Obama Lies

[Stu]

Let's have at it. I feel that, while what the pres said is clearly misleading, it was also made clear at the time that he was talking about a specific class of health insurance consumers and not those in the individual markets. That is how I understood it at the time.

btw, feel free to bring up any other Obama Lie.

#1 If you like your plan you can keep it.

Here are the 37 instances we could find in which President Barack Obama or a top administration official said something close to, “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan,” referring to health insurance changes under the Affordable Care Act.
The related fact-check – of Obama’s Nov. 4, 2013, claim that "what we said was, you can keep (your plan) if it hasn’t changed since the law passed" – is available here.
Obama’s comments before the law passed
- White House Web page: "Linda Douglass of the White House Office of Health Reform debunks the myth that reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors. To the contrary, reform will expand your choices, not eliminate them. " (Spanish-language version.)
- White House Web page: "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan."
- President’s weekly address, June 6, 2009: "If you like the plan you have, you can keep it. If you like the doctor you have, you can keep your doctor, too. The only change you’ll see are falling costs as our reforms take hold."
- Town hall in Green Bay, Wis., June 11, 2009: "No matter how we reform health care, I intend to keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you'll be able to keep your doctor; if you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan."
- Remarks at the American Medical Association, June 15, 2009: "I know that there are millions of Americans who are content with their health care coverage – they like their plan and, most importantly, they value their relationship with their doctor. They trust you. And that means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what."
- Presidential press conference, June 23, 2009. "If you like your plan and you like your doctor, you won't have to do a thing. You keep your plan. You keep your doctor."
- Rose Garden remarks, July 15, 2009. "If you like your doctor or health care provider, you can keep them. If you like your health care plan, you can keep that too."
- Remarks at a rally for New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine, July 16, 2009: "if you've got health insurance, you like your doctor, you like your plan – you can keep your doctor, you can keep your plan. Nobody is talking about taking that away from you."
- Presidential weekly address, July 18, 2009: "Michelle and I don’t want anyone telling us who our family’s doctor should be — and no one should decide that for you either. Under our proposals, if you like your doctor, you keep your doctor. If you like your current insurance, you keep that insurance. Period, end of story."
- Rose Garden remarks, July 21, 2009: "If you like your current plan, you will be able to keep it. Let me repeat that: If you like your plan, you'll be able to keep it."
- Remarks in Shaker Heights, Ohio, July 23, 2009: "Reform will keep the government out of your health care decisions, giving you the option to keep your coverage if you're happy with it."
- Town hall in Raleigh, N.C.,July 29, 2009: "I have been as clear as I can be. Under the reform I've proposed, if you like your doctor, you keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you keep your health care plan. These folks need to stop scaring everybody. Nobody is talking about you forcing … to change your plans."
- Presidential weekly address, Aug. 8, 2009: "Under the reforms we seek, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan."
- Town hall in Portsmouth, N.H., Aug. 11, 2009: "Under the reform we're proposing, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan."
- Town hall in Belgrade, Mont., Aug. 14, 2009: "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan. This is not some government takeover. If you like your doctor, you can keep seeing your doctor. This is important."
- Presidential weekly address, Aug. 15, 2009: "No matter what you’ve heard, if you like your doctor or health care plan, you can keep it."
- Town hall in Grand Junction, Colo.,Aug. 15, 2009: "I just want to be completely clear about this. I keep on saying this but somehow folks aren't listening – if you like your health care plan, you keep your health care plan. Nobody is going to force you to leave your health care plan. If you like your doctor, you keep seeing your doctor."
- Remarks to Organizing for America, Aug. 20, 2009: "No matter what you've heard, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor under the reform proposals that we've put forward. If you like your private health insurance plan, you can keep it."
- Presidential weekly address, Aug. 22, 2009: "Under the reform we seek, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your private health insurance plan, you can keep your plan. Period."
- Remarks on health care reform, March 3, 2010: "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Because I can tell you that as the father of two young girls, I wouldn’t want any plan that interferes with the relationship between a family and their doctor."
- Presidential weekly address, March 6, 2010: "What won’t change when this bill is signed is this: If you like the insurance plan you have now, you can keep it. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Because nothing should get in the way of the relationship between a family and their doctor."
- Remarks in Glenside, Pa., March 8, 2010: "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."
- Remarks in St. Charles, Mo.,March 10, 2010: " If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."
- Remarks in St. Louis, Mo.,March 10, 2010: "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. I’m the father of two young girls —- I don’t want anybody interfering between my family and their doctor."
- Remarks in Strongsville, Ohio, March 15, 2010: "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. I don't want to interfere with people’s relationships between them and their doctors."
- Remarks in Fairfax, Va., March 19, 2010: "If you like your doctor, you’re going to be able to keep your doctor. If you like your plan, keep your plan. I don’t believe we should give government or the insurance companies more control over health care in America. I think it’s time to give you, the American people, more control over your health."
Obama’s comments between the law’s signing and the release of the HHS regulations
- White House web page: "For those Americans who already have health insurance, the only changes you will see under the law are new benefits, better protections from insurance company abuses, and more value for every dollar you spend on health care. If you like your plan you can keep it and you don’t have to change a thing due to the health care law."
- Remarks in Iowa City, Iowa, March 25, 2010: "You like your plan? You’ll be keeping your plan. No one is taking that away from you."
- Remarks in Portland, Maine, April 1, 2010: The critics will "see that if Americans like their doctor, they will keep their doctor. And if you like your insurance plan, you will keep it. No one will be able to take that away from you. It hasn’t happened yet. It won’t happen in the future."
- White House blog post by Stephanie Cutter, May 18, 2010: "A key point to remember is that while the Act makes many changes to the individual market, it specifically allows those who want to keep their current insurance to do so. Most of the Act’s protections apply only to new policies, allowing people to stick with their current plan if they prefer."
After the release of the HHS regulations
- Kathleen Sebelius blog post, June 14, 2010: "The bottom line is that under the Affordable Care Act, if you like your doctor and plan, you can keep them."
- White House blog post by Stephanie Cutter. "Another important step we’ve taken is to fulfill President Obama’s promise that ‘if you like your health plan, you can keep it.’ Last week, Secretary Sebelius and Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis announced a new rule that protects the ability of individuals and businesses to keep their current plan. It outlines conditions under which current plans can be ‘grandfathered’ into the system, minimizing market disruption and putting us all on the path toward the competitive, patient-centered market of the future."
- Remarks on the Affordable Care Act Supreme Court ruling, June 28, 2012: "If you’re one of the more than 250 million Americans who already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance – this law will only make it more secure and more affordable."
- Campaign event in Pittsburgh, July 6, 2012: "If you have health insurance, the only thing that changes for you is you’re more secure because insurance companies can't drop you when you get sick."
- Campaign event in Virginia Beach, Va.,July 13, 2012: "If you already have health care, the only thing this bill does is make sure that it’s even more secure and insurance companies can't jerk you around."
- First presidential debate in Denver, Oct. 3, 2012: "If you've got health insurance, it doesn't mean a government takeover. You keep your own insurance. You keep your own doctor. But it does say insurance companies can't jerk you around."
- Remarks in Largo, Md., Sept. 26, 2013: "Now, let’s start with the fact that even before the Affordable Care Act fully takes effect, about 85 percent of Americans already have health insurance – either through their job, or through Medicare, or through the individual market. So if you’re one of these folks, it’s reasonable that you might worry whether health care reform is going to create changes that are a problem for you – especially when you’re bombarded with all sorts of fear-mongering. So the first thing you need to know is this: If you already have health care, you don’t have to do anything."

Even still, the phrase "If you like your plan, you can keep it" tends to suggest that there will be some widespread, "keeping" of plans. This turns out not to be the case. Nevertheless, the Obama administration can argue that all of this was well known before now. As Jonathan Chait points out:

Obama’s promise that people could keep their insurance was intended to convey that those who already had insurance through their job or through Medicare would not be forced into the new health-care exchanges. On the one hand, this failed to convey the blunt reality that people in the individual insurance market who had skimpy coverage and wanted to keep it could not. On the other hand, the administration never denied this fact. The designers of Obamacare straightforwardly believed that the regulation of the individual-health-insurance market was fully consistent with its promise, even though people already in that market were bound to face changes.
​

Chait points to a 2010 New York Times story that made all of this clear:

In some respects, the rules appear to fall short of the sweeping commitments President Obama made while trying to reassure the public in the fight over health legislation. In issuing the rules, the administration said this was just one goal of the legislation, allowing people to “keep their current coverage if they like it.” It acknowledged that some people, especially those who work at smaller businesses, might face significant changes in the terms of their coverage, and it said they should be able to “reap the benefits of additional consumer protections.”
​

Still, we are left with this phrase, "If you like your plan, you can keep it," that probably should have come with a bit of fine-print reading, "Some restrictions apply, void where prohibited."
One thing that's worth wondering about here is whether the media's overarching attention to finding some cheap gotcha moments to bedevil political figures for a newscycle or three doesn't end up adding to the confusion. After all, the circumstances that are driving today's crisis-cycle were all things that were reported back in 2010. There has been a more than adequate period of time to ask more significant questions about the president's quip, and to instruct the public as to what was coming, in the service of keeping the populace informed and prepared.
Nevertheless, the simple fact of the matter is this: To any normal person, making the tacit assumption that words don't have any hidden meanings or exceptions, "If you like your plan, you can keep it" sounds like a pretty clear, right-to-the-point certainty on which one should be able to rely. When that sentence lands in the ear of a normal human being, it conveys the promise of continuity, and relief from any shocking news about losing one's coverage.

 

[muir]

Let's have at it.

“My name is muir, you accuse me of thread derailing, prepare to die.”

 

[Stu]

There are several forum members who see the us pres as a liar at the very least.
I follow politics, I vote, I even give monetary support to candidates and the Democratic Party, and have been known to shell out a few quid to the Occupy folks and a few others.
I do see often that politicians have a cavalier attitude toward the truth. But I think there is a bit of a difference between selling complicated policy and making shit up so you can kill people.

I would like to believe that my mind is somewhat open and will listen to rational attacks against my positions. I can even see myself changing my mind.

 

[muir]

You also quote something i once said about planned parenthood in your signature where i spell the word 'foundation' wrong which bugs me a little....its almost like i subconsciously wrote a composite word somewhere between 'foundation' and 'function'....this bothers me so have at you sir!

En garde!

 

[Stu]

2. Mother denied health insurance: During his presidential campaign, Obama said that his mother died of cancer after being denied coverage for a preexisting condition. He used her image in a campaign ad, repeated the claim in debates, and used the same rhetoric as President when he tried to sell ObamaCare to the American people. But a new book by New York Times reporter Janny Scott says that Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham, had health insurance through her employer and was only denied disability insurance.

whoa!

 

[Nixie]

I think it is important to point out that you can make assertions about lying but there still may be a way for both things to be true. Often when drafting large legislation, wording and context, combined with interpretation of this by insurance companies make it possible for them to drop people or for their plans to become untenable under the new law. His intent and purpose are clearly stated but the fine details may have be derailed when the dust settled.

 

[Stu]

In a debate with Sen. John McCain, Obama said: "For my mother to die of cancer at the age of 53 and have to spend the last months of her life in the hospital room arguing with insurance companies because they're saying that this may be a pre-existing condition and they don't have to pay her treatment, there's something fundamentally wrong about that."

​

Anne Dunham, A Singular Woman: The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mother, it turned out that her correspondence showed that “the 1995 dispute concerned a Cigna disability insurance policy and that her actual health insurer had apparently reimbursed most of her medical expenses without argument.”....It is true that Ms. Dunham did have a separate dispute about disability insurance but this had nothing to do with pre-existing conditions. Nor did it affect her fight for her life. And given that her son acted as her attorney, there’s no doubt he was not ignorant of the truth of the matte

.

 

[muir]

There are several forum members who see the us pres as a liar at the very least.

Do the press have an alterior motive?

Well lets look at what we do know...

It is documented fact that the CIA infiltrated the press in Operation Mockingbird....we know this. We also know that the CIA protects US corporate interests eg the United Fruit Company in guatamala

We know that banking interests bought all the key newspapers in the US in the early 1900's as a way to control public opinion. here is a short clip....i know how much you love the video clips stu ...this one is only 4 and a half minutes long though...not to much of an ask i think:

[video=youtube;nju_6gT4UQ8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nju_6gT4UQ8[/video]

We also have some historic quotes of interest.

Some key ones might be as follows:

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years.

It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries."- David Rockefeller, Speaking at the June, 1991 Bilderberger meeting in Baden, Germany (a meeting also attended by then-Governor Bill Clinton and by Dan Quayle


"There is no such thing at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you that dares to write his honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my opinions out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of journalists is to destroy truth; to pervert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are tools and vassals for rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."- John Swinton, the former Chief of Staff of the the New York Times, called by his peers, "The Dean of His Profession," was asked in 1953 to give a toast before the NY Press Club

There are other quotes but i think these ones are quite compelling...i'm sure you'll agree

It would appear that the Council On Foreign Relations (CFR) which is known to have a globalist agenda and which was chaired at one point by David Rockefeller believes in creating a one world government (by his own admission) which would not be democratic but rather run by him and some other banking dynasties

This system could be described as something akin to state socialism ie the workers don't own and control the means of production but rather a small elite does which controls the economy centrally. The economy is already controlled centrally through the federal reserve which it appears does not feel it needs to answer to questions from congress (it sees itself as a higher power). This is an ideology which this cartel of banking families is trying to impose on the North America, Europe and Australasia (everyone else will be next, if they get their way)

Obamacare is part of the slow creep towards this world government. obamacare means people must pay money to private insurance companies...some are calling this a bailout of the insurance companies

I follow politics, I vote, I even give monetary support to candidates and the Democratic Party,

The democrats and the republicans are two sides of the same business party. They will appear to be at odds to the public as presented so through the lens of the corporate media but in actuality they are working towards the same goal (whatever the bankers tell them to do)

and have been known to shell out a few quid to the Occupy folks and a few others.

i think how we spend our money is really important. We only get to vote politically every so many years but with how we spend our money every dollar is a vote for the kind of world we want to create

I do see often that politicians have a cavalier attitude toward the truth. But I think there is a bit of a difference between selling complicated policy and making shit up so you can kill people.

There are different levels to the new world order pyramid. At the bottom might be a cop who is bashing occupy protesters because he is ordered to; he clocks in and out and brings home a cheque to his family and has occaisional barbeques with friends and the odd holiday.

Then there are politicians who are funded in their careers by the financial sector. They are middle managers who work for the bankers. They implement the polices the bankers want implemented. if this requires lying to the public and destroying their public image in the process this is not a problem as they will be replaced with a new smiling politician with a story of hope for the public and the retired politician will be given a cushy job in a corporation and will make lots of money on the global after dinner speaking circuit

Then at the top is the banking cartel and monarchies (and the black nobility around them)

I would like to believe that my mind is somewhat open and will listen to rational attacks against my positions. I can even see myself changing my mind.

if we only ever look at one slice of events it is going to appear only as it does on the surface...its only when we give it wider context that we can then better judge its true character

if we look at the big picture and at all the things going on in the US right across the political spectrum the n a picture emerges....a disturbing picture where our politicians are leading us up the garden path

 

[muir]

whoa!

That was pretty shameless of the president there....i mean what is the psychology of a person who falsely claims that his mother didn't have health insurance so that he can sell an idea to the public?

This is a story about his mother dying!

 

[muir]

I think it is important to point out that you can make assertions about lying but there still may be a way for both things to be true. Often when drafting large legislation, wording and context, combined with interpretation of this by insurance companies make it possible for them to drop people or for their plans to become untenable under the new law. His intent and purpose are clearly stated but the fine details may have be derailed when the dust settled.

Is that a fancy way of saying he's a lying snake in the grass?

 

[just me]

Is this another answer with a question thread? Is Obama a liar?

 

[Nixie]

Is that a fancy way of saying he's a lying snake in the grass?

No, it is a rational understanding that sometimes how you perceive something doesn't always track with how it becomes implemented. The legislation was tinkered with by a whole lot of legislators with special interest groups chiming in and then it was interpreted by insurance companies and lawyers. Concepts and ideas often become diluted after the dust settles when trying to implement a law.

 

[muir]

No, it is a rational understanding that sometimes how you perceive something doesn't always track with how it becomes implemented. The legislation was tinkered with by a whole lot of legislators with special interest groups chiming in and then it was interpreted by insurance companies and lawyers. Concepts and ideas often become diluted after the dust settles when trying to implement a law.

So what about the post Stu made above where Obama lied about his mothers insurance?

(To criticise this scheme is not to oppose universal healthcare)

 

[muir]

$1 trillion in stealth taxes hidden in obamacare will destroy the middle classes

[video=youtube;80BBWV49XxE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80BBWV49XxE[/video]

 

[muir]

Obamacare bailout for the insurance companies

[video=youtube;NlFRXCKThs8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlFRXCKThs8[/video]

 

[Nixie]

I was only speaking about the idea that it was stated that "you could keep your policy" and not on any other issue that has been brought up. Neener FT

 

[muir]

A Quick Guide to What’s Fake: Everything That’s Officially Sanctioned

December 17th, 2013

​

http://investmentwatchblog.com/a-quick-guide-to-whats-fake-everything-thats-officially-sanctioned/

by Charles Hugh-Smith

Neofeudal financialization and unproductive State/corporate vested interests have bled the middle class dry, yet we accept the officially sanctioned narratives. Why?
Let’s cut to the chase and generalize “what’s fake”: everything that is officially sanctioned: narratives, policies, statistics, you name it–all fake– massaged, packaged, gamed or manipulated to serve the interests of the ruling Elites.
Anything that might introduce a shadow of skepticism or doubt about the sustainability, fairness and transparency of the status quo (i.e. anything authentic and genuine) is recast or repackaged into a fake that can be substituted for the authentic when everyone’s gaze is distracted by the latest fad/media sensation/scandal.
ObamaCare: fake, a simulacrum of insurance and healthcare.
The National Security State: fake, a cover for global Empire.
The Patriot Act: Orwellian cover for state-corporate fascism.
Student loans: parasitic, exploitive loan-sharking enforced by the Central State for often worthless “higher education.”
And so on.
Yesterday I explored the peculiar dynamic that motivates us to accept forgeries, fakes and illusions as authentic: What’s Real? What’s Fake?. If the fake enables our fantasy (of free money, of owning an authentic canvas by a famous artist, that rising wealth inequality is just a side-effect of freewheeling capitalism, etc. etc. etc.), then we want to believe it so badly that we overlook all the evidence of chicanery, forgery, illusion and fakery.

Consider our willingness to accept the conventional narrative about why the Great American Middle Class has been in decline since 1973: rising energy costs, globalization, and the declining purchasing power of the U.S. dollar.
While these trends have certainly undermined middle-class wealth and income, there are five other more politically combustible dynamics at work:
1. The divergence of State/corporate vested interests and the interests of the middle class
2. The emergence of financialization as the key driver of profits and political power
3. The neofeudal “colonization” of the “home market” by ascendant financial Elites
4. The increasing burden of indirect “taxes” as productive enterprises and people involuntarily subsidize unproductive, parasitic, corrupt, but politically dominant vested interests
5. The emergence of crony capitalism as the lowest-risk, highest-profit business model in the U.S. economy
The non-fake narratives are considerably different from the status quo ones. Please consider two: The Neofeudal Colonization of Home Markets and the Happy Marriage of the Parasitic Central State and Crony Capitalist Cartels.
The Neofeudal Colonization of Home Markets
The use of credit to garner outsized profits and political power is well-established in Neoliberal Capitalism. In what we might call the Neoliberal Colonial Model (NCM) of financialization, credit-poor developing world economies are suddenly offered unlimited credit at very low or even negative interest rates. It is “an offer that’s too good to refuse” and the resultant explosion of private credit feeds what appears to be a “virtuous cycle” of rampant consumption and rapidly rising assets such as equities, land and housing.
Essential to the appeal of this colonialist model is the broad-based access to credit: everyone and his sister can suddenly afford to speculate in housing, stocks, commodities, etc., and to live a consumption-based lifestyle that was once the exclusive preserve of the upper class and State Elites (in developing nations, this is often the same group of people).
In the 19[SUP]th[/SUP] century colonialist model, the immensely profitable consumables being marketed by global cartels were sugar (rum), tea, coffee, and tobacco—all highly addictive, and all complementary: tea goes with sugar, and so on. (For more, please refer to Sidney Mintz’s landmark study, Sweetness and Power: The Place of Sugar in Modern History).
In the Neoliberal Colonial Model, the addictive substance is credit and the speculative consumerist fever it fosters.
In the financialization model, the opportunities to exploit “home markets” were even better than those found abroad, for the simple reason that the U.S. government itself stood ready to guarantee there would be no messy expropriations of capital or repudiation of debt by local authorities who decided to throw off the yokes of credit colonization.
In the U.S. “home market,” the government guaranteed lenders would not lose money, even when they loaned to marginal borrowers who could never qualify for a mortgage under any prudent risk management system. This was the ultimate purpose of Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and now the FHA, which is currently guaranteeing the next wave of mortgages that are entering default.
In my analysis, the Status Quo of “private profits, public losses” and the incentivization of gargantuan household debt amounts to a modern financialized version of feudalism, in which the middle class now toils as debt-serfs. Their debt cannot be repudiated (see student loans), their stagnating disposable income is largely devoted to debt service, and their assets have evaporated as the phantom wealth created by serial credit bubbles vanishes as soon as the asset/credit bubble du jour bursts.
The Status Quo: A Happy Marriage of the Parasitic Central State and Crony Capitalist Cartels
In broad brush, financialization enabled the explosive rise of politically dominant cartels (crony capitalism) that reap profits from graft, legalized fraud, embezzlement, collusion, price-fixing, misrepresentation of risk, shadow systems of governance and the use of phantom assets as collateral. This systemic allocation of resources and the national income to serve their interests also serves the interests of the protected fiefdoms of the State that enable and protect the parasitic sectors of the economy.
The productive, efficient private sectors of the economy are in effect subsidizing the most inefficient, unproductive parts of the economy. Productivity has been siphoned off to financialized corporate profits, politically powerful cartels, and bloated State fiefdoms. The current attempts to “restart growth” via the same old financialization tricks of more debt, more leverage and more speculative excess backstopped by a captured Central State are failing.
Neofeudal financialization and unproductive State/corporate vested interests have bled the middle class dry.
Yet we accept the officially sanctioned narratives as authentic and meaningful. Why?Perhaps the truth is simply too painful to accept, so we will reject it until we have no other alternative.

Read more at http://investmentwatchblog.com/a-qu...ts-officially-sanctioned/#Uvd0MELV70PjIPIj.99

A Quick Guide to What’s Fake: Everything That’s Officially Sanctioned


December 17th, 2013

Read more at http://investmentwatchblog.com/a-qu...ts-officially-sanctioned/#Uvd0MELV70PjIPIj.99
​

 

[muir]

I was only speaking about the idea that it was stated that "you could keep your policy" and not on any other issue that has been brought up. Neener FT

View attachment 19343

Do not think you escape so easy!

 

[muir]

Is this another answer with a question thread? Is Obama a liar?

Do bears poop in the wood?