Course it matters. He lied.
Posted By: cukes on 2006-07-05
In Reply to: Does not matter. The problem is he was arrested for it. nm - LVMT
VA's have a policy. No demonstrating or protesting on their grounds. It's what laws are for. He said he wasn't protesting but he was lying. Now, in those VA beds are soldiers who were probably wounded in battle. This kind of this does not belong in the VA. Period. Rules are rules.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Not that it matters
http://www.factcheck.org/archive.html
Excerpt from Bush - Kerry debate and analysis by Factcheck.org
George W. Bush: FactCheck: Most of Bush tax cut went to top 10%
BUSH: Most of the tax cuts went to low- and middle-income Americans. And now the tax code is more fair.
FACT CHECK: Bush could hardly have been farther off base when he said most of his tax cuts went to low- and middle-income Americans. That's just not true. In fact, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center recently calculated that most of the tax cuts-53% to be exact-went to the highest-earning 10% of US individuals and families. Those most affluent Americans got an average tax cut of $7,661. And as for the low- and middle-income Americans Bush mentioned-the bottom 60% of individuals and families got only 13.7% of the tax cuts, a far cry from most of the cuts as claimed by Bush.
Source: Analysis of Third Bush-Kerry debate(FactCheck.org Ad-Watch)
George W. Bush: FactCheck: Wealthy pay 63% of taxes, not 80%
BUSH: 20% of the upper-income people pay about 80% of the taxes in America today because of how we structured the tax cuts.
FACT CHECK: The President came closer to the mark, but still got it wrong, when he said that the top 20% of earners pay about 80% of the taxes in America today. That's incorrect. In fact, as we reported only that morning, the Congressional Budget Office calculates that the top 20% now pay 63.5% of the total federal tax burden, which includes income taxes, payroll taxes and other federal levies. It's true that the top 20% pays nearly 81% of all federal income taxes, but the president spoke more expansively of taxes in America, not just income taxes.
Source: Analysis of Third Bush-Kerry debate(FactCheck.org Ad-Watch)
yep - what really matters is the
electoral college -- Obama WAY ahead there. Yippie-oh-coyote.
What really matters
Instead of giving so much credence to Palin's mean spirited attempt to cast aspersions on Obama's character, maybe you should be a bit concerned about McCain's documented palling around with folks who are bringing this nation to financial disaster. I dare you to watch this!
http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/keatingvideo
Well it matters to me
Someone show me one iota of REAL proof that Obama is or associates with terrorists and I will immediately change how I vote. I don't want a terrorist in office and I don't want a liar either but in either case that is exactly what we're gonna get. As near as I can tell Obama happens to live in the same neighborhood as Ayers. Is he the only one who knows people in his neighborhood, attends parties with the, etc. Don't YOU know people in your neighborhood that you aren't necessarily close friends with?
What really matters now is not
who got us into it, but who can help us get out of it. The next thing is an honest (nonpartisan) look into how we got into this mess so that we can avoid it in the future.
well it matters to me
if there was an all white group ANY where in this country that wouldnt allow ANYONE in based on their skin color, it would be a huge deal and people would be held accountable. DUH. The reason that it matters is because our new president is probably not going to do anything about this and had a nice little smile on his face when the rev. was giving his speech on inauguration day and said his little comment about its time for white to embrace what is right. That is the problem. Many white people in this country have ALWAYS embraced what is right and feel that EVERYONE should be treated equally and I am one of them. For there to be a group out there doing this is WRONG. By the way, I am so talented that I can talk about this issue AND the ecomony all at the same time!
It matters very much.......... sm
what the Bible says, and the Bible is what shapes, or should shape, a Christian's whole way of thinking. One can hold current day newspaper headlines up against Daniel and Ezekiel and see the events unfolding just as they were foretold over 2000 years ago. That people today have grown so politically correct as to disregard, or worse yet ridicule, the Bible's teaching is a very sad commentary on the condition of our hearts.
Do you think it matters WHO you wish to rot in hell???!!!!! Oh my! NM
try Media Matters
They go after both sides for inaccuracies. They back up their points with facts.
about Media Matters....
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7150
Think your vote matters? Think again. sm
October 11th, 2008 7:08 AM Eastern
Think Your Vote Matters? Think Again
Editor’s Note: The non-partisan Web site “Opposing Views” offers readers a look at all sides of the debate on a variety of issues. This is the part of ongoing series of posts from the Web site that will appear in the FOX Forum.
By Dr. John R. Koza
Chairman, National Popular Vote
You’ve become enthralled with John McCain and Barack Obama’s struggle to win the presidency. Along with record numbers of Americans, you tuned into the debates, attended rallies and registered to vote, many of you for the first time. Yet in all likelihood your vote won’t matter because this historic election will be decided by voters in only six or so closely divided “battleground states.”
The reason the vast majority of states don’t matter in presidential elections stems from a winner-take-all rule (Nebraska and Maine being the notable exceptions). This rule awards all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes. Consequently, presidential candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, or even pay attention to the concerns of states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. This harsh effect of the winner-take-all rule became clear in the first week of October when McCain’s Michigan state director AL Ribeiro explained McCain’s abrupt cessation of campaigning in Michigan: “The campaign must decide where it can best utilize its limited resources with the goal of winning nationally.”
Of course, voters in 36 of the 50 states never mattered, even before the 2008 presidential election began. Michigan just discovered the harsh political reality a little later. As early as spring 2008, The New York Times reported that both major political parties were in agreement that there would be at most 14 battleground states in 2008. In 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in just five states; over 80% in nine states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
The best and most direct way to fix our broken system is to elect the president by a national popular vote. Under a national popular vote, every person’s vote, in every state, would be equally important, regardless of political party.
Every vote would be equal, and politicians would be forced to address the concerns of every voter. There would be no red states, no blue states, and no battleground states.
It’s crucial to remember that the winner-take-all rule is not in the U.S. Constitution, but simply state law. That’s why we support the National Popular Vote bill, which would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and the District of Columbia). The National Popular Vote bill would take effect only when enacted by states possessing enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). It is currently being debated in all 50 states and has been enacted by four states- Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland.
It’s time to reform the current system and do what more than 70 percent of the public has long supported – elect the president by a national popular vote.
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/10/11/think-your-vote-matters-think-again/
On which other matters of US politics would you have us
These other "must read" story headlines read like the Intruder tabloid and show us just what a reputable source you have cited. Waste of time and white matter. Ignored. No sale.
I don't think it matters anymore
We are on the brink of a major depression. I don't know that anything they do will prevent it. The best they can do is maybe lessen the severity and length. The automakers, credit card companies, and banks are going to end up like the airlines (at best) in having to be propped up for an indefinite period of time by the government.
I can't believe it matters. 2000 or 6000, what's... sm
The difference? It's still an ancient piece of fiction written by primitive, superstitious people from a corner of a long-dead empire. Why anyone in the present day would chose to believe any of it, let alone feel compelled to organize their life around it (or believe that it predicts the future, of all things!) is beyond me.
Here - let me try to educate you on a couple of matters
Obama's mother was in Kenya. Could not fly back to the US due to her late stage in pregnancy. After the birth she flew to HI to register the birth that happened in Kenya.
The law at the time of his birth was that a US Citizen may only pass to a child born overseas to a US citizen parent and non-citizen parent if the former was at least 19 years of age. Obama's mother was 18 years old. Therefore, because US citizenship could not legally be passed to him, Obama could not be registered as a "natural born".
Also, if for some reason he could somehow have been deemed "natural born" that citizenship was lost in or around 1967 when he and his mother took up residency in Indonesia where his mother married his stepfather .
But since he was never an American citizen to begin with there was nothing to take away.
Just because you have a mother who is a citizen does not automatically qualify you as a citizen. Just the way the laws were then.
Whether you like it or not those are the laws.
Besides...why is everyone in such an uproar. If everyone is so certain that Obama was born in Hawaii, then why is everyone defending so hard for an independent party to be able to view Obama's original birth certificate - the one he has yet failed to provide.
So, if he is american born, the judges will examine it, and if he's natural born life will move on. If not, you will still have a democratic president. No big deal.
Matters not one whit....he is now in charge of
.
These were matters that were ajudicated and people were
Get a clue, willya?
Also, you're conflating these with the "torture" (dry cough) issue - and THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING AT ALL.
And incidentally, waterboarding isn't torture. If it was so torturous, why did they have to use it 83 times on one individual to get the information? Must be REEEEEEEL bad!
That's right Character matters, meanwhile MQ puffs on W's cigar
Yep, W is his goooood buddy. They be bestest of friends. Gives him big ole bear hugs. Nice to see McSame in the saddle.
IMO, he has already lied about
plenty of things, but so many people are just willing to overlook that because they still believe his rhetoric.
No lobbyists would have a place in Washington when he is president.....although I believe he has 12 now.
He would go line by line to take out pork in bills, would leave them online for so many days so it could be reviewed by all, etc. What a big lie and joke that was.
Taking a doctor's freedom away by refusing to allow him the option to refuse to perform an abortion. People grumble and gripe about taking their freedom away and for government to stay out of their uterus and yet they have no problem with taking away the free will of a doctor. Funny how it is wrong to take free will away from one group but it is okay to take it away from others who disagree with them. A doctor should have a right to refuse any procedure. The patient would just have to go to another doctor.
I don't care what Obama says or doesn't say.....I don't agree with him period. I do not want more government programs. I do not want more government control. I do not want the spreading of wealth by taking it away from hardworking tax payers and giving it to moochers and illegal immigrants. I do not want cap and trade.
You cannot buy your way out of debt and that is what our government is trying to do. I guess when it is all said and done, we can all turn in our guns and call each other comrade.
Media Matters...William Bennett Audio...sm
You'd have to hear it yourself to get the correct context. The caller was not even talking about reducing the crime rate, Bennett brought this up out of the blue, and he says I do know... before he made the comment, NOT making a reference to Freakonomics but his own opinion.
From the September 28 broadcast of Salem Radio Network's Bill Bennett's Morning in America:
CALLER: I noticed the national media, you know, they talk a lot about the loss of revenue, or the inability of the government to fund Social Security, and I was curious, and I've read articles in recent months here, that the abortions that have happened since Roe v. Wade, the lost revenue from the people who have been aborted in the last 30-something years, could fund Social Security as we know it today. And the media just doesn't -- never touches this at all.
BENNETT: Assuming they're all productive citizens?
CALLER: Assuming that they are. Even if only a portion of them were, it would be an enormous amount of revenue.
BENNETT: Maybe, maybe, but we don't know what the costs would be, too. I think as -- abortion disproportionately occur among single women? No.
CALLER: I don't know the exact statistics, but quite a bit are, yeah.
BENNETT: All right, well, I mean, I just don't know. I would not argue for the pro-life position based on this, because you don't know. I mean, it cuts both -- you know, one of the arguments in this book Freakonomics that they make is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Well --
CALLER: Well, I don't think that statistic is accurate.
BENNETT: Well, I don't think it is either, I don't think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don't know. But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.
It doesn't matter how it started; it matters that it stops.
x
SNORT! Media Matters! Crappers complaining
X
Yes, Clinton lied, and I
thought it was terrible when he did.
But Clinton's lies didn't result in a war. Clinton created a surplus. Bush squandered it all and created a huge deficit with his war. I'm amazed that you can't see the huge difference between the two lies. Bush's lies are placing every single American in danger of a terror attack because he refuses to do anything about the borders. This is here. This is now. Why don't you care about TODAY and the futures of your children and their children? We're living in the most dangerous era that America has known, yet you're more concerned about the sexual practices of a former President? I truly don't understand your way of thinking.
I never thought he lied. And I still don't. SM
Yep! Either lied or is incompetent...sm
One fact that's left out is that the head UN inspector urged to allow the inspections to continue and that the WMD that had been reported in the 90's had been mostly destroyed. Why do you think there is none to be found?
So the things the American public was bamboozled about in Iraq (not me) are:
1) Iraq was an imminent threat to the US. It is now in the wake of the war than ever. More of a threat that it was under Saddam.
2) There were WMD. They should have listened to the UN inspectors. Clinton bombed a good deal of the sites in Iraq that had WMD in his term.
3) Connection to 9-11. I'm still waiting on a sound theory for this.
2)
Bush lied
Bottom line still remains that SADDAM HUSSEIN, himself, could have stopped the whole thing by simply abiding by the U.N. resolutions.
He also lied to Cindy about his age.
He's 17 years older than her. A stupid thing to lie about. He lies just to lie. He lied when he said he would pick a VP who could step into the presidency. (Of all the women in the GOP, this was the best he could do?) He lies about drilling and how that will help the people with gas prices....laughable, but he keeps lying about that too.
Like when SP lied and said her teleprompter
didn't work and it didn't work for like 2 seconds, but she wanted to sound good so she said she didn't have the teleprompt and just winged the speech. Yep, like that.
Obama just sat that and lied through his
Obama also says he hasn't had anything to do with Ayers and that Ayers hasn't been involved with him. AYERS is the very man who jump started Obama's campaign fundraiser. He started the whole thing going! Does he have a conscience?
I didn't and don't like being lied to
and that is exactly what we got from George W. Bush. I was speaking of the events of 9/11 period. What part of that did you not understand?
plumber lied about
his plans to buy a business as he had no money. No plumbing license. Owed back taxes. Was on welfare. He was a fictious dupe who tried to grab the spotlight for his own fortune. How's that book and record deal going?
The story isn't that he lied. (sm)
After the last eight years, some of us EXPECT Republicans to lie. The story is that he ADMITTED to lying. Won't he get thrown out of the GOP for daring to tell the truth? 
As far as this being a one-sided story, it is what it is. I doubt that you would withhold posting a story about Obama lying...if you had a legitimate one that could be documented as being truthful. Instead, you guys invent negative stories about Obama with no corroboration, and when asked for a link to your "story," instead of providing one, you hurl personal negative insults at the poster.
When I heard this whole "once upon a time" story, it reminded me of Hillary's fake story about dodging snipers.
Jindal and Hillary Clinton. Both politicians, different parties. Both liars who invented entire life experiences that were lies, and both who should have been smart enough to know they would eventually get caught.
As far as whether it's okay for one to lie and not the other, I happen to believe it's NOT okay for ANY OF THEM to lie, regardless of party affiliation.
When you've been lied to
why watch more of the lies. It's obvious on this board that there are a lot of elitist who think that all crats are "brilliant" yet they have no desire to find out the truth of what is happeneing. I already know what is tryng to be accomplished. I don't appreciate being lied to about it. There is no intelligence they are spewing, just more hate, fear-mongering and paranoia upon their supporters. If I want intelligence I will read and watch every single piece of information I can get my hands on from both sides and make up my own mind whether or not I believe it.
Yes, we do want socialism/communism to fail. If you can't understand that, well that my dear is very sad and pathetic in itself.
And calling us un-American because we don't agree with you? Well that statement in itself it un-American. Maybe you should read up on history because you evidently don't know the history of our country and what our founding fathers fought for and died for.
so you don't think pelosi lied?
You think she's above board, an asset to her party?
Still think Bush lied about Iraq?
One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998
He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998
Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons...
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real...
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
Still think Bush lied?
thanks for the link...yep, she flat out lied
Lying seems to be the whole premise of the McCain campaign and she jumped right on board!!!
Obama once again lied - see message
Henry Kissinger was just interviewed. He said he never said to sit down with "no preconditions". Once again another reason I don't trust Obama.
You have lied to the wrong person here.
someone who has familiarity with the Quran, please cite the verses (ayat) and chapters (sura) where you find this information. Do not cite rightwing blogs or hate chambers.
There are so many ways to expose your ignorance here, it is hard to know where to start. Here's a clue for you. There is a distinction in the Quran between Believers (Muslims), People of the Book (Dhimmi), Disbelievers (Kafiroon) and Infidels (Kaafir). You general term of "non-Muslims" applied to the second group....the People of the Book. Bottom line here is that the Quran teaches tolerance and respect for Dhimmi. Not unlike the Christian Bible, it is also riddled with contractions and passages can be found where adversarial relationships are described.
I have lived in a Muslim country. I was treated with nothing but respect, kindness, friendship and hospitality. My sister has lived in a Muslim country for 14 years now. She has enjoyed the same experience.
The only hatemongering going on here is spewing from your own mouth. Whatever it is you have been reading or watching is making a liar out of you. If you care, do something about it. If not, then bone up on your own Holy Book and check out what the Bible has to say about the liars and give it some careful consideration.
ALL Americans are being lied to and screwed over -
by government, utilities, oil companies, tobacco industry, healthcare industry, insurance industry, auto industry, food industry, etc. The list is so long, that probably the easier way to do it would be to list who ISN'T screwing Americans:
1. Ummmm..... hmmmm.....
Let me get back to ya on that one; I can't find anyone who isn't screwing us.
okay, I read them, but I do not see where Obama lied??? nm
x
Obama lied about smoking too....... sm
Are you going to be watching for what else he lied about?
Barack Obama was on Meet the Press Sunday, and moderator Tom Brokaw put the president-elect's feet to the fire: MR. BROKAW: Finally, Mr. President-elect, the White House is a no-smoking zone, and when you were asked about this recently by Barbara Walters, I read it very carefully, you ducked. Have you stopped smoking? PRES.-ELECT OBAMA: You know, I have, but what I said was that, you know, there are...
http://www.eaglevuedaily.com/?p=224
The real story isn't that he lied. (sm)
After the last eight years, some of us EXPECT Republicans to lie. The real story is that he ADMITTED to lying. Won't he get thrown out of the GOP for daring to tell the truth?
As far as this being a one-sided story, it is what it is. I doubt that you would withhold posting a story about Obama lying...if you had a legitimate one that could be documented as being truthful. Instead, you guys invent negative stories about Obama with no corroboration, and when asked for a link to your "story," instead of providing one, you hurl personal negative insults at the poster.
When I heard this whole "once upon a time" story, it reminded me of Hillary's fake story about dodging snipers.
Jindal and Hillary Clinton. Both politicians, different parties. Both liars who invented entire life experiences that were lies, and both who should have been smart enough to know they would eventually get caught.
As far as whether it's okay for one to lie and not the other, I happen to believe it's NOT okay for ANY OF THEM to lie, regardless of party affiliation.
I know...they lied through the teeth....we had to switch channels....and they were on....sm
everywhere else too. Only dems, only one rep that I saw.
Tell a lie (and/or a bunch of lies) often enough, and it becomes the truth according to them, as reported and supported by the media.
Sickening really.
Obama lied, economists cried...
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/02/obama_lied_economists_cried.html
Bush lied and thousands died!
Reaping the rewards.
*Gasp!* Jindal LIED???? LOLOLOLOL - thanks!!!
nm
So you have no problem that he put his hand on a Bible and lied under oath? nm
Anita Hill lied - there were two sides to the case
Only Thomas and Hill know what really happened. When this case was ongoing I was a democrat, yet I believed Thomas. People need to read the case and decide for themsleves. Just because Anita Hill said there was sexual harrassment doesn't mean it's true. I was on jury duty for a full week for a girl who said her boyfriend raped her. With her crying on the witness stand and carrying on I believed she was. On the fifth day we were all dismissed from duty, the girl told her lawyer that he really did not rape her and she made it up because she was made at him. Please don't go by just the link below either. Do some more researching, but from what I read of this article I don't think it's leaning towards one or the other side. All I'm saying is there are two sides of the story. By your post I'm sure if he was a democrat who wasn't getting ready to look over the info about the O you would praise him as a great judge.
http://volokh.com/posts/1191302418.shtml
If they hadn't lied - we wouldn't be in this war with a faceless enemy....nm
x
of course he lied - but no one died - he had a young daughter to protect...
All men would lie - when, in fact, it was nobody's freakin' business........that was Hillary's problem
Obama lied to the country. "No earmarks"
nm
|
