If the head of government lies to its citizen to pass a law, should it be follow

1. 60

   Cassie Smithposted 11 years ago

   If the head of government lies to its citizen to pass a law, should it be followed?
   
   Obama and the Democrat party lied to pass Obamacare. Gillibrand said it publicly.  They knew Obama was lying when he said that if we liked our health care plan, we get to keep it.  Lies, all lies.  Should the law be overturned because it was passed under fraudulent circumstances?

   replyreport
2. 70

   The Frog Princeposted 11 years ago

   There are a long list of liars that told that same lie with a (D) by their name. I'm about to publish that list so people who vote know who blatantly lied to them.  I think it calls for impeachment.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Cassie Smithposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Name the names, Frog, add their photographs too.  It would be a great reference come election time.

      replyreport
3. 80

   FitnezzJimposted 11 years ago

   The law should be overturned because it is a bad law.  No other reason is needed.
   
   Politicians and government bureaucracy need to get out of the way.  The lawmakers should take what they have learned from this, scrap the old law, and put some real work into figuring out an approach that allows the creative genius of the collected American people to solve the problem.

   replyreport
4. 57

   retief2000posted 11 years ago

   Richard Nixon was impeached for less, as was Bill Clinton.  Where are the Democrats with sufficient integrity to demand this man be removed ...hohoho hahaha woooheeee  hhhehhhhehheeeeeeeee.... (wiping a tear)  Sorry, I almost made it through, the integrity thing got me.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Cassie Smithposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Yep, integrity is hard to come by if you're a dummycrap.

      replyreport
5. 0

   alexsaez1983posted 11 years ago

   "Integrity is hard to come by if you're a dummycrap"....right, because George Bush was just a shining light of honesty and integrity. Not to mention he crashed the economy quite nicely. I think your statement should be "Integrity is hard to come by if you're a politician".
   
   A third party is seriously needed. You guys are essentially stuck choosing the shinier of two turds when it comes to presidents. When you have these two, increasingly polarized sides, the country turns into an us vs. them mentality. Everyone shares the same country and everyone wants what's best. If both sides can't find common ground and work together, then society is basically spinning its wheels in the mud.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Cassie Smithposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Obungler definitely beat Bush when it comes to dishonesty and non-integrity and in the mishandling of the economy.  No we don't need a third party, it would be more of the same crap.

      replyreport
   2. 57

      retief2000posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I am tired of the whole Bush's fault, Bush lied, Bush crashed the economy non-sense. The economy is too complex for the unalloyed actions of one individual to be the sole cause of it stumbling.

      replyreport
   3. 0

      Old Poolmanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      We don't need a third party or we would only be compounding our problems.  What we need is a really thorough house cleaning to eliminate those who have strayed so far from the Constitution.  As it is now the "good ole boy" club controls Washington.

      replyreport
   4. 0

      alexsaez1983posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      So, no third party because they'd suck too? In Canada, we have four parties who aren't polar enemies. The all lie on slightly one side of the spectrum or the other, and usually agree on several things. A party like that could accomplish something.

      replyreport
   5. 0

      Old Poolmanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      No doubt in my mind that 4 parties would work better than 2 or 3.  I didn't know that about Canada, thanks for the new knowledge.

      replyreport
   6. 0

      alexsaez1983posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      No problem, Poolman. The 4th party only represents one province (Quebec), so really that leaves three for us to choose from. The Progressive Conservative Party (right wing), the New Democratic Party (left wing) and the Liberal Party (center).

      replyreport
   7. 0

      Old Poolmanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      If we had three parties, two of them would team up and make life miserable for the odd party.  I believe it would be more brutal and unproductive than it is now.  Thanks for the info.

      replyreport
   8. 0

      alexsaez1983posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Actually, no, the third party's life isn't miserable, because if united with another party, they can have more collective seats than the government.  This prevented a lot of really bad acts and laws from passing, and keeps the leader in check.

      replyreport
   9. 0

      Old Poolmanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      That actually makes a great deal of sense to me.

      replyreport
   10. 57

       retief2000posted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Canada has a completely different system, political history and culture. Just as Canadians do not wish to be Americans(and I absolutely respect that) Americans cannot be Canadians.2 parties has been sufficient throw out US history.

       replyreport
   11. 0

       alexsaez1983posted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I don't know about that. I think offering a third choice would help tremendously. Look at voter turnout and the constant polarization between both sides. The U.S. has gone through all kinds of changes and generally come out better for it.

       replyreport
   12. 57

       retief2000posted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Increased voter turn out is no guarantee of a quality government.  Elections in Hussein's Iraq had nearly perfect turnout. A perfect turn out just means that everyone is afraid not to vote, a sad state of affairs.

       replyreport
6. 0

   Old Poolmanposted 11 years ago

   If the details of the proposed law turn out to be based on lies, then the law should be reversed and put up for a new vote.
   Those responsible for perpetrating the lies should be immediately removed from office.
   Until such time as they are held accountable for their actions this will only get worse.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Cassie Smithposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Poolman, you have half the country who wouldn't indict any dummycrap because they are all in for the liberal crap.  Lies are justifiable to them.  Heck, they don't even think it's a lie.

      replyreport
7. 70

   dashingscorpioposted 11 years ago

   A total of 4,486 U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq between 2003 and 2012 because another president told us they had "weapons of mass destruction".
   I believe with a little bit of research we'd discover that many presidents and government officials have lied to the American people. No political party is standing on "holy ground".
   Should politicians lie? No! Is anyone really surprised that they do? No! 2016 will determine what becomes of Obamacare/Romneycare.
   If a Republican or Tea Party politician is elected as president they will repeal it and if Hilary Clinton or another Democrat is elected  they will continue to make modifications to it.
   Whenever the government attempts to do anything it's usually starts off being a mess. The Social Security Act was signed by FDR on 8/14/35. Taxes were collected for the first time in January 1937 and the first one-time, lump-sum payments were made that same month. Regular ongoing monthly benefits started in January 1940.
   Passage of the law was in 1935 and people didn't get regular checks until 1940. Today Social Security is seen as a "sacred cow" and no politician could elected if they said they wanted to do away with it.

   replyreport
   1. 57

      retief2000posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Factually incorrect and an often repeated lie from the left is that we went to war in Iraq because of WMDs. WMDs was never sited as a reason in Presidential Use of Force Resolution that passed Congress.

      replyreport
   2. 70

      dashingscorpioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Here is a recap of how the war came to be. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74aStyP-dL0 WMDs were the leading cause get congress to approve the resolution of war. Later the goal was to "liberate Iraq". Colin Powell presented the case of hidden WMDs

      replyreport
   3. 57

      retief2000posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      An there were hidden banned weapons in Iraq, including nerve gas.How about the text of the Resolution.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution
      Violation of the terms of ceasefire(meaning a state of war already existed) is #1

      replyreport
   4. 70

      dashingscorpioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      retief2000, My point was to illustrate BOTH parties have been known to lie to the American people. In this era it seems people are so blinded by party loyalty. "Our team is better than yours" mentality. There are no saints in politics period!

      replyreport
   5. 0

      Old Poolmanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Scorpio - I agree with your comment 100%.  Until the blind party loyalty is gone we will stay exactly where we are now.  Both parties are equally bad in my opinion.

      replyreport
   6. 57

      retief2000posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I do not look for saints in politics but when was the last time the Democrats elected an actual patriot?  JFK?

      replyreport