Will Obama pay a political price for his lies?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by scottw

and it is a system that is/was unique in history, we have many examples of progressive(statist) movements to one degree or another throughout history but in each case the foundation that they were trying to erode(or in many cases they filled a vacuum) was not constructed to quite the degree and with the forethought and focus on individual liberty and limited government that our founders managed to engender. By doing this they, at least, perpetuated the inherent desire for individual freedom that I think represents the push back against all of these progressive agenda items that we see to this day...they were quite aware of the sophists and others throughout history who would use their "talents" to debase a culture and turn truth on it's head and advantage to a few in order to bring the balance of power about to a centralized form of governing and control..., but I'm not sure that the Founders provided a remedy for this, when truth becomes a casualty and those that benefit from the ignoring/twisting of fact and reality have wrested so much control over people and process

No remedy is possible if the people don't want it. This brought to mind the quote "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty". Out of curiosity I searched the quote and its source, which revealed different variations and attributions. But what I found most enlightening, interesting, was this item, a bit longish but well worth the read, or even sketchy perusal. It is a very thorough compilation of quotes on the subject of liberty, and by a wide spectrum of authors from the "right" or the "left", from the religious or the atheistic, from ancient times to the present, from the most famous to the lesser known--all with similar and incisive views on individual liberty vs. authoritarian power or vs. the security of that power or vs. ignorance or other related comparisons:

http://freedomkeys.com/vigil.htm

It can be read all at once in few minutes, or digested a few quotes at a time. Well worth looking at. I felt compelled to pick some quotes as examples, but there were so many really good ones that I let that go and just linked to the entire list.

Actually, justplugit's "a declaration of independence vs. a declaration of dependence" would be a good one.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

That would have been slick if I said it. But I didn't. Never mentioned "liberals" or "conservatives" nor "principled lies." Slick try though by setting up a semi-straw man as if you were questioning something I did say.

You did say "The issue, then, is choosing either principle or progressivism. The former are adherents, the latter are the strategists" just after claiming that all politicians lie. Sure sounds slick to me...

I didn't say he was. And I wasn't merely referring to Obamacare in speaking about political lying. As far as Obama is concerned, there has been a pattern of truth twisting, to be generous, throughout his campaigns to get elected and re-elected and the continuous campaign mode and cover-ups he has maintained afterward. I didn't attribute such "lying" only to him but to "politicians" in general. I specifically said politics is war and war requires deceit.

So why be so critical? Hey, everybody does it.

Anyway, If he was told the vast majority wouldn't be impacted and those who were would likely end up with a better deal anyway, then his constant reiteration that you wouldn't lose your plan and could keep your doctor, period, was a typical stretching of the truth (a lie) to sell his plan and to help re-election.

Interestingly enough there's a video of Obama with House Republicans discussing the bill back in 2010 where Obama admits at least 10 million will lose their old plans. If this is some big lie I'd think he would have been called on it quite some time ago.

I didn't say he was more/less honest. And I certainly don't share your spin that the "big difference" is that he has a motivated hate machine dogging him, subtilely and falsely implying that Bush and Clinton didn't, but then switching to if they did it was nothing like today because the internet has "matured" (or immatured) enough to make it so. Quite a quick maturation. Am I to assume this hate machine waited five (a whole 5!) years for the internet to mature, and that the internet was just too unmatured for it to roar at this rate when he first ran for office and is spewing out "hate" at record amounts now?--kudos for a very imaginative spin. And that the negativity is merely about hatred not about reaction to policy, betrayal, and lying?--spin, spin, spinning.

The hate machine started well before his first term and has eclipsed anything we've witnesses in recent memory. Yes, some of the opposition is legitimate policy differences, but the bulk of it is personal...

As you often do, you set up tiny straw men, and totally ignore the majority, if not actually the entirety, of the post you respond to. Is there a bit of that strategic "lying" inherent in your attempts to justify? You thinking of running for political office?

I think my body of work here on this site alone would likely keep me from public office. Unless I ran as a conservative, the libs really don't know how to exploit the Internet that well

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

You did say "The issue, then, is choosing either principle or progressivism. The former are adherents, the latter are the strategists" just after claiming that all politicians lie. Sure sounds slick to me...

There you go again. I didn't say all politicians lie. I said they are expected to lie. Why--because they are politicians. The post was mostly meant to be provocative. The neutral tone I took regarding political lying was meant to be ironic. If I was so accepting of government by lies, how explain my posts that followed, or the many posts in other threads. Did I all of a sudden convert into a Machiavelli? I detest the lying, even the lying by that Gordon fellow in the 60 minute Benghazi piece. I prefer statesmanship over politics. Politics is usually looked at as a mean, mendacious process. One that not only destroys opponents' character, but also eats at our founding principles, destroying them and the entire constitutional system. The founders warned about the dangers of politics, factionalism, but Madison relied on there being so many factions that they would nullify each other. But when partisanship has grown so huge and two-sided, each side incorporating many otherwise diverse and competing factions, rather than neutralizing each other they induce the
destruction of our political process. Politics becomes a dirty word. John F. Kennedy once quipped "Mothers may still want their favorite sons to grow up to be President, but . . . they do not want them to become politicians in the process."

The more serious "choosing principle or progressivism" bit was a departure from the rest of the post. I intended no irony there. By choosing principle I meant adherence to the founding principles and particularly the Constitution. Adherence not requiring strategy, but compliance to the rule of law. Strategy being a means to circumvent it or even twisting truth to adhere to the Constitution.

By choosing progressivism I meant abandoning principles and ruling by the whim of the moment. I don't know of any stated principles of progressivism.

At this point in the post I had departed from the ironic view of political lies, and certainly didn't refer to the concept of principled lies, whatever that is.


So why be so critical? Hey, everybody does it.

I was being ironic, not in agreement that everybody does it.

Interestingly enough there's a video of Obama with House Republicans discussing the bill back in 2010 where Obama admits at least 10 million will lose their old plans. If this is some big lie I'd think he would have been called on it quite some time ago.

So not only was he told about the paltry sum of 10 million losing old plans but he even admitted it before he kept repeating that you would not. Period. I don't know if that's a "big" lie, but potentially a very effective one for election purposes, especially to the "vast majority" of those unaware of the video.

The hate machine started well before his first term and has eclipsed anything we've witnesses in recent memory. Yes, some of the opposition is legitimate policy differences, but the bulk of it is personal...

If you say so, must be true . . . nah.

I think my body of work here on this site alone would likely keep me from public office. Unless I ran as a conservative, the libs really don't know how to exploit the Internet that well

-spence

I think your body of work would be high qualification to be a politician. The "conservative politicians" would love to have you on their side. I think the "libs" would more so. And the libs are very good at exploiting the internet.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

There you go again. I didn't say all politicians lie. I said they are expected to lie. Why--because they are politicians. The post was mostly meant to be provocative. the convenient conversation ending phrase "they all lie...blah...blah...blah" is a wonderful tool for those that willfully support the lying as a means to an end, if you know that your liar(politician) is committed and lacking shame, declaring that all involved are liars suggests that noone can be considered truthful or trustworthy, we've seen this time and again, we were told this during Clinton's trouble, everyone lies therefore noone may judge lying even in degrees...may the best liar win...relatavism

The more serious "choosing principle or progressivism" bit was a departure from the rest of the post. I intended no irony there. By choosing principle I meant adherence to the founding principles and particularly the Constitution. Adherence not requiring strategy, but compliance to the rule of law. Strategy being a means to circumvent it or even twisting truth to adhere to the Constitution.

this was pretty simple and straight forward, not sure how he missed the concept

I was being ironic, not in agreement that everybody does it.

probably confused by the context

So not only was he told about the paltry sum of 10 million losing old plans which is now like a paltry 52 million? but he even admitted it before he kept repeating that you would not. Period. yes...PERIOD...which he says a lot and probably means in Progressive speak..the opposite of PERIOD...which would be .......until I decide to say something else...PERIOD I don't know if that's a "big" lie, but potentially a very effective one for election purposes, especially to the "vast majority" of those unaware of the video.

if this video confirms that he knew of such losses .... and there are many videos where he repeated over and over and very confidently that there would be no such losses PERIOD ...it would indicate that he was very aware at the time when he was lying, that he was indeed... lying





I think your body of work would be high qualification to be a politician.

or at least a replacement for Jay Carney