Top Political Lies?

political lies are often that of omission or manipulation of numbers.

For example 1 out of every 400 soldiers that YOU AND I SENT to Afghanistan or Iraq is dead. Did folks know this? Do you use it one your current interactions with your representatives in order to tell them what you want out of our current wars. I assume we are discussing this before the ACA when we call. I am assuming we are calling, are we calling?

My comment is for the following, why when Odumbo says it, it is GOOD, but Bush said it and its EVIL? Both are politicians hence, when their mouths are moving lies are being told. Being partisan on principles is good, for parties sake shows lack of thought.

Maybe you had involvement in sending our troops, but I thought it was politicians that did it.

on that note wrote: political lies are often that of omission or manipulation of numbers.

For example 1 out of every 400 soldiers that YOU AND I SENT to Afghanistan or Iraq is dead. Did folks know this? Do you use it one your current interactions with your representatives in order to tell them what you want out of our current wars. I assume we are discussing this before the ACA when we call. I am assuming we are calling, are we calling?

I don't think that figure is correct. We had over 100 thousand troops in both countries and were constantly rotating units in and out so there were millions of deployments in the 10 years in Iraq and 12 years in Afghanistan. Less than 4000 per theater and millions deployed. Less of a casualty rate than Detroit and more soldiers have died from suicide than enemy action.

"If you like your plan you can keep it." Now the New York Times is saying the President just misspoke.

Fred think you caught my political lie? You are likely a more informed voter.

Served - 2,500,000
Deaths - 6,717

Divide the two, this is pretty simple, not expected, even looking at the numbers, but....

The answer is 372. One out of every 372 people we have sent there has died. I was being conservative.

Even if we take the numbers you put in 1,000,000 and 4,000....that is 1 dead for every 250 people we sent.

Funny when I started this response I thought you were arguing that my rates were to high, that there were far less deaths, I was quoting too many deaths, in fact your response was telling me that my quoted death toll from the war was too low, you quote almost double the death rate I quoted.

So same question, did folks know that 1 out of every 250-400 people that we sent to the War on Terror are dead?

FredHayek wrote: "If you like your plan you can keep it." Now the New York Times is saying the President just misspoke.

Again, it is always implied when someone in govt speaks that what they are saying is only true if it is legal. They were quoting all kinds of changes to the allowable coverage, it was more than implied that many plans would not qualify. That was 1/2 the debate (coverage issues). I do not think it is fair to ignore that half of the debate. Doing so speaks to the weekend balloon boating joke Walter posted.

I still don't support the law, but this promise of keeping you plan stuff only preys upon the weak minded.

on that note wrote:

FredHayek wrote: "If you like your plan you can keep it." Now the New York Times is saying the President just misspoke.

Again, it is always implied when someone in govt speaks that what they are saying is only true if it is legal. They were quoting all kinds of changes to the allowable coverage, it was more than implied that many plans would not qualify. That was 1/2 the debate (coverage issues). I do not think it is fair to ignore that half of the debate. Doing so speaks to the weekend balloon boating joke Walter posted.

I still don't support the law, but this promise of keeping you plan stuff only preys upon the weak minded.

Well guess what? The weak minded are part of this representative government system and they deserve the same considerations as all those super-intellects like yourself.

I commend you that your superior business acumen and genius grade mental capabilities (I think you're evolving higher then yourself) protects you from the machinations and deliberate lies of our elected officials.

You're basic premise over and over seems to be if anyone is weaker minded than yourself, then they deserve what they get.

Get over yourself.

Walter L Newton wrote:

on that note wrote:

FredHayek wrote: "If you like your plan you can keep it." Now the New York Times is saying the President just misspoke.

Again, it is always implied when someone in govt speaks that what they are saying is only true if it is legal. They were quoting all kinds of changes to the allowable coverage, it was more than implied that many plans would not qualify. That was 1/2 the debate (coverage issues). I do not think it is fair to ignore that half of the debate. Doing so speaks to the weekend balloon boating joke Walter posted.

I still don't support the law, but this promise of keeping you plan stuff only preys upon the weak minded.

Well guess what? The weak minded are part of this representative government system and they deserve the same considerations as all those super-intellects like yourself.

I commend you that your superior business acumen and genius grade mental capabilities (I think you're evolving higher then yourself) protects you from the machinations and deliberate lies of our elected officials.

You're basic premise over and over seems to be if anyone is weaker minded than yourself, then they deserve what they get.

Get over yourself.

Walter, stop pretending this is complex. Just because I explain it does not make it complicated. This is not something I suggest only the elite will understand, I am suggesting that only the weak minded would not.

This was blatantly talked about. It is not rocket science that if the requirement for coverage are changing that many plans would be going away.

Stop trying to make everyone an idiot and get over yourself. I disagree with the law, I am just not willing to go to the same lows as you guys and Obama to get my way.

You guys are busy debating this law and the history based on a he said she said. This law is wrong not because Obama said this or they promised that. The law is wrong because two adults, you and the guy you are considering buying health insurance cannot simply trade at your own election without everyone else being involved.

You should get over yourself as you continue to muddy the debate. It is wrong to make people buy things they don't want, it is wrong to not allow people to sell things that they want to sell and others want to buy. As long as you debate this law on any other issues, you are weakening your legitimate ability to get rid of it and make real change.

So if you want to focus your anti ACA efforts on the he said she said stuff, then I guess I do feel like I sit above you. I want to debate it on the concepts of liberty. So when people bring up this stuff, it does just sound petty. If that makes me a snob, then so be it.

Again, the balloon got caught on your boat and you both sank. It appears that even some of the older generations are getting used to low expectations . Your post is typical of the reaction of someone with low exceptions to someone with high expectations. I have pretty high expectations of others, I know this, especially those on here willing to post like you have (with some thought <- that is a backhanded compliment). I also have pretty high expectations of Fred, so I am harder on him. His screen name alone demands a higher critique of his posts - and I think he asked for it, not in a bad way.

on that note wrote: If that makes me a snob, then so be it.

Yea... you're a snob.