Once again, the media help our president by distorting the

[oaktonhokie]

facts. Our liar in chief said he is sorry that, THAT the health care problems are there. He did not say he is sorry FOR the problems.

I am sorry that Virginia Tech lost to Boston College. That is a statement of regret, not apology. I have not sorry FOR us losing.

Count on NBC to inaccurately report what was said, and the meaning behind it.

http://videodelivery.nbcnews.com/now/by ... p4?sid=125

[oaktonhokie]

Transcript.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11 ... erage?lite

facts. Our liar in chief said he is sorry that, THAT the health care problems are there. He did not say he is sorry FOR the problems.

I am sorry that Virginia Tech lost to Boston College. That is a statement of regret, not apology. I have not sorry FOR us losing.

Count on NBC to inaccurately report what was said, and the meaning behind it.

http://videodelivery.nbcnews.com/now/by ... p4?sid=125

[oaktonhokie]

Did anyone see this?

This faux apology was an embarrassment. Carefully chosen words so libs, livs and morons would accept it as contrition and "move on."

Did he defend Lizard Neck, or did he throw her under the bus?

Worse than the liar's performance, was the media calling this tripe an apology.

Transcript.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11 ... erage?lite

facts. Our liar in chief said he is sorry that, THAT the health care problems are there. He did not say he is sorry FOR the problems.

I am sorry that Virginia Tech lost to Boston College. That is a statement of regret, not apology. I have not sorry FOR us losing.

Count on NBC to inaccurately report what was said, and the meaning behind it.

http://videodelivery.nbcnews.com/now/by ... p4?sid=125

[VoiceOfReason]

Well... other than partisans... people are less concerned about whether a president lied and what he knew and when he knew it... after a certain point. Remember the dustup with President Reagan and Iran Contra? Did Ronnie lie? Or was he incompetent? The same partisan witch-hunt questions that pissed us off in the 80's with Reagan are now being repeated toward Obama (except you guys like it much better this time!).

At the end of the day, people moved on from Iran Contra. And they will move on from Obama's statement about healthcare policies.

What is important is... what was O trying to do? And if people are adversely affected, is there a remedy? In a few more news cycles... that is the real story.

[Mcl3 Hokie]

Right, then why his approval is falling? Nobody cares...well maybe they do. The old adage of politics is you can lie and get away with it, but when you start reaching into people's pockets, they then care. This is now reaching into pockets and the MSM is finally waking up.

Hearing the new rhetoric, now it's only 5% of the people that will be affected. Unfortunately, that's 15 million people > than his margin of victory in last year's election. And we have no idea how the employer mandate will affect this next year.

Well... other than partisans... people are less concerned about whether a president lied and what he knew and when he knew it... after a certain point. Remember the dustup with President Reagan and Iran Contra? Did Ronnie lie? Or was he incompetent? The same partisan witch-hunt questions that pissed us off in the 80's with Reagan are now being repeated toward Obama (except you guys like it much better this time!).

At the end of the day, people moved on from Iran Contra. And they will move on from Obama's statement about healthcare policies.

What is important is... what was O trying to do? And if people are adversely affected, is there a remedy? In a few more news cycles... that is the real story.

[VoiceOfReason]

Right, then why his approval is falling? Nobody cares...well maybe they do. The old adage of politics is you can lie and get away with it, but when you start reaching into people's pockets, they then care. This is now reaching into pockets and the MSM is finally waking up.

Hearing the new rhetoric, now it's only 5% of the people that will be affected. Unfortunately, that's 15 million people > than his margin of victory in last year's election. And we have no idea how the employer mandate will affect this next year.

I realize that O's falling approval ratings get the RW excited. I certainly chuckle when I see the approval rating of Rs in Congress... especially after the shutdown. But most of those Rs will be re-elected... and O will not run for further office. Hillary is insulated from ACA shockback... so I would not get too encouraged.

Yes, the ACA created a situation where some people have to pay more (to get more coverage than they previous got) or pay the fine and get no coverage. The final evaluation will be:
1) How many did it help and how many did it hurt?
2) What did you do for the people who were hurt? Is there a remedy?

[133743Hokie]

Well... other than partisans... people are less concerned about whether a president lied and what he knew and when he knew it... after a certain point. Remember the dustup with President Reagan and Iran Contra? Did Ronnie lie? Or was he incompetent? The same partisan witch-hunt questions that pissed us off in the 80's with Reagan are now being repeated toward Obama (except you guys like it much better this time!).

At the end of the day, people moved on from Iran Contra. And they will move on from Obama's statement about healthcare policies.

What is important is... what was O trying to do? And if people are adversely affected, is there a remedy? In a few more news cycles... that is the real story.

The difference is Iran Contra, or Monica Lewinsky for that matter, didn't affect people directly and personally. Obamacare does. And that's why it's going to render his last 3 years neuter.

[133743Hokie]

Right, then why his approval is falling? Nobody cares...well maybe they do. The old adage of politics is you can lie and get away with it, but when you start reaching into people's pockets, they then care. This is now reaching into pockets and the MSM is finally waking up.

Hearing the new rhetoric, now it's only 5% of the people that will be affected. Unfortunately, that's 15 million people > than his margin of victory in last year's election. And we have no idea how the employer mandate will affect this next year.

I realize that O's falling approval ratings get the RW excited. I certainly chuckle when I see the approval rating of Rs in Congress... especially after the shutdown. But most of those Rs will be re-elected... and O will not run for further office. Hillary is insulated from ACA shockback... so I would not get too encouraged.

Yes, the ACA created a situation where some people have to pay more (to get more coverage than they previous got) or pay the fine and get no coverage. The final evaluation will be:
1) How many did it help and how many did it hurt?
2) What did you do for the people who were hurt? Is there a remedy?

They actually have to pay MORE to get LESS coverage than they had. That's part of the plan to make the figures work.

[UpstateSCHokie]

So are liberals now saying that if something only affects 5% or less of the population, then it shouldn't be an issue? If so, then why are they going out of their way to pass laws to give special privilege to gays which make up <2% of the population?

Right, then why his approval is falling? Nobody cares...well maybe they do. The old adage of politics is you can lie and get away with it, but when you start reaching into people's pockets, they then care. This is now reaching into pockets and the MSM is finally waking up.

Hearing the new rhetoric, now it's only 5% of the people that will be affected. Unfortunately, that's 15 million people > than his margin of victory in last year's election. And we have no idea how the employer mandate will affect this next year.

Well... other than partisans... people are less concerned about whether a president lied and what he knew and when he knew it... after a certain point. Remember the dustup with President Reagan and Iran Contra? Did Ronnie lie? Or was he incompetent? The same partisan witch-hunt questions that pissed us off in the 80's with Reagan are now being repeated toward Obama (except you guys like it much better this time!).

At the end of the day, people moved on from Iran Contra. And they will move on from Obama's statement about healthcare policies.

What is important is... what was O trying to do? And if people are adversely affected, is there a remedy? In a few more news cycles... that is the real story.