>>John, you've been given more than ample proof of many lies by Obama. Your reply was that it was "partisan". That's a great game - ask for proof, receive it, dismiss it as partisan, and continue ask for proof as if you've received none.

I've been given examples of things you call lies. Invariably I respond with alternative explanations apart from the unlikely "he keeps telling obvious whoppers" construct you prefer. For example, and for the 11th time: what was the purpose of the Grandfather clause if not to support Obama's statement? Invariably you ignore the counterpoint and just keep restating your stance that now apparently is elevated to proof.

One thing you'll never convince me of, is that every misstatement is a lie.

>>Obama had previously painted a narrative during the Democratic Conversion that "GM was alive and Al Q was dead" ... you've refused to acknowledge this.

I wonder whether that should be called a mistake or a lie? I've never commented on this at all.

>> You've refused to use your "plural of anecdotal is not data" mantra when the President himself reads a letter from a single citizen as validation of his program (which, of course, blew up in his face when the citizen received subsequent letters from her state).

From memory, Nick got in first. But alright: "the plural of anecdote is not data." I see a petty embarrassment for Obama that blew over in no time. Bush had similar embarrassments, but you won't find me commenting on those either.

>>If you want to say, "I like Obama and I don't want to hear any bad news and I think people just bring up bad news because they hate him", then fine, I won't continue to bring these up. But you can't have it both ways - ask for information and then dismiss it because his opponents are using the information.

Haven't I told you before that I hold no brief for Obama apart from the fact that people are calling the President a liar on what look like spurious grounds? I guess I'm a liar now as well.

In the interest of clarity: nobody denies what Obama said. But to call it a lie is a mighty leap, especially if you refuse to acknowledge the purpose of the Grandfather clause that has no apparent purpose except to support Obama's stance.