Does Obama have a lying problem?

[Glafna]

Canadians have no reason to be worried. No American President wants to hurt Canada or her economy. We have worked reasonably well together for many years and will continue to.

The Alberta oil reserves are considered apart of the US oil reserves by your government. Tell me, how is getting our oil relatively cheap, then selling it back to us in a variety of products no hurting our economy?

 

[noah617]

The Alberta oil reserves are considered apart of the US oil reserves by your government. Tell me, how is getting our oil relatively cheap, then selling it back to us in a variety of products no hurting our economy?

You better keep quiet about that oil. Bush might decide to bring freedom and democracy to Canada.

 

[tbonez]

Yes it is an oxymoron and I've never heard Hillary Clinton say that.

What I actually posted was the following:

Hillary has repeatedly 'pledged' to unilaterally renegotiate NAFT.

I didn't put unilaterally renegotiate in quotation marks because it wasn't a quote. Here is one of the many Clinton quotes on NAFTA ...from Ohio: "No. I will say, we will opt out of NAFTA unless we renegotiate it," - Clinton "And we renegotiate it on terms that are favourable to all of America." - Clinton

Unilateral means undertaken or done by or on behalf of one side. It's pretty clear neither Canada nor Mexico want to renegotiate NAFTA or tear it up if they don't have it re-written to their perceived exclusive benefit.

I'd say that totally supports my characterization.

BTW, I'd love NAFTA to be renegotiated. Canada could use its leverage as the biggest oil and gas supplier to the U.S. to bargain for better terms. That would be disastrous to the U.S. consumers and industries mind you. If Americans insist on "renogitaiting" the whole of NAFTA is on the table... not just the parts Clinton wants to amend "on terms that are favourable to all of America."

She never claimed NAFTA is largely to blame for our faltering economy. That's a hot charge and you're not being truthful.

Clinton certainly has. She has repeatedly said NAFTA encourages companies to move American jobs overseas. Equating NAFTA to job losses is a bold faced lie. She's repeating this lie because NAFTA is unpopular with many Democrats. The truth is trade among NAFTA partners (Mexico, Canada and the US) trade has tripled since NAFTA. Jobs growth have been stronger than in the years before NAFTA.

Clinton is pandering and lying When it comes to NAFTA.

A clear example of Hillary Clinton lying, and this is a clangour, not like the minor Obama vagaries you cite:

Hillary Clinton has often claimed, "I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning..." Yet...

In 2004, Clinton said, "I think, on balance, NAFTA has been good for New York and America."

In her memoir, Clinton trumpeted her husband's "successes on the budget, the Brady bill and NAFTA."

Another direct quote praising NAFTA as "a free and fair trade agreement." - Hillary Clinton

Clinton has said: "NAFTA is proving its worth"

Just a few years ago Clinton said: "Creating a free trade zone in North America—the largest free trade zone in the world—would expand U.S. exports, create jobs and ensure that our economy was reaping the benefits, not the burdens, of globalization." - Hillary Clinton

On another occasion: "I Think Everybody Is In Favour Of Free And Fair Trade. I Think NAFTA Is Proving Its Worth." - Hillary Clinton

Contrasting Clinton's current claims about "being a critic of NAFTA from the beginning" against her well recorded record indicate she is a pathological liar.

No American President wants to hurt Canada or her economy. We have worked reasonably well together for many years and will continue to.

The US has consistently violated free trade agreements (Softwood lumber to name but one example of many) and ignored the resolution methods the U.S. agreed to in the agreement. Canada was eventually forced to compromise because the US refused to honour the deal they signed and imposed unfair and economically disastrous (for Canada) tariffs and barriers to Canadian soft wood lumber.

 

[naked gent]

The only year I claimed it held true was for 2000, so although you call my point nonsense you also concede it's true.

We can't draw any reliable conclusions from a single example so while it may not nonsense it isn't a valid point either, further if you believe Mrs. Clinton has never told a public lie (think Rose Law billing records) then your selective memory clouds your argument.

Barack Obama is a liar and a pretender, and so is George W. Bush. When people use the same approach they end up with the same kinds of results.

Go ahead and try and sell Barack Obama as another GWB, when you're done you can return to tilting at windmills.

 

[MystikWizard]

You better keep quiet about that oil. Bush might decide to bring freedom and democracy to Canada.

Bush was heard behind closed door meetings telling members of Congress that Stephen Harper and his country has been proliferators of Weapons of Mass Destruction and has been providing aid and sanctuary to Al Qaeda. Better bomb them, just to be on the safe side so we can free their people and fight them over there before they come and get us over here.

Where's Hillary? She'll vote to go to War with Canada.

 

[tbonez]

Tell me, how is getting our oil relatively cheap, then selling it back to us in a variety of products no hurting our economy?

My understanding was that under the terms of NAFTA we are obliged to let the Americas have unfettered access to as much oil as they want and we can produce...At world prices.

A big part of the reason the Americans pushed so hard for NAFTA in the first place was because they want a guaranteed supply of Canadian resources to fuel their economy. (And access to our consumer markets, of course)

With mid-east oil reserves drying up and all the political turmoil 'over there' they desperately need our oil. DESPERATELY. In fact, much more so than we need their market for oil. China will quite happily buy all we can produce.

I suspect most talk of renegotiating NAFTA will end with the next election. Canada and Mexico might agree to renegotiate some minor clause permit the US president to save face. Perhaps the new clause will read "The Chevy Malibu is now the official vehicle of NAFTA...Despite being pure crap!"

 

[NickCole]

The Alberta oil reserves are considered apart of the US oil reserves by your government. Tell me, how is getting our oil relatively cheap, then selling it back to us in a variety of products no hurting our economy?

Well, if agreements between Canada and the US aren't beneficial to Canada then they can use renegotiating NAFTA to their advantage, right?

 

[NickCole]

What I actually posted was the following:



I didn't put unilaterally renegotiate in quotation marks because it wasn't a quote.

You wrote, "Hillary has repeatedly 'pledged' to unilaterally renegotiate NAFT. First off, unilaterally renegotiate is a oxymoron." Your second sentence sure makes it sound like someone other than you came up with the ridiculous term "unilaterally negotiate" because you recognize it's an oxymoron. But whatever.

Here is one of the many Clinton quotes on NAFTA ...from Ohio: "No. I will say, we will opt out of NAFTA unless we renegotiate it," - Clinton "And we renegotiate it on terms that are favourable to all of America." - Clinton

She also said she's confident that if she's President she can convince Canada and Mexico to renegotiate. I have no doubt she could, because it could benefit everyone.

Unilateral means undertaken or done by or on behalf of one side.

Yes I know, sweetie. And that was your word, not Senator Clinton's.

It's pretty clear neither Canada nor Mexico want to renegotiate NAFTA or tear it up if they don't have it re-written to their perceived exclusive benefit.

It isn't unusual to begin renegotiation with one party more interested in it than the others.

BTW, I'd love NAFTA to be renegotiated. Canada could use its leverage as the biggest oil and gas supplier to the U.S. to bargain for better terms. That would be disastrous to the U.S. consumers and industries mind you. If Americans insist on "renogitaiting" the whole of NAFTA is on the table... not just the parts Clinton wants to amend "on terms that are favourable to all of America."

Canada and Mexico and the US have every reason to work together and no reason to work against each other. Approaching it with your attitude, maybe an agreement couldn't be reached, but approaching it with an attitude of mutual cooperation and mutual benefit, there's no question a new agreement could be reached. As you rightly point out, Canada's oil reserves gives it a much stronger hand in negotiations than it had when NAFTA was first drafted.

Clinton certainly has. She has repeatedly said NAFTA encourages companies to move American jobs overseas.

That's not remotely what you originally said, that Clinton said "NAFTA is largely to blame for our faultering economy." You're making up stuff. None of your copy & paste supports your original comment. You're not truthful.

Equating NAFTA to job losses is a bold faced lie.

It's not a lie.

There's no question there have been job losses because of NAFTA, especially in parts of Ohio and Texas (which is the reason it's being discussed now) and upstate New York (which Clinton represents). But it's a mixed bag in that NAFTA has also been beneficial (for example to downstate New York, so Clinton is well aware of the complicated nature of pro/con with NAFTA) -- it depends on which part of the country you're surveying.

She's repeating this lie because NAFTA is unpopular with many Democrats. The truth is trade among NAFTA partners (Mexico, Canada and the US) trade has tripled since NAFTA. Jobs growth have been stronger than in the years before NAFTA.

Neither of those things means jobs haven't been lost because of NAFTA, and certainly doesn't support your assertion that Clinton is lying. You have presented no evidence what so ever that Senator Clinton lied.

A clear example of Hillary Clinton lying, and this is a clangour, not like the minor Obama vagaries you cite:

Hillary Clinton has often claimed, "I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning..." Yet...

In 2004, Clinton said, "I think, on balance, NAFTA has been good for New York and America."

You really are dishonest.

You took a very small fraction of a very long sentence and put it here as if it were all she said, when the TRUTH is the full quote proves you're wrong.

You're dishonest in the worst way. No wonder Obama appeals to you.

This is what Senator Clinton said: "…I think on balance NAFTA has been good for New York and America, but I also think that there are a number of areas where we’re not dealt with in an upfront way in dealing with our friend to the north, Canada, which seems to be able to come up with a number of rationales for keeping New York agricultural products out of Canada. And I think that needs to be given much greater emphasis than it has." [Clinton Teleconference on Job Training Fund Cuts, 1/5/04]

That not only proves you're wrong and that your attacks on Clinton's honesty are baseless, it sheds light on part of reason she wants to renegotiate with Canada -- and maybe part of the reason Canada doesn't want to.

In her memoir, Clinton trumpeted her husband's "successes on the budget, the Brady bill and NAFTA."

Another direct quote praising NAFTA as "a free and fair trade agreement." - Hillary Clinton

Clinton has said: "NAFTA is proving its worth"

Just a few years ago Clinton said: "Creating a free trade zone in North America—the largest free trade zone in the world—would expand U.S. exports, create jobs and ensure that our economy was reaping the benefits, not the burdens, of globalization." - Hillary Clinton

On another occasion: "I Think Everybody Is In Favour Of Free And Fair Trade. I Think NAFTA Is Proving Its Worth." - Hillary Clinton

Everything she's said in your quotes is true and also consistent with her position all along. NAFTA is a mixed bag and needs to be renegotiated because it's working for some and not working for others. The agreement ought to benefit as many people as possible, and if it can be made better then good on Senator Clinton for trying.

Contrasting Clinton's current claims about "being a critic of NAFTA from the beginning" against her well recorded record indicate she is a pathological liar.

You are mistaken. You haven't presented a single quote from Senator Clinton that's a lie, much less that indicates she's a pathological liar.

On the other hand, I've presented clear evidence that Obama lied about passing legislation about nuclear leaks.

 

[NickCole]

We can't draw any reliable conclusions from a single example so while it may not nonsense it isn't a valid point either, further if you believe Mrs. Clinton has never told a public lie (think Rose Law billing records) then your selective memory clouds your argument.

There was no evidence she lied.

And in fact the billing records proved she'd been telling the truth.

But I'm not saying she's never told an ultimately insignificant lie. Nobody's perfect and almost everybody tells little lies. I'm talking about lies like Bush's to start a war, or Obama's that he passed legislation about nuclear radioactive leaks. Those are lies that affect us, the quality of our lives and the direction of our nation.

Go ahead and try and sell Barack Obama as another GWB, when you're done you can return to tilting at windmills.

If Obama is elected President then by the end of his time in the WH I'll be proved right.

They're very different in a lot of ways but they're the same in a few fundamental ways that drive decision making in a bad direction. Human beings are nothing if not consistent. And under pressure, and with increased power, their weaknesses generally get worse not better.

 

[Twisted06]

Question you dog twisted for his choice of words, saying "VERY bad choice of words." But leave tb1 comment about him having A.D.D and to take his meds alone. Then claim you are neutral. Why? You are no better than the media, so would it be safe to say as long as it is an attack on a Clinton supporter you are okay with it.

lol tb1 said that about me ? i wouldnt know i got him on ignore cuz i grew tired of him, consider the source though. the one who told me bad choice of words is because hes a obama supporter and got offended like they all do.

 

[Glafna]

Question you dog twisted for his choice of words, saying "VERY bad choice of words." But leave tb1 comment about him having A.D.D and to take his meds alone. Then claim you are neutral. Why? You are no better than the media, so would it be safe to say as long as it is an attack on a Clinton supporter you are okay with it.

I had no idea whether he was being serious or saying it with sarcasm meant, which I have gotten in shit for already. When twisted mentioned Obamites in that way, he more or less got off. I was expecting someone to call for blood, like your doing now.

Edit: and I didn't dog him. If I were to dog him, I would be doing the same thing bluedragon does every time we cross swords in celeb outing threads, he mentions my gallery is full of fakes, and declares at how that shows I'm immoral, or whatever point he wants to come across.

 

[Twisted06]

I had no idea whether he was being serious or saying it with sarcasm meant, which I have gotten in shit for already. When twisted mentioned Obamites in that way, he more or less got off. I was expecting someone to call for blood, like your doing now.

WOW

 

[construct]

lol tb1 said that about me ? i wouldnt know i got him on ignore cuz i grew tired of him, consider the source though. the one who told me bad choice of words is because hes a obama supporter and got offended like they all do.

Twisted,

When you call Sen. Obama's supporters "nuts" and "freaks," should you be surprised that they are offended and that they find you personally offensive?

You put tb1 on ignore. I demand equal treatment because I'm offended, too. Please put me on your ignore list as well. You're going on mine.

 

[NickCole]

My understanding was that under the terms of NAFTA we are obliged to let the Americas have unfettered access to as much oil as they want and we can produce...At world prices.

First of all it's not "the Americas," which includes South America.

NAFTA is the North American Free Trade Agreement.

And secondly, North American buyers don't have any more access to Canadian oil than anyone else.

Canadian producers are free to sell as much oil as they wish to whomever they wish, including, for example, overseas customers. As a result, the share of total output exported to the United States can rise or fall according to the normal forces of supply and demand.

The only condition that NAFTA imposes on Canadian energy products is that all buyers in North America must have equal rights to buy those products.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0633-e.htm

 

[NickCole]

This is interesting because it shows not only that Obama is a liar but HOW he lies, which is the same shifty way that RoveBushCheney used so often.


Canadian TV reported last week that a senior member of Obama's campaign had spoken with Canadian officials and reassured them that what Obama says about NAFTA in Ohio is not really what he'll do in office, so don't worry. Obama denied it first by trying to hide behind the Canadian embassy's denial but eventually lied outright, claiming it was "not true" his campaign had said that:





Well now a memo has emerged that a senior member of Obama's team did speak with Canadian officials. And although the senior member, Austan Goolsbee, denies the "language," he does not deny the substance of what's attributed to him:

The memo is the first documentation to emerge publicly out of the meeting between the adviser, Austan Goolsbee, and officials with the Canadian consulate in Chicago, but Goolsbee said it misinterprets what he told them. The memo was written by Joseph DeMora, who works for the consulate and attended the meeting.

Goolsbee disputed a section that read: ''Noting anxiety among many U.S. domestic audiences about the U.S. economic outlook, Goolsbee candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign. He cautioned that this messaging should not be taken out of context and should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans.''

''This thing about `it's more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans,' that's this guy's language,'' Goolsbee said of DeMora. ''He's not quoting me.

''I certainly did not use that phrase in any way,'' Goolsbee said.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Democrats-NAFTA.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

This is not only being dishonest but in a sneaky tricky way.

What DID he say, regardless of what phrase or language he used?

Clearly the memo accurately characterizes what Goolsbee passed along to them or he'd deny it categorically and tell us what he DID say.

More of the same kind of sneaky Obama lies to voters.

Oh, and there were whispers that Hillary Clinton's campaign had done the same thing but they immediately said what's the person's name? We authorize you to release it immediately. No name has come forth, and no memo.

Barack Obama is business as usual and Hillary Clinton is being forthright with the American people.

 

[NickCole]

Of course he does. He's a politician. Is he George Bush? No. I'm satisfied. Next question.

That's dumb.

Bush isn't going to be President no matter what.

There are choices to make. Inform yourself.

 

[andysayshi]

Hugo Chávez has stuck to his message and believes in his cause. My point is simply that unflinching consistency isn't necessarily a good thing in a leader. Sometimes flexibility and the ability to change direction and modify the message is a desirable trait.

My issues with McCain isn't his status as an antique alone,(It is a concern) it's his unflinching insistence that the war in Iraq must be won at all cost. It is already lost. The county is fragmented along secular lines and divided against itself. What McCain fails to see is that it is virtually impossible to impose your will on a foreign country because the cost in American lives and trillions of American dollars is something that the domestic (American population) has a very limited stomach for...Particularly when the domestic picture is perceived to be going to hell in a handbasket.

McCain's cold war tactics worry me too. His refusal to reconsider the Cuba question is a problem. Cold war isolationism didn't effect change in the East (it was mostly internal pressure and economic collapse) Pax America is based on a myth, one McCain seems to still believe in despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary

Never has someone stated my own stance so eloquently - thankyou Tbonez!

The insistent rhetoric about "flip-flopping" in US political discussion is so tired. Bush is a perfect example of someone who refuses to change opinion or course when it is clear that change is essential. I WANT politicians who can recognise their mistakes and are prepared to change direction when required.

Tbonez's second paragraph is dead-on. There is so much rhetoric from people who "support" this or that, who will bring the troops home soon, or leave them there for the good of Iraq. I would like to hear REAL policy from ANY candidate about the REAL future of the US occupation of Iraq. How long? Who will pay for it? And will the American people really be prepared to forgo their new plasma TVs, new computers, one night out instead of two or three each week, in order to pay for the war that they are now wholly entrenched in? Will young men and women accept the draft to maintain adequate troop numbers in Iraq for the next 10 years? I suspect none of these costs will be acceptable to the American people, and Iraq will eventually be abandoned by whomever is in power.

 

[Twisted06]

Twisted,

When you call Sen. Obama's supporters "nuts" and "freaks," should you be surprised that they are offended and that they find you personally offensive?

You put tb1 on ignore. I demand equal treatment because I'm offended, too. Please put me on your ignore list as well. You're going on mine.

well like lost lover said to me in another post, if my post piss you off dont respond to them. and as for the nuts and freaks, anyone who pays attention knows i mean the people who are obessed with him, and that they think he can do no wrong. anyways if i offended anyone i do apologize ill make sure to be a little bit clearer on what i post.

 

[D8Na2R]

^ LOL you really get it from all sides...

And you know what they say.... it's better to be pissed off than pissed on....sorry I'm not into water sports

 

[Twisted06]

Wouldn't loose any sleep about what LL says.....

oh trust me i dont lol, thats why i chose to use the ignore button.