Obama Can’t Keep Up With His Own Lies

This was a lie:

State Dept. Walks Back Biden Deadline on Afghanistan

Biden emphasized in last week’s vice presidential debate that U.S. troops would exit the country in 2014.

This is the truth:

State Department official: Negotiations to extend U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan starting soon

Despite statements by Vice President Joe Biden, the State Department is about to begin formal negotiations over the extension of U.S. troops past 2014, a top State Department official said Tuesday.

How do we know? Easy, this was also a lie, and it is in agreement with the most recent Biden lie detailed in the story immediately above:

On the Issues: Iraq and Afghanistan (dateline: 2008)

Senator Obama says America must shift its defense resources from Iraq to Afghanistan, which he sees as ground zero for any war on terrorism. He says he would remove one or two brigades a month from Iraq, and get all combat troops out within 16 months. “The only troops I will keep in Iraq will perform the limited missions of protecting our diplomats and carrying out targeted strikes on Al Qaeda,” he said last year.

Now, in considering the habitual pattern of lying to the American people, did you also catch that tasty little tidbit about “protecting our diplomats and attacking Al Qaeda?” Turns out, he meant “helping Al Qaeda kill our diplomats.”

To those of you who read the RNL and plan to vote for Obama: WHY?  Don’t you care about this nation?  And, if you do, how can you trust it to a man who has repeatedly lied to you?  Do you remember when you had to do those mental gymnastics to say “Bush lied, people died?”  Guess what?  We don’t have to perform ANY logic tricks to get to “Obama lied, people died.”  So, please, think about this before you vote.

If you are ever going to be the principled person you think yourself to be, then you are going to have to hold your Party and its leaders to the same standards you wanted to hold Bush to.  Otherwise, hard as it may be to accept, you are no better than any conservative or Republican, and everything you have ever said about them applies equally to you.  After all, if you will defend Obama when it is this clear that he is doing exactly what you complained about Bush doing, then you are doing what those conservatives/Republicans were doing when they defended Bush.


Stop the cycle: vote for America. (Note: I did NOT tell you that means vote Romney — just not Obama).

22 thoughts on “Obama Can’t Keep Up With His Own Lies

  1. When will you silly boys get it through your thick skulls that a libertarian vote (especially in a swing state) is a vote for Obama! I’m not going to lie; I relate the most to Ron Paul and Gary Johnson; but they’ll win this election when pigs fly. So please wake up to reality for cryin out loud! R&R 2012! I truly hope that silly Mormon kicks some ass again tonight.

    • You still do not comprehend past the surface of anything — even when you KNOW you are looking into a deep pool. Sad… 😦

      • “You still do not comprehend past the surface of anything — even when you KNOW you are looking into a deep pool. Sad…”

        Actually Black, Kells (and dumbass too) has a point about swing state votes. And while we all understand the past thanks to your prolific research and postings … we also know that little to nothing is gained by impaling one’s self on their own sword.

        If Obama represents two steps forward, I will settle for one step back.

        Just some food for thought my friend.

          • Yes, I know you have. You have stated pretty much the same here. But since I clicked over, and read your response carefully … I will state up front that I do share your feelings for Romney, and I understand your point of view.

            But I need you to expand on this statement, as while I get your moral point, I do not see the math on this:

            ” Voting for someone other than Romney or Obama is not a vote for Obama: it is a vote for the person you vote for.”

            Care to break down the math for me?

            • @Augger,

              Sure. If you see a child who is stealing a candy bar from a store behind his parents’ back, and you just turn and walk away, did you steal the candy bar? No, you didn’t.

              If you see a $1 fall from someone’s purse as they put their change away and you just walk away, did you steal it? No, you didn’t.

              In both cases, someone is out about $1. So, I guess I could say that NOT speaking up is the same as stealing a $1.

              The point is, the math doesn’t matter: that is where the fallacy lies. If you vote for John Smuckatelli, it is NOT a vote for Obama, it is a vote for Smuckatelli — Period! The math you’re talking about could just as easily go the other way: a vote for Smuckatelli is a vote for Romney. See? The math is the same — IF you think of it as coming from a Democrat voter.

              That is why the argument never held any sway with me: it is –essentially — liberal logic and I reject it. You vote for who you vote for. If Romney can convince enough people to vote for him, then — unfortunately — our system says he should lose. But voting 3rd Party is NOT a vote for Obama, and any mental gymnastics we do to count it in his column still doesn’t show up in his column on election day…unless Democrats are counting. Then, you might have a point 😉

              • “The point is, the math doesn’t matter: that is where the fallacy lies.”

                Joe, you are still using morality to try and explain how the Electoral votes are going to be calculated. Again, while I get your ethics, and do not disagree, sadly the electorate is not calculated on ethical equations.

                • OK, by your argument, if everyone who votes for Smuckatelli, they are actually voting for Obama. What if Smuckatelli actually gets 51% of the electoral votes? I guess they all elected Obama and we inogerate Obama again and not Smuckatelli — because a vote for him was a vote for Obama. So, if Smuckatelli actually wins, it’s really Obama who wins. Right?

                  Do you see why I do not like your question? It is based on the assumption that Obama has 100% of the vote and you have to take enough to win away from him. It doesn’t work that way. MATH doesn’t work that way.

                  I’m not trying to be smart with you, just looking for a way to explain it. I hope this attempt helped better than the last.

                • @Augger,

                  Here’s another way to look at it. You know how the Left is always treating economics like it is a zero-sum game? They think that, if I earn an extra $, someone else has to lose a $? Well, same sort of fallacious math. I can actually create a $ out of raw materials I dig up and refine, so I can make a $ without costing anyone else a $. Just like, no matter who I vote for, I am NOT voting for another candidate because they never had my vote to begin with.

                  I think the issue is that the assertion has been constructed as a fallacious appeal to emotion and made to intentionally sound like it makes mathematical sense. It doesn’t. And insisting that we look at it that way will not win over the Libertarians. That’s why I made my comment on G’s blog: it was that argument that won me to vote Romney. Nothing else would have worked.

                • Ok, let me be clear. I am trying to parse mathematics.

                  There is going to be an even 100% to split amongst all the candidates. Let’s say that without the additional candidates, and the two major parties were to continue the stranglehold on American politics, and Ohio voting goes down like this: 50.7% Romney and 48.3% Obama. Pretty straight forward, right?

                  Now let’s look at Gary Johnson who appeals more towards the Conservative base, and let’s say that he pulls 10% of conservatives, and 5% of moderate Democrats, now we have something that looks like this:

                  40.7% Romney, 43.3% Obama, and 15.00% Johnson.

                  Obama wins, and the Ohio electorate goes to Obama … even if you give the extra 1% back to Romney.

                  So, unless my math is wrong, and that of those that count the votes, I am having a hard time seeing how the math itself is fallacy. Help me out here.

                  • You still are not voting for Obama. It may be that the practical effect is Obama wins, but you have not voted for Obama. By trying to paint this as a mathematical issue rather than a moral/principle, I believe you cause more harm with those Johnson voters than you otherwise need to.

                    If we take the “practical effect” aspect of what you are arguing, we are also left with the “practical effect” of a Party politics argument. In effect, you are saying a vote for another Party is a vote for the Democrats. At that point, you have abandoned any concept of right/wrong and substituted Party. As I have been trying to explain, PRINCIPLE — or the abandonment of — is the key. Those who look to numbers and Party are actually causing the problem. Those who are trying to hold to principle are actually on to the solution — even if imperfectly.

                    I guess I am not going to be able to explain it any better than this. But remember, had the argument FOR Romney NOT been put to me in these terms, I WOULD be voting for a third candidate. There should be a lesson as to how to approach Libertarians in here somewhere 😉

                • “By trying to paint this as a mathematical issue rather than a moral/principle, I believe you cause more harm with those Johnson voters than you otherwise need to.”

                  Here’s the flaw in your logic, B. I am not painting anything. I did not invent the electoral college, nor do I count the votes and determine the winner. So please, do not try to hang that hat on me. As I have stated maybe four times before, I understand the ethics behind your statements, but it’s not the ethics I am attempting to learn here. It’s the math used by those that assign the votes, and determine the winner.

                  Is that in anyway unclear, really?

                  But never mind really. I will go and try to drudge it up for myself.

                    • No god dammit, you are still missing my fucking point.

                      Vote for who you want on principle, that’s not what the hell I am talking about.

                      I … want … to … understand … the … math.

                      I understand the principle. How many times do I really have to say that B?

                    • Augger,

                      When all the votes are tallied, whoever has the most corresponding electoral votes wins. You have that part correct.

                      The math is also simple. A vote for this person is a vote for that person — no one else. You do not vote for Obama because you cast a ballot for Johnson or anyone else. You vote for the candidate you cast your ballot for.

                      To argue that voting for someone other than Romney is actually a vote for Obama is just a fallacious appeal to emotion. It is fear mongering. Yes, you can look at it that way, but, as I tried to explain, Democrats look at tax cuts as needing to be offset by tax increases elsewhere. That is not true anymore than the notion of voting 3rd Party is a vote for your opponent. It is ALL an attempt to manipulate/scare your audience. Nothing more.

                      So, you see, the only math really involved is counting the votes actually cast and not taking from someone and giving to another because you actually voted for a third. In the sense you are arguing, I should be asking you how YOUR math adds up. But I understand your point, I just don’t understand why people insist on presenting it that way when — as I argued — it doesn’t work on anyone who isn’t already inclined to vote “your way” in the first place.

                    • I get that as well. And that is what I trying to prove, or disprove using the math itself.

                      The situation I described can be reversed, or even skewed to the independent and he wins. It’s right there on the tip of my tongue, but for the life of me, I am finding it difficult to dispute the result.

                      Does that nonsensical post make any sense to you? It hardly does to me. lol

                      In the end, its the numbers on paper, and the subsequent result there of that presents this conundrum.

                    • BTW: please remember, you and I are friends and on the same side 🙂

                      here, maybe this will help (not with the math, but with the idea we should have been following all along):

                      “Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”

                      –John Quincy Adams

                      that thar is an olive branch, Kimosabe 😉

                    • Of course we are friends. I’m likely more frustrated with myself for not explaining well enough what I am trying to get at.

                      Shit man, I am good with sutures … as long as you don’t ask me to count them. 🙂

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.