% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Silver Wheaton Corp. Message Board

  • ilap2004 ilap2004 Mar 4, 2013 2:03 PM Flag

    Par for the course


    Obama tells bald faced lies at press conference:

    The president twice made glaringly misleading or false claims about deficit reduction pertaining to the 2011 Budget Control Act:

    'We’ve already cut $2.5 trillion in our deficit. Everybody says we need to cut $4 trillion, which means we have to come up with another $1.5 trillion...We have a Budget Control Act, right? We agreed to a certain amount of money that was going to be spent each year and certain funding levels for our military, our education system and so forth. If we stick to that deal, then I will be supportive of us sticking to that deal. That’s a deal that I made. The sequester are additional cuts on top of that, and by law until Congress takes the sequester away, we’d have to abide by those additional cuts...'

    Obama has touted that $2.5 trillion statistic for more than a year, including on the campaign trail; he's a real deficit hawk, you see. Guess what that figure includes? The sequester, which was part of the Budget Control Act. Obama points to the Budget Control Act as evidence of his spending restraint, then asserts that sequestration piles "additional cuts on top of that." False. The sequester cuts represent the bulk of deficit savings in the Budget Control Act -- a piece of legislation, by the way, that Obama never wanted to exist in the first place. He wanted a "clean," no-strings-attached debt ceiling hike in the summer of 2011, but Republicans dragged him against his will into signing a dollar-for-dollar deficit reduction package.

    This topic is deleted.
    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • "Obama tells bald faced lies"

      But when it come to lies that cost us trillions of dollars, thousands of dead Americans and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis ...

      In justifying the US invasion of Iraq, George W. Bush claimed:
      (a) that there was strong evidence of WMDs, when it seems clear that there was none and that this was well known to Bush and his closest advisors at the time the claims were made 11
      Circumstantial evidence: Bush was apparently determined to invade Iraq whether or not evidence was found, but although this indicates dishonesty it does not prove that he actually knew there was no evidence; it just proves that he didn't care whether the invasion was truly justified.

      (b) that Iraq had refused to allow UN inspectors (see 3, final paragraph) to confirm their claimed lack of WMDs, when in fact Iraq did allow the inspectors in and the inspectors had found nothing. ("In 2002, the commission began searching Iraq for weapons of mass destruction, ultimately finding none." [W] and "The Iraqi government did what it was required in the 1441 resolution and presented a report of its weapons. The US government claimed that the report was false for not recognizing having the WMDs. It announced the invasion in the Spring of 2003."

      (c) that Iraq was connected to the 9/11 attacks (for which there is no evidence):

    • Uh, you know he is a career politician, right? Did you really expect anything less?

24.33-0.08(-0.33%)Oct 21 4:02 PMEDT