Why do liberals/progressives/democrats back up Obama's lies?
I think that it is because they think that the end justifies the means. It doesn't matter what they have to do to get what they want and lying is a small price to pay for them.
Update:just a few of thousands
His is the most transparent administration ever.
He would take public money for campaign
Sequestration was a Republican idea
Sequestration will never happen
The economy is improving
"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."
“If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor.
Period. If you like your health-care plan, you will be able to keep your
health-care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.”
“For people with insurance, the only impact of the health-care law is
that their insurance is stronger, better, and more secure than it was
before. Full stop. That’s it. They don’t have to worry about anything
else.”
• "If you already have health insurance, the only thing that will change
for you under this plan is the amount of money you will
Comments
Because deception and delusional thinking are the entire foundation of left wing politics.
If they told the truth, then they would be conservatives.
the only "end" they justify is having tyrannical power over the government. NOTHING good ever results from left wing policies.
The people backing up Obama's lies are liars themselves or are just too dumb to realize he's lying. The liberal m.o. has always been to smear and diminish their opponents. Fortunately for them, this country is full of mental midget voters who buy into that crap. It's a ploy that works well for Dems, who could never win an election on their own ideas. Obama won a second term, even as he put the country on the brink of bankruptcy. Need I say more?
Obama's not a totalitarian leader, be it as displeasing as it might be for you to read. Who said that the left was behind Obama and not simply behind a set of ideals which they happen to share with him in great parts? Who said that they even were supporting something in peculiar and not purely playing the game of not letting the right get it their way?
There are a million reasons that could potentially explain why someone adopted this or that position and "maybe they like Obama" is just one of them.
I don't bother about excusing, justifying or supporting Obama himself. He's one person and he is not a king... However, I might happen to dislike what the opposition has to offer or the way they try to play their game. As of now, Republicans' behavior this year has been the most disgusting and anti-democratic exhibition of cynicism I ever witnessed in politics since decades... I have never seen a party so contemptuous of the opposition and of the electorate -- and that's a good enough reason to back up just about any effort to end their five-years-old-like revolt. I don't support Obama in peculiar; I just happen to love democracy.
1. They know that their base is made up of low information voters who won't research the issues.
2. As the democrat strategist said on tv, "It doesn't matter if what we say is true. It matters if we can get the people to believe it is true." That pretty much sums up their willingness to lie.
Do you guys really want us to sit down and go over all the lies he has told us? AGAIN?
Tell you what, just go to YouTube and search Obama lies and you will find hundreds of videos where you can WATCH him lie!
They rely on a media that backs up those lies.
These are the people who hate Fox News because they can't bear to hear any dissenting opinion.
What lies are you referring to. Sources
Obama vs. Bush On How Honesty is the Highest form of Leadership
Posted on 12/15/2007 by Juan Cole
Hillary Clinton fired the co-chair of her New Hampshire campaign, Bill Shaheen, because he speculated that Barack Obama would be attacked by Republicans for admitting youthful drug use,if he were the nominee. She then apologized to Obama.
But in this controversy, what is forgotten is that our current incumbent also admitted to youthful drug use:
‘ Bush has said that he did not use illegal drugs at any time since 1974, but he has declined to discuss whether he used drugs before 1974.
A conversation between Bush and an old friend and author, Doug Wead, touched on the subject of use of illegal drugs. In the taped recordings of the conversation, Bush explained his refusal to answer questions about whether he had used marijuana at some time in his past. “I wouldn’t answer the marijuana questions,” Bush says. “You know why? Because I don’t want some little kid doing what I tried.” When Wead reminded Bush that the latter had publicly denied using cocaine, Bush replied, “I haven’t denied anything.” ‘
I’d say that we know from this recorded interview that Bush 1) used marijuana in his youth, 2) used “blow” or cocaine in his youth, and 3) is deliberately dishonest about both in public.
We also know that Bush was an alcoholic until he was 40 years old, would go up at parties to little old ladies and ask them how sex is after 50, and fancied himself a ladies man (I think the evangelicals have words like fornication & adultery for that sort of thing, but the evangelicals seem to be selective in choosing the target of such vocabulary).
Of course, if you say you later got religion, and if you are a Republican, all these sins are suddenly forgiven and the nation’s newspapers and t.v. pundits and Baptist preachers immediately stop even remembering that they happened.
So everyone reported Bush’s condemnation of drug use by athletes on Friday with a straight face, and without making reference to his own drug use. (There is evidence that the alcoholism continued while he was in the White House).
I don’t doubt that what Bill Shaheen said is correct, and that the Republicans will play all sorts of dirty tricks on Barack Obama if he is the Democratic nominee. The Republican Party is about velociraptor politics.
But if they did come after Obama for his honesty, I’d reply that they have been led for the past 7 years by someone who did the same things and then stonewalled the public about them. Bush seems to think it is better to teach little children to lie than to be honest with them about the temptations they will face in this society during adolescence.
And the corporate media will never even notice, when they collaborate in the future swiftboating of Obama, that they gave W. a pass because he is a Republican and an elite white male from an old-established political family.
Obama did the right thing in coming clean. Bush did the wrong thing in obscuring the truth. Obama demonstrated leadership. Bush showed himself a political and moral coward, and a hypocrite.
There are partisans on EVERY SIDE, dipsh*t. Get a clue... You don't think BUSH had diehard adherents like this?
Lies are all that Barack Obama has offered.
Without his lies, liberals/progressives/democrats would have absolutely nothing to believe in.......nothing to support.
Forward.
I love how I was told to by behind blue eyes to talk rational politics on this forum, without throwing insults.
How can I be rational with this?