Stupak Sold Out The Babies And America

Bart Stupak held out for a long time. He said that he needed language in the health care bill that would disallow the use of federal dollars for abortions. He sounded principled and he had a little gang that followed him. The votes of the gang were obviously needed because it passed by just four votes.

The initial word was that Obama was going to sign an Executive Order stating federal dollars would not be used for abortion. The EO has no weight and the bill Obama signed into law will be the final word on the matter. Obama, by the way, had a big ceremony to sign the bill but had no time to sign that pesky EO.

He might get around to it.

But does it matter? Stupak claimed the EO allayed his worries and changed him to a yes vote. The reality is that Stupak received $726,409 in federal grants for three small airports in his district. After that money was obligated, he changed his vote. I do not believe in coincidences in politics so there is no doubt in my mind that Stupak was bought off. The airport money bought his vote and the EO provided him cover.

Add this three quarters of a million dollars to the amount of money the health care legislation will cost. We can add that to the 10 billion dollars the IR-SS will need to track insurance compliance, the amount needed for the doc-fix, and the untold millions or billions used to bribe other members of Congress. All of this money is part of the cost of the legislation no matter where they hide it because it was needed to pass the legislation.

Stupak showed his true colors and now we need to look closely at his other so called pro-life hold outs to see what special money they got for their votes.

We are going to run roughshod over Congress this November and throw a lot of the bastards out of office. They will pay for their treason with their jobs though I have no doubt Owebama will find them other jobs in government.

They are unworthy of their jobs and they are unworthy of the name American. They are traitors who usurped the Constitution and they need to go. Nothing less than a bloodbath is acceptable.

And if these people think they will sway public opinion with their trinkets and shiny beads they have another thought coming.

If they are not in a solidly blue, safe seat, they will be in trouble.

Mr. Stupak, I hope you feel good about your decision and I hope the thirty pieces of silver were what you really wanted because you are history this November.

It is time to abort these sell out Democrats.

UPDATE: Stupak intended to vote for the bill all along even if the abortion issue failed. This video spells it all out. Stupak is a weasel. [Thanks to the Lonely Conservative]

Big Dog

Gunline

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

69 Responses to “Stupak Sold Out The Babies And America”

  1. Adam says:

    “All of this money is part of the cost of the legislation no matter where they hide it because it was needed to pass the legislation.”

    When you find enough money to get beyond the $143 billion that the CBO say the legislation will reduce the deficit by in the first 10 years just let us know. But there I go again citing the hacks at the CBO…

    • Blake says:

      First, the EO doesn’t have the same impact as an actual piece of legislation- it only binds the executive office to this order, not Congress- so Stup(id)pak should know this.
      This was just a supposedly face- saving gesture, made with a nod and a wink, knowing that it hasn’t the same force as real legislation.
      I am waiting for the inevitable “signing statement” that will negate this EO- it WILL happen, it is only a matter of time with these lying, traitorous progressives.

  2. Big Dog says:

    No problem Adam. First of all, the CBO can only base its analysis on what it is given so when it is told assume we will cut 500 billion from medicare it has to use the assumption even though the cut will NEVER come.

    But since you like CBO numbers (even though they are flawed by the system under which they work) here is a CBO number that breaks the bank.

    The CBO said adding the doc fix to the legislation (which is where it belongs) will increase the deficit by 59 billion dollars and this is why it was introduced in separate legislation. But it is part of health care and should be in there which is how they started out. Here is a quote on it:

    The Congressional Budget Office said Friday that rolling back a programmed cut in Medicare fees to doctors would cost $208 billion over 10 years. If added back to the health care overhaul bill, it would wipe out all the deficit reduction, leaving the legislation $59 billion in the red.

    AP via Yahoo News

    So Adam, we are well beyond that and it comes from the CBO you like to cite. Understand now? It is a game.

    And it will cost money.

    59 billion in the red plus 10 billion for the IR-SS plus 0.75 million for Stupak plus 300 million for LA Purchase and on and on

    It is in the red and has not started yet.

    • Adam says:

      And your evidence that the Democrats are going to pass the doc-fix?

      • Big Dog says:

        They have passed some form of it every year (usually attach it to defense or some other bill to keep it off Medicare books).

        Pelosi and Reid said they would pass it and there is separate legislation introduced to do that.

        The cut to doctors is 21%. If they do not fix it then a lot of doctors will stop seeing medicare patients. This is why they “fix” it every year and why they were supposed to address it in the HC legislation.

        It will pass and it will add to the debt but it will be counted someplace else so they can continue to lie saying that they are reducing the deficit.

        • Adam says:

          “They have passed some form of it every year…”

          So what you’re saying is you want to count decades worth of something that has been going on year to year for a while into the cost of the bill so that you can say it costs more?

          “Pelosi and Reid said they would pass it and there is separate legislation introduced to do that.”

          There’s a lot of legislation and talk related to the bill. That’s not evidence it’s going to pass. It might pass but at this point most of the suggestion about doc fix passing later is from a questionable memo that the GOP ran with yet couldn’t source…for some reason.

        • Darrel says:

          ADM: “you want to count… something that has been going on year to year for a while into the cost of the bill so that you can say it costs more?”>>

          DAR
          Exactly. He wants, to take from pile A, and put it in pile B, entirely for the purpose of making “B” look bad. Even though the net result is exactly the same. It’s an accounting trick, a strategy for killing the bill, and obviously it’s a little passed it’s due date now.

          As good as this bill is (and the more I read about it the more I like), it wasn’t able to fix every single one of our medical woes and fiscal situations in one, fell, swoop. Sorry about that.

          Maybe if the republicans had helped and the demos didn’t have to do it all by themselves?

          D.

  3. SpideyTerry says:

    “If they are not in a solidly blue, safe seat, they will be in trouble.”

    Being a solidly blue seat doesn’t necessarily guarantee safety, either. Just ask Martha/Marcia Coakley. (The same is true of solidly red seats, of course, too. There are no real guarantees in this business… other than that both sides are full of idiots, of course. :))

  4. sosssn says:

    We can’t afford to wait for November? Why wait until Obama tries to force another socialist program down our throats? Now is not the time to shrivel away. Now is the time to stand up and fight back harder then ever before. Now is the time to take the fight to them. Will you join us on a campaign to DESTROY THE MOUTHPIECE OF OBAMA’S SOCIALIST AGENDA, THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA? WE ARE IN A FIGHT FOR THE FUTURE OF OUR COUNTRY, A FIGHT FOR OUR CHILDREN’S FUTURE. Join the fight here, http://sosssn.blogspot.com/

  5. Big Dog says:

    Adam, no I do not want to count years of fixes. The idea was that this legislation was going to correct this problem and was one of the things that sold some doctor organizations (not most of the doctors).

    The doc fix later is not from any unsourced item. Take a look or two. You will find many places where it was in the original legislation (and Pelosi said it herself) and where it was removed.

    It will be fixed or doctors will not take medicare patients, just a fact. Last year it was fixed on Christmas Eve when it was added to the defense bill.

    They were supposed to correct the problem so it would not happen any more. However, Obama has already said that cutting reimbursements to doctors is the safety valve government uses to control costs.

    • Adam says:

      There were several things in the original legislation or planned that were removed for cost savings. There are also several things the Democrats want to do but that they might not have the votes to do. What is the window for changes before or after the bill that you want to count as the cost of the bill in order to distort the record? Will you still be linking legislation to it years from now?

      • Big Dog says:

        How is it I am distorting the record when THEY removed it to keep the cost from showing.

        It is a health care item and it should be attributed to health care.

        I will attribute anything to it if they add something that increases the cost. It is simple.

        • Adam says:

          “How is it I am distorting the record when THEY removed it to keep the cost from showing.”

          You have no proof the Democrats will try to pass that change, let alone have the votes to do so. Yet you keep saying it like an uncertain future event is a done deal. Sounds like you’re distorting the record to me.

  6. Darrel says:

    Stupak folded because Michael Moore got the people to rise up and make him accountable:

    How the People in My District Got Stupak to Change His Mind — and Thus Saved the Health Care Bill.

  7. Big Dog says:

    You guys can say I want to take from A and add to B to kill the bill all you want but it is far from the truth. They took from the bill and added somewhere else to pass the bill but the end result in health care expense is the SAME. It just HIDES the cost so they could pass the bill.

    I know from the previous discussions you all have problems with math but if we are spending 59 billion more it is still debt no matter where they spend it. If they were honest they would have included it but they did not. So now we pay more for health care than advertised all for trickery.

    Your Dems are the ones playing the games, not me.

    The same people who did this would go after any private company that cooked the books this way.

    • Adam says:

      The health care bill puts us in the red by including things you can’t prove are related to the health care bill and amendments that might happen in the future. Yes, and Clinton didn’t have a surplus, the economy only tanked because Democrats took power, unemployment is really 18%, and the very very very vast majority of folks oppose health care…according to the Republican fantasy factory.

  8. Big Dog says:

    Adam, quit acting stupid. The doc fix will pass, it always does. It will likely be added to some other bill that has to pass. They have to pass it or Medicare patients will not have as many doctors.

    Learn what you are talking about before you distort things.

    But I will use the terms the Congress did . Assume it passes. That is what the CBO (your holy grail) does with items. Congress said assume a 500 billion cut to Medicare (that will not happen) so that is how they got their numbers.

    The CBO gave that number or are you only happy when their numbers agree with you?

    You have no proof there will be a 500 B cut to medicare but you accept it.

    • Adam says:

      You’re confusing two different things of course. The CBO left out the doc fix for a reason: Because there is no compelling evidence (outside of a bogus memo) that it is still in the picture and if it does come back it’s not part of the health care bill anymore. You just keep saying you want to count this and that and this like you do every time you challenge reality with made up facts. You’re wrong though, of course…

    • Adam says:

      “You have no proof there will be a 500 B cut to medicare but you accept it.”

      I accept the word of the CBO on their intelligent estimate. I don’t accept the word of you and your ilk who have done nothing but lie and distort about health care for years. You can’t be trusted to tell the truth on this subject.

  9. Big Dog says:

    I don’t think Stupak is a baby killer. He just facilitaes them.

    Yes, he won by that amount but let us see what happens next. Obama won that district by fewer than 2 points so it is not heavily Democrat as you might think. Possibly the conservatives there liked Stupak’s pro life stance.

    Whatever, it will not be easy for him this time. He will have time from November to January to update the resume.

    He should make sure he adds sell out to it.

  10. Big Dog says:

    There is nothing bogus Adam. You just fail to see. The thing was in the original bill and it was removed. Pelosi and Reid said they will pass it so are they bogus?

    I do not know what bogus memo you are referring to.

    The CBO did not leave anything out. Are you too stupid to understand that the CBO does not add or subtract, it scores what it is given. If you wrote assume we tax 1 million people 10 dollars each they would HAVE to figure it in.

    They were asked by Republicans to score it assuming the doc fix was included and came up with a result.

    Just like they were asked to score it assuming the Medicare cut (which will not happen) and that is how they came up with the number they did.

    Both sides know how to play this game and it is why no government program is ever on budget or saves money.

    And no, Clinton did not have a surplus but let’s not demonstrate your inability to differentiate between public and private debt and the difference between the assume we cut this and that how much would we have method of “balancing” a budget.

    Let’s not demonstrate your inability to read the Treasure numbers from those years and see that we had no surplus and that we still owed lots and lots of money.

    • Adam says:

      “The thing was in the original bill and it was removed. Pelosi and Reid said they will pass it so are they bogus?”

      Again, there were a lot of things in the various versions of the bill. When is the last time a Democrat talked about passing the doctors’ fix? In a bogus memo you apparently missed though all the right wing was buzzing about it. I’m not saying it won’t come back, but just reminding you that you are drawing conclusions based on assumptions and you’re doing so in order to continue to lie about the health care reform bill.

  11. Big Dog says:

    You accept the word of the CBO? What do they have to do with it? Congress said there would be a cut, not the CBO. The CBO just said that if they actually made the cut this is what the result would be just like they said if you add the doc fix this is what the result would be. They will not be the ones to cut medicare or add the doc fix. Congress will or will not do it.

    I think you are having a hard time understanding what the CBO does and how they do it.

    But you are a computer guy so let me put it a way you can understand it:

    garbage in, garbage out.

    • Adam says:

      “I think you are having a hard time understanding what the CBO does and how they do it.”

      No, I understand the CBO just fine, thanks. You just have a habit of pretending they are just left to be totally duped by congress to get whatever numbers they won’t. This is wrong but you keep repeating it so maybe somebody will believe you.

  12. Adam says:

    But again let’s sum up what you’ve argued here today. You want to roll spending you can’t prove is related to health care (Airports in MI) along with changes that would have happened without a health care bill into the final cost of the bill in order to say it costs more than it does. Under your formula here today you could add in any number of items on a whim that could just be even the slightest bit related to the health care reform process all just to continue to claim that the bill costs more than people say. That is dishonest but par for the course really when it comes to you and discussion of the reform bill.

  13. victoria says:

    • Businesses with fewer than 25 employees that pay an average of no more than $40,000 will get a tax credit – up to 35 percent of the company’s share of their total health care premium.
    • Companies with 26-49 workers are unaffected.
    • Businesses with 50 or more workers must offer coverage or pay $750 per worker. That penalty applies for every employee if even one signs up for government-subsidized insurance.
    But there are potential problems. Case in point: It would be much cheaper for Dick Bus to drop the generous coverage he now offers and take the hit at $750 a head for his 120 workers. The penalty would be $90,000 a year. He’s currently spending $480,000.
    Bus would save $390,000, but canceling his plan would force his workers to the health plan exchange and could cost more than they’re paying now. The Senate is considering an increase in the $750 penalty to prevent that scenario.
    Bus insists that he won’t cut his employees loose, which is certainly noble, but unrealistic. If his competitors do it and lower their costs, allowing them to lower prices on their products and services, Bus will have to follow suit or go out of business. Small businesses already operate on tight margins, and this will be an easy business decision for those companies, at least when their CEO isn’t on camera.
    In an otherwise good and balanced report, CBS misses another strange incentive. As listed above, small businesses only become eligible for the credits if their average salary remains below $40,000. That means a decision to give raises not only carries the cost of the raise itself to the business, but also a potential loss of that 35% subsidy ObamaCare grants. This will have the overall effect of suppressing salaries and putting experienced workers at a disadvantage in hiring decisions. It also provides an incentive to keep the workforce under 26 people; the 26th hire eliminates that 35% subsidy as well, making it a very expensive new position.
    ObamaCare sets all of its incentives to oppose growth. Can anyone wonder at the impact this will have on the economy?
    Plus it will have the incentive for companies to downsize to the 25 workers.

    How is that hope and change working going to work for you?

  14. victoria says:

    Sen. John Dingell says: “The harsh fact of the matter is when you’re going to pass legislation that will cover 300 [million] American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.”

    • Big Dog says:

      Like I said, it is not about health and it is not about care. It is about control.

      Never surrender, never submit.

    • Darrel says:

      Dingell actually said, verbatim, “300 American people.” Bigd added the “million” bit. So if you want to get all absurdly literal here and pretend this means something (it doesn’t) then we must accept that dingy Dingell was actually talking about a very tiny portion of the bill that only affects 300 people.

  15. Big Dog says:

    No Adam, the doc fix will take place in one form or another this year.

    And no, you don’t understand how the CBO works. They will tell you that they can only grade what they are given and if they are told to make certain assumptions they have to make those assumptions.

  16. Big Dog says:

    Adam, airport expenses have nothing to do with health care. But since that money was paid to get the vote then the cost is related to the legislation. It cost the taxpayer that amount of money to get the vote so it should be added to the bill.

    You seem to think that all the deals made to get the votes come from a money tree.

    If you have to spend money to accomplish it then it is part of the cost taxpayers have to shoulder in order for them to pass it.

    Let’s sum it up. You think that money comes out of thin air.

    • Adam says:

      “No Adam, the doc fix will take place in one form or another this year.”

      Did a temporary “doc fix” like solution take place last year and the years before? Would something similar to a “doc fix” happen without a health care reform bill* being passed? When the Democrats rolled a fix into health care that covered more years that was one thing. It’s gone now but you still want any future dealing with this problem that predates the health care reform bill to count as part of health care reform? It’s dishonest and you know it.

      “They will tell you that they can only grade what they are given and if they are told to make certain assumptions they have to make those assumptions.”

      Not exactly. They are not handcuffed completely by supplied parameters but for the most part I agree when it comes to the CBO’s estimation of the impact of a piece of legislation on the future economy.

      My disagreement with you on the CBO comes from when I say the CBO estimated so many jobs created and so much GDP growth from the past economy. You roll out the same argument and it’s just not valid.

      “But since that money was paid to get the vote then the cost is related to the legislation. … You seem to think that all the deals made to get the votes come from a money tree.”

      And you seem to think simply saying it’s true makes it so. Did Stupak get the money as a political deal or not? Prove he did or stop saying it’s true.

      *corrected an error per the author [BD]

      • Big Dog says:

        The doc fix was supposed to be corrected in this so we would not have to address it every year. They removed it because it would cost too much.

        Yes, CBO has no discretion.

        I guess you missed the part where three quarters of a million dollars went to three airports in his district just before he switched. So how is that NOT getting money (and you are well aware that I did not mean he received an envelope of cash)?

        They sent money to his district, he flipped. And that is no different than Landrieu or Nelson or any of the others.

        • Adam says:

          “I guess you missed the part where three quarters of a million dollars went to three airports in his district just before he switched.”

          I guess you missed the part where you actually need evidence to prove something is true. But that would make your life hard wouldn’t it?

          • Adam says:

            And for instance Gov Rendell of PA had similar FAA grants announced on March 22. Is he in on it too? He is a Democrat after all. Maybe he got grants too so it didn’t look totally unprecedented for the FAA to give grants to tiny airports in Michigan? Or maybe it’s just another grant in a long series of block grants as part of the FAA’s Airport Improvement Program which Michigan is a participant in? Nah, it has to be just another back room deal, right?

            • Big Dog says:

              I do not believe in coincidences in politics.

            • Adam says:

              We’ve seen what you believe. Now let’s have some evidence. Let’s hear why these grants are different than grants awarded every single year to Michigan through the FAA AIP.

              For instance in 2009 Michigan received 47 grants totaling $124.5 million. In 2008 it was 37 grants totaling $104.1 million. In 2007 it was 33 Grants for $118.2 million.

              Let’s look at Chippewa County International, an airport listed in the memo from Stupak:

              2010 – $461,700 – install lighted signs on Runway 16/34 and make repairs to the pavement to meet marking requirements and maintain structural integrity.

              Now, let’s look at the previous years grants for this same airport:

              2009 – $215,650 – Acquire Snow Removal Equipment

              2008 – $912,576 – Rehabilitate Taxiway

              2007 – $316,350 – Acquire Snow Removal Equipment, Rehabilitate Runway Lighting – 16/34, Rehabilitate Taxiway

              That’s weird. Every year they get money for things like snow removal, lighted signs, and runway repairs. That’s exactly what they received this year.

              So remind me again how this year’s grant which matches grants from previous years means Stupak was bought off? You have nothing and you know it.

            • Adam says:

              And adding the grant money that Michigan gets every year into the cost of the health care bill this year? No chance. Let’s see you update this post to say you were wrong about the Stupak bought vote. You have zero evidence for that idea and a pretty big pile of evidence against it.

            • Big Dog says:

              Were all three airports in his district in the yearly distribution or only one?

            • Adam says:

              Delta, Alpena, and Chippewa all three had similar grants given by the FAA in the last three years.

            • Adam says:

              And the point of the Airport Improvement Program is to give grants to smaller overlooked airports and landing strips because the big airports always get plenty of tax money. This is why these airports with less than 10,000 people as you say are getting money.

            • Adam says:

              “So what were they bribing for in those other years? Coincidence? Funny how it came just before the vote. Maybe they were not going to give it this year and Stupak asked for it.”

              No. You’ll find grants for those 3 airports every year going back over a decade actually. Why would they not give it this year? You’re absolutely wrong to attribute these grants to buying Stupak’s votes. Retract it.

            • Adam says:

              Or you could just ignore the fact that you’re wrong…

        • Darrel says:

          Bigd: “They removed it because it would cost too much.”>>

          DAR
          Yes they did. It really doesn’t matter where it’s “put.” Your point is merely rhetorical.

          Bigd: “Yes, CBO has no discretion.”>>

          DAR
          Right. They have to score/extimate the cost of laws as per what the law in question says. They scored this bill, since it is the law, as it is written. You have a better suggestion?

          Like it or not, they are the non-partisan ref.

          Perhaps pointing out a little republican duplicity would be in order here:

          Take a Hot Tub Time Machine Trip to 2009, When Conservatives Loved the CBO.

          D.
          ———————-
          “…when the CBO was harshly criticizing early drafts of Democratic health proposal, conservatives thought the CBO was so awesome, and some even claimed Democrats would devilishly refuse to let CBO score the final bill before the vote.”

          • Big Dog says:

            It does not matter where they put it but it will still cost us and be related to health care. It is a shell game.

            The CBO did score this…

          • Big Dog says:

            CBO, scores what it is given and only based on what it is told to assume. If it is told to assume that they cut half a trillion in Medicare then you get a score. If later on that cut does not take place then the cost is higher.

            It has to take into account ONLY what it is given. It is not hard to understand.

            I have not taken them seriously. Their estimates are always low and the bills never do what they claim when they are asking to be scored.

      • Darrel says:

        ADM: Did a temporary “doc fix” like solution take place last year and the years before?>>

        DAR
        Yes, it’s been going on for nigh a decade. Thus it’s a band-aid created and left to fester by republicans.

        ADM: Would something similar to a “doc fix” happen without a health care reform bill* being passed?>>

        DAR
        Yes. And there is no fix. The pay schedule for Doc’s for medicare is too low. The only “fix” (that they want) is to give them more money. You could put it in the recent bill (and make it impassable as per Bigd’s wishes) or you put it in another line in the ledger and/or deal with it separately.
        Bush made up all sorts of new lines in the ledger book to hide VAST spending. This was one that was left to linger during his entire term.

        There is no reason this long term legacy problem should be allowed to sink our necessary health care bill. And it wasn’t. This is what makes Bigd furious.

        D.

  17. Big Dog says:

    Adam, you do read the news, right. The Stupak deal has been reported in a few different places.

  18. Big Dog says:

    Darrel, the reason the million is in brackets is because it is evident from what he said that he meant million. If we only are covering 300 people then we REALLY paid too much.

  19. Big Dog says:

    Yes, doc fixes have been going on, you say festering by Republicans. The Democrats were going to fix it permanently in the bill so they did not have to do it each year.

  20. Big Dog says:

    Darrel, quoting the information they provide does not mean I take what they say seriously. I understand how they work.

    And the others you will find are like the recent one where it was prefaced with, since you like to use them, here is what they say.

    No, I do not take them as gospel because I know how they have to work.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “I do not take them as gospel because I know how they have to work.”>>

      DAR
      No one takes them as “gospel.” But they are the non-partisan ref, and they are the estimate we go with.

  21. Big Dog says:

    So what were they bribing for in those other years?

    Coincidence? Funny how it came just before the vote. Maybe they were not going to give it this year and Stupak asked for it.

    Now if all this money is going to an airport that has fewer than 10,000 people flying in and out each year there is a problem.

  22. Big Dog says:

    How do you know it is faked? Is it because it is not a joint?

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “How do you know it is faked?”>>

      DAR
      From the roast Blake got on this in October, 2009:

      ***
      “In early 2008 the top photo began circulating online, showing Obama with a cigarette in his mouth. It is not real. The original photo (top) was taken by Kwame Ross on Aug. 3, 2004 while then-State Sen. Obama met with constituents at the University of Illinois while campaigning to become a U.S. Senator.”

      Link.

  23. Big Dog says:

    How do we know that the cigarette photo was not the original and they revoed the smoke later on?

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “How do we know that the cigarette photo was not the original and they remvoed the smoke later on?”>>

      DAR
      Because we know who took the original picture, and when. Your [obvious] and anonymous fake appeared on the internet, reversed and doctored, later.

      As I pointed out to Blake when he tried this same angle back in October. It’s in the museum of hoaxes:

      ***
      http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/photo_database/image/barack_obama_smoking

      Time spent to prove this? About 5 seconds.

      How? Put: obama smoking fake, in google.

      I didn’t have to check because I knew it was a fake just by looking at it.”

      D.

  24. Big Dog says:

    So let me concede that the photo is fake. Does is matter? Obama smokes and the photo shows him smoking so even though the photo is not real the underlying depiction is true.

    Isn’t that how you guys justified the Dan Rather fake memos? They might be fake but what they say is true….

    And whether it is a fake or not I like the photo because it is a more accurate depiction. So unless it is copyrighted and the guy tells me to remove it…

    • Adam says:

      Still waiting on you to concede you are wrong about Stupak’s vote as well.

      • Big Dog says:

        I might be wrong about airport money buying Stupak. But it is not wrong to say he lied all along when he said he could not vote for it without the language he wanted when the video that was made public shows him saying he would anyway.

        He was bought. I guess he might have been worried about the threats from progressives and their harassment. I wonder if those will be investigated.

  25. Chey says:

    Abortion is an issue that makes my blood boil. America is so concerned with going green and saving trees, but when it comes to a life it’s…”whatever”…Something doesn’t quite add up there. I fear I’ll never be able to understand.