DADvocate

Watching the fabulous implementation of Obamacare, with the continued lying by Obama and the Democrats, provides some dark entertainment. Despite at least 29 videotaped times where he asserted “if you like your health-care plan, you will be able to keep your health-care plan, period.” Obama now denies he said that. Now His Dishonesty states, “What we said was you could keep it if it hasn’t changed since the law was passed.”

Uh huh.

Those who watch Obama with open eyes and an open mind know he fails in honesty. His current claims about what he said or didn't say are simply further proof that the truth has no meaning to him. He simply says what sounds best and what he thinks will be most likely to manipulate his audience.

That anyone now covers for him creates the most disheartening part of the debacle. Jay Carney and the rest of the cast only prove what whores or anti-freedom radicals they are. Any respectable person would disavow Obama and walk, no - run, away.

What Obama has done is "A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury," the legal definition of fraud.

As Marc A. Thiessen points out in the Washington Post, Obama's lie about Obamacare is not a misstatement, it's an intentional lie.</a.

But Obama didn’t say those things. He said, “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.” That statement was clear, unequivocal and wrong — and Obama and his advisers knew it.

The president’s defenders are twisting around for ways to explain away his 16 words. The New York Times wrote in an editorial Sunday that “Mr. Obama clearly misspoke.” Misspoke? On 24 separate occasions? Sorry, the president didn’t “misspeak.” This was an premeditated deception. This wasn’t something Obama ad-libbed. It was a line in a presidential speech that was carefully reviewed by the entire White House senior staff. Obama’s political advisers were told by his policy aides the statement was inaccurate — but they decided to let Americans believe the falsehood.

Unsurprisingly, for the hardcore "progressives" all the lying is just fine. Just throw out some rationalizations plus a few denials, smile and walk on. Bill Maher thinks the lying was just fine and necessary to get the bill passed. Honest debate zips right over his head.

Ironically:

Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) denounced the notion that President Barack Obama had lied about Americans' ability to maintain their health insurance under Obamacare

In a Friday appearance on HBO's "Real Time With Bill Maher," Wasserman Schultz batted down Maher's suggestion that "the ship has sailed" on Obama's "credibility."

"It was not a lie, let’s just be very clear," Wasserman Schultz said. "So let me knock that down right away. When the president and myself and every other Democrat that talked about that if you like your health care, you can keep it, that was referring to the overwhelming majority of Americans who had health care.”

What we're seeing is the religious zealotry of fascist progressivism (or is it progressive fascism?) and Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy which Chris Navin enlightened us about recently. A simple total lack of respect for the rights of others held by the lefties.

Ron Fournier shares his thoughts on "Lying About Lying." I find his opening paragraph sadly humorous.

It might not seem possible that President Obama could do more harm to his credibility and the public's faith in government than misleading Americans about health insurance reform. But he can. The president is now misleading the public about his deception.

Sadly humorous because Obama has already sunk to depths never reached before by any president. He's making Nixon and Clinton look like paragons of honesty. That Obama still possesses any credibility boggles the mnd. It's also sadly humorous that the Democrats cannot admit Obamacare is fatally flawed and, at best, needs to be reworked before being implemented. Bill Maher and the other geniuses also need to familiarize themselves with the concept of repealing laws. It does happen and needs to happen more (RICO anyone?).

Last year, The New Yorker published and article, "Why Smart People Are Stupid," that may help explain, not justify, the idiocy of the Democrats.

A new study in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology led by Richard West at James Madison University and Keith Stanovich at the University of Toronto suggests that, in many instances, smarter people are more vulnerable to these thinking errors. Although we assume that intelligence is a buffer against bias—that’s why those with higher S.A.T. scores think they are less prone to these universal thinking mistakes—it can actually be a subtle curse.

West and his colleagues began by giving four hundred and eighty-two undergraduates a questionnaire featuring a variety of classic bias problems. Here’s a example:

In a lake, there is a patch of lily pads. Every day, the patch doubles in size. If it takes 48 days for the patch to cover the entire lake, how long would it take for the patch to cover half of the lake?

......

And here’s the upsetting punch line: intelligence seems to make things worse. The scientists gave the students four measures of “cognitive sophistication.” As they report in the paper, all four of the measures showed positive correlations, “indicating that more cognitively sophisticated participants showed larger bias blind spots.” This trend held for many of the specific biases, indicating that smarter people (at least as measured by S.A.T. scores) and those more likely to engage in deliberation were slightly more vulnerable to common mental mistakes. Education also isn’t a savior; as Kahneman and Shane Frederick first noted many years ago, more than fifty per cent of students at Harvard, Princeton, and M.I.T. gave the incorrect answer to the bat-and-ball question.

Yeah, smart people aren't as smart as they think they are. In Obama you have an unsmart person who isn't as smart as he thinks he is, which probably compounds the problem. (BTW - I got both the puzzle examples correct. Does that mean I'm smart, dumb or that my psychologist father gave me a lot of similar puzzles to figure out when I was a kid and I learned how to solve them?) Glenn Reynolds, aka Instapundit, recommended that Obama read "James Scott's Seeing Like A State: How Certain Schemes To Improve The Human Condition Have Failed.

Scott, a Yale professor and no right-winger, produced a lengthy catalog of centrally planned disasters: Everything from compulsory villagization in Tanzania, to the collectivization of agriculture in the Soviet Union, to the "Authoritarian High Modernism" that led to immense, unlivable housing projects and the destruction of urban life in cities around the world. The book stands as a warning to hubristic technocrats: You may think you understand how things work, and how people will respond to your carefully (or, often, not-so-carefully) laid plans, but you are likely to be wrong, and the result is likely to be somewhere between tragedy and farce. The world is more complicated than planners are capable of grasping -- and so, for that matter, are the people who inhabit it.

"More complicated that planners are capable of grasping..." But, the Chosen One refuses to learn. He stares at his own reflection in the pond and believes he is above us all and works to make that a reality. Lying, bullying, threatening, IRS investigations, NSA spying, and all other nefarious activities are justified on that basis.