Castro puppets in control, etc)

 

74% of sign ups already had coverage and 700,000 have already dropped it.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...f-obamacare-sign-ups-were-previously-insured/

By August 15, over 700,000 of the administration’s initial “sign-ups” had dropped their Obamacare coverage, Tavenner said in testimony to the House Oversight Committee. The administration has been advertising 8 million sign-ups since the first enrollment period ended in April.

Upon questioning, Tavenner had no details about the reason for the sharp drop, but presumably a large number of the sign-ups failed to ever pay their premiums, as many experts had predicted.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/18/700000-obamacare-sign-ups-already-dropped-their-coverage/

 

Really? Perhaps if you bothered to read the link I provided you might not come out with such a puerile and ill-educated comment.

 

I read your lopsided article in your link smartboy. That is why I made such an educated comment.

 

Its similar to Ovama weighing in on Donald Sterling being a white racist NBA team owner. Such things should be beneath the office of the president to mention.

 

"Lopsided". Perhaps you could do me a favour then and correct any mistakes you found? Thanks in advance.

 

That is by design. Do you not understand that? Do you not know what that means?

You are fed fake numbers, and you don't care, so long as you can use them to defeat yourself in an imaginary battle with those trying to help you.

 

What is it specifically that he is saying that is untrue about Obamacare? Acting petty and telling the truth are two different things. If what Obama is saying is true, then there is nothing petty about it. What are the facts about Obamacare that are not true, which he spoke of?

 

In order for numbers to be fake, you must prove them fake. No one here has done that, including you. Get busy proving these numbers fake, or you will be proven to be the fake you accuse others of being.

 

Of course I did. See post #66.

 

The administration has said that it does not distinguish between those setting up an account and those paying. The administration has admitted that these numbers do not reflect a difference, or net gain, of the insured as opposed to those who already were insured, or those who lost coverage and had to re-up through the system. This number is (*)(*)(*)(*)ing useless.

More people are on the take, I am aware of that. I expect you think this is something to be proud of. We disagree on that... however the administration openly admits these numbers mean nothing... they release them so that stupid people can post them on internet forums to further their cause.


Don't be stupid.