Gordon Osmond

Gordon Osmond
Location
Sao Paulo, Brasil
Birthday
November 09
Company
those with whom I choose to keep
Bio
Retired lawyer, playwright, Author of So You Think You Know English: A Guide to English for Those Who Think They Don't Need One. ISBN: 978-1-61546-414-2 and Wet Firecrackers http://www.publishamerica.net/product3892Slipping on Stardust was released on 1/11/13. Check it out at http://i-m.co/GordonOsmond/SlippingonStardust Osmond's latest novel, Turner's Point, is available on Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and others.

MY RECENT POSTS

Gordon Osmond's Links

New list
No links in this category.
MY LINKS
OCTOBER 27, 2012 5:42PM

Obama's Lies and Broken Promises

Rate: 4 Flag

Obama’s Lies and Indefensible Negligence

 

Making intellectual differentiations is, admittedly, not the forte of many core contributors to OS, but even those most under the spell of Obama’s spiel might want to consider the following distinctions:

 

1.      A change in position. Whether this is venal or not depends on whether the change is insincere and politically motivated, or whether it is the consequence of maturity and/or honest reevaluation. After I escaped from the indoctrination of an Ivy League “education,” I changed my position on countless issues for reasons that had nothing to do with politics or career advantage. It’s called enlightenment; I highly recommend it. I think Romney’s change of position on abortion is an example of this totally benign happening.

2.      A broken promise. This is more serious than a change in position, but is not as bad as a lie unless the promisor had no intention of keeping the promise. Obama is the clear winner in this category, having broken virtually every campaign promise with which he seduced a gullible coalition of government dependents, racial myopics, and romantic pseudo-liberals. However, as I have no ability and even less desire to get into Obama’s messy mind, I’ll give him a pass on this one.

3.      A lie. This is when the liar deliberately misrepresents facts. Here again, Obama comes out first in a walk. In a single debate, the third, Obama lied about Romney’s position on the auto bailout about his own involvement in the sequestration matter. The fact that a member of Congress would breach etiquette so grossly as to call Obama liar in public indicates that Obama has been lying big time for some time. Obama takes lying one further step by requiring members of his administration, Jay Carney, Susan Rice, etc. to repeat his lies.

 

The politically sophisticated have long since accepted flip-flopping and over promising as inevitable characteristics of the political process. However, let’s hope that even the most jaded will understand the difference between those things and lying, and thus keep liar Obama out of a political office that he clearly does not deserve, and, by the way, never has.

Author tags:

politics, obama, romney

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
The fact that he still stands roughly an even chance of keeping his job suggests that much of the voting public is not living up to its democratic responsibility to keep itself informed.
This is actually frightening. How could you scrutinize this so carefully and refuse to acknowledge the lies upon lies generated by the Republican machine? The fact that there is such sincerity in your words is probably what scares me the most. Opinions are a hell of a thing… aren’t they?
Good distinctions. I am amazed that Barrack’s handlers have endorsed an overriding strategy of ad hominem attacks. The 3rd debate was personal attack, call him a liar, call him an idiot, pretend like he doesn’t understand the navy, on and on and on. The President’s dismissive, disrespectful demeanor was difficult to stomach. Now, the latest e-mails strongly suggest that the President has been totally disingenuous about the attack and loss of life in Libya. Our Supreme Leader did nothing for many hours after learning of the attack, choosing instead to concoct a cover story about a half baked U-Tube video… I’m glad that the GOP nominated a strong, standup guy to contrast our slimy liar in chief. R.
Good distinctions. I am amazed that Barrack’s handlers have endorsed an overriding strategy of ad hominem attacks. The 3rd debate was personal attack, call him a liar, call him an idiot, pretend like he doesn’t understand the navy, on and on and on. The President’s dismissive, disrespectful demeanor was difficult to stomach. Now, the latest e-mails strongly suggest that the President has been totally disingenuous about the attack and loss of life in Libya. Our Supreme Leader did nothing for many hours after learning of the attack, choosing instead to concoct a cover story about a half baked U-Tube video… I’m glad that the GOP nominated a strong, standup guy to contrast our slimy liar in chief. R.
Bob Lutz, formerly of GM backs Romney in the 2012 election. The interesting thing is that he says he backs Romney in spite of his original view as stated in his November 2008 Op Ed piece in the NY Times. According to Lutz, Romney has changed his view. This is reported by Larry Kudlow on the Kudlow Report. Kudlow is no shill for President Obama.

"
Mitt Romney
Despite his earlier opposition to Mitt Romney’s candidacy for the White House, former General Motors [GM 23.28 -0.35 (-1.48%) ] Vice Chairman Bob Lutz said Wednesday he backed the former Massachusetts governor.

“You know, all is forgiven. It depends who his opponent is,” he said on CNBC’s “The Kudlow Report.”

Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, authored a New York Times editorial in October 2008 titled, “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt.” But in recent months, Romney reversed course, attempting to take credit for the bailout."

The full report can be read here.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/47807544/Bob_Lutz_Backs_Romney_Forgives_Bailout_Stance

Now, the former Vice Chairman of GM interpreted Romney's position as that which President Obama stated in the third debate. Further, the act has been successful. Somehow, from all of this, you have a second interpretation of a statement by a rival to the Presidency on one end, and a consistent position by the person holding the office, and you claim that the rival who seeks to have what the incumbent has, and had succeeded at, is truthful? The person who is standing in the position of having succeeded is lying?

There are witnesses to what happened. First, Romney's Op-Ed still exists. Second, Lutz, among others interpreted Romney's position as not being suitable for the situation. (Lutz opposed Romney's stated position.) To call this situation a lie by the President is itself dissembling. If this were a lie by the President, why would Lutz need to "forgive" Romney in order to endorse him?
Yes, here to rate and agree. The liar-in-chief's lies far outnumber romney's lies.

-R-
I do agree, but all politicians lie and break promises. However, (and I'm saying this as one against Obama), you have to admit Obama is a great, powerful speaker and knows how to fool the super extreme liberals (at the very least). Out with the old, in with the new! And if it's another mistake, well - what else are we supposed to learn from, right? Rated!
I do agree, but all politicians lie and break promises. However, (and I'm saying this as one against Obama), you have to admit Obama is a great, powerful speaker and knows how to fool the super extreme liberals (at the very least). Out with the old, in with the new! And if it's another mistake, well - what else are we supposed to learn from, right? Rated!
I do agree, but all politicians lie and break promises. However, (and I'm saying this as one against Obama), you have to admit Obama is a great, powerful speaker and knows how to fool the super extreme liberals (at the very least). Out with the old, in with the new! And if it's another mistake, well - what else are we supposed to learn from, right? Rated!
I love this part about broken promises. First the assertion. "Obama is the clear winner in this category, having broken virtually every campaign promise with which he seduced a gullible coalition of government dependents, racial myopics, and romantic pseudo-liberals." This employs a number of interesting tricks which supply the outs from this untennable assertion. You make an absolute claim, "every promise", then the loophole, "with which he seduced a gullible coalition..." So, if he made and kept certain promises, they are not qualified because they dont fit the delightfully circular ad hominem logic. Any group, by your standard, is suspect for following him in the first place, and if a promise kept does not fit your description, like pursuing bin Laden in Pakistan, for example, then it is excluded from your carefully massaged data.

Romney was elected to office once. This of course occurred in one state, since it ca not be more than that. That state is Massachusettes. This is the entire list of states where Romney could have made and either followed through, or broken a campaign promise. Your poor assertsion claims that President Obama has outdone Romney in failing to follow through on campaign promises without taking any of Romney's into account. The comparison is not even a comparison.

That same state where Romney once won an election, made promises, and began his political reputation for position changes, broken promises, and lies, and from which he has continued all three, using that time and place as a basis, that very same state is rejecting Romney 56% to 38%. This state is the only state to have elected both candidates to one term in albeit two different offices. It has experience with both. Given a choice between the two, the state chooses Obama over Romney by a wide margin. This state suddenly is "seduced a gullible coalition of government dependents, racial myopics, and romantic pseudo-liberals", who coicidentally also elected Romney previously? Presumably that same sampe was not such when they elected Romney, but became so by electing Obama, and now rejecting Romney. Romney left office with a 34% approval rating.
Since this unfortunate blog post, this issue sparked anew. Myth Romney has been crushed for his lies about the Jeep jobs in Toledo. His lies were debunked by Chrysler and GM executives. It is clear for all to see who the liar is. Blowback, blowback, and more blowback.