Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

papagayo

Obama's latest proven lie

Recommended Posts

Even the left wing PolitiFact calls Obama's proclamation after the Charleston tragedy "mostly false".

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/22/barack-obama/barack-obama-correct-mass-killings-dont-happen-oth/

 

we all deserve better.

 

papagayo

 

Remember, if you have an erection lasting more than 4 hours, you should seek medical help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Even the left wing PolitiFact calls Obama's proclamation after the Charleston tragedy "mostly false".

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/22/barack-obama/barack-obama-correct-mass-killings-dont-happen-oth/

 

we all deserve better.

 

papagayo

 

Remember, if you have an erection lasting more than 4 hours, you should seek medical help.

 

Seems like you have a personal problem. Every time someone picks on your Kenyan leader, you lash out at the poster instead of defending him. Is that because you know that he is a liar and you have no reasonable defense?

 

 

I am not an Obama apologist, no matter how much some here would like me to be. I have plenty about which I disagree with our President. So, I am not sure why you seem puzzled that I am not defending him.

 

But, some of the posters here seem to be almost orgasmic in their posting of things with which they disagree. That they are silent regarding the foibles of their own team speaks volumes.

 

But, I am certain papagayo is happy you have his back. Gotta stick together, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Even the left wing PolitiFact calls Obama's proclamation after the Charleston tragedy "mostly false".

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/22/barack-obama/barack-obama-correct-mass-killings-dont-happen-oth/

 

we all deserve better.

 

papagayo

What makes poltifact left wing?

 

 

Well, they deal in facts. Which, we all know, have a liberal bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Even the left wing PolitiFact calls Obama's proclamation after the Charleston tragedy "mostly false".

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/22/barack-obama/barack-obama-correct-mass-killings-dont-happen-oth/

 

we all deserve better.

 

papagayo

What makes poltifact left wing?

Well, they deal in facts. Which, we all know, have a liberal bias.

There is a level of sensitivity in response to my posts, and I want to see if the same extends to Politifact. I can post criticisms of Obama all day, and nobody on the left calls me on it. I make one post that Bush may have made a slightly wrong decision and the right brands me as a far left commie Obamatron

 

It's odd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a recently discovered fact that those on the American Right do not comprehend ambiguity. Left thinking people can see criticism of leftist things, scratch the goatie and think about it ... Mmmmmm. Those on the right can't accept any criticism of the right, they just reach for their guns and blast away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus, but you are a fucking idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not being orgasmic..... but the PF article does make a good point. And I certainly don't consider them left-wing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

da187e17431649abf20dbfcf62e90138.jpg

 

Randumb after he fucked his sheep...... NTTAWWT. No need to be embarrassed either, I hear its all the rage in AUS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Even the left wing PolitiFact calls Obama's proclamation after the Charleston tragedy "mostly false".

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/22/barack-obama/barack-obama-correct-mass-killings-dont-happen-oth/

 

we all deserve better.

 

papagayo

What makes poltifact left wing?

Well, they deal in facts. Which, we all know, have a liberal bias.

There is a level of sensitivity in response to my posts, and I want to see if the same extends to Politifact. I can post criticisms of Obama all day, and nobody on the left calls me on it. I make one post that Bush may have made a slightly wrong decision and the right brands me as a far left commie Obamatron

 

It's odd.

 

 

It is odd.

 

You could post criticisms of Obama all day, but I haven't seen you actually do it.

 

You could have criticized the topic lies, but I didn't see that either from you or BD. It's odd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Even the left wing PolitiFact calls Obama's proclamation after the Charleston tragedy "mostly false".

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/22/barack-obama/barack-obama-correct-mass-killings-dont-happen-oth/

 

we all deserve better.

 

papagayo

What makes poltifact left wing?

Well, they deal in facts. Which, we all know, have a liberal bias.

There is a level of sensitivity in response to my posts, and I want to see if the same extends to Politifact. I can post criticisms of Obama all day, and nobody on the left calls me on it. I make one post that Bush may have made a slightly wrong decision and the right brands me as a far left commie Obamatron

 

It's odd.

It is odd.

 

You could post criticisms of Obama all day, but I haven't seen you actually do it.

 

You could have criticized the topic lies, but I didn't see that either from you or BD. It's odd.

If you have not seen me criticize Obama, that explains one element. You selectively read what I what I write.

 

I politifact article is correct. What Obama said was not entirely accurate. I suppose I failed to see the drastic implications of it. I mean compared to fuck ups like pulling troops out of a country that was not st all ready for it.

 

I can say something bad about Rubio or Santorum now if it helps put me back in the Obamtron box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Well, they deal in facts. Which, we all know, have a liberal bias.

There is a level of sensitivity in response to my posts, and I want to see if the same extends to Politifact. I can post criticisms of Obama all day, and nobody on the left calls me on it. I make one post that Bush may have made a slightly wrong decision and the right brands me as a far left commie Obamatron

 

It's odd.

It is odd.

 

You could post criticisms of Obama all day, but I haven't seen you actually do it.

 

You could have criticized the topic lies, but I didn't see that either from you or BD. It's odd.

If you have not seen me criticize Obama, that explains one element. You selectively read what I what I write.

 

I politifact article is correct. What Obama said was not entirely accurate. I suppose I failed to see the drastic implications of it. I mean compared to fuck ups like pulling troops out of a country that was not st all ready for it.

 

I can say something bad about Rubio or Santorum now if it helps put me back in the Obamtron box.

I haven't seen you criticize him once.

 

I can quote the posts. But let's make it interesting. How about a grand that says I can't do it?

 

Let me know. Lots of choices here as to who could hold our wagers in escrow.Think of it as committing to what you say and not just spouting shit. It will be a new experience for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With Ben. It's not the critism of politicians that makes him "Ben the independant". It's who on this site he regular subjects to his ridicule and those he regularly gives a pass to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With Ben. It's not the critism of politicians that makes him "Ben the independant". It's who on this site he regular subjects to his ridicule and those he regularly gives a pass to.

While I would love to see your score spreadsheet on that, I'm a bit busy making some money off Folding Prop.

 

Unless he weasels out. Wouldn't that be a surprise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

With Ben. It's not the critism of politicians that makes him "Ben the independant". It's who on this site he regular subjects to his ridicule and those he regularly gives a pass to.

While I would love to see your score spreadsheet on that, I'm a bit busy making some money off Folding Prop.

 

Unless he weasels out. Wouldn't that be a surprise?

 

Ben....you are such a loser. Is that the only way you know how to make money? No wonder you love the Kenyan with all his freebies that he gives away to losers like you.

 

 

Oh please put your big girl panties on. You're embarrassing yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

With Ben. It's not the critism of politicians that makes him "Ben the independant". It's who on this site he regular subjects to his ridicule and those he regularly gives a pass to.

While I would love to see your score spreadsheet on that, I'm a bit busy making some money off Folding Prop.

 

Unless he weasels out. Wouldn't that be a surprise?

Ben....you are such a loser. Is that the only way you know how to make money? No wonder you love the Kenyan with all his freebies that he gives away to losers like you.

No, it is not the only way I know how to make money. Let's change the terms and make it a donation to a charity. The escrow holder can do that for us, and there are plenty of trustworthy candidates here who could assume that role.

 

Losers can't back up their claims. Take my bet or remain a loser and spout your shit.

 

Not that I don't already know your choice. I just want to make sure you know you are exposing yourself as as someone who just runs their mouth. Talk is cheap, as they say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

With Ben. It's not the critism of politicians that makes him "Ben the independant". It's who on this site he regular subjects to his ridicule and those he regularly gives a pass to.

While I would love to see your score spreadsheet on that, I'm a bit busy making some money off Folding Prop.

 

Unless he weasels out. Wouldn't that be a surprise?

Ben....you are such a loser. Is that the only way you know how to make money? No wonder you love the Kenyan with all his freebies that he gives away to losers like you.
No, it is not the only way I know how to make money. Let's change the terms and make it a donation to a charity. The escrow holder can do that for us, and there are plenty of trustworthy candidates here who could assume that role.

 

Losers can't back up their claims. Take my bet or remain a loser and spout your shit.

 

Not that I don't already know your choice. I just want to make sure you know you are exposing yourself as as someone who just runs their mouth. Talk is cheap, as they say.

You're nuts.

I will gladly put money up to back up what I say, and you won't.

 

You're a two bit liar with no balls. Not that most people here didn't know that already, but thanks for confirming it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

No, it is not the only way I know how to make money. Let's change the terms and make it a donation to a charity. The escrow holder can do that for us, and there are plenty of trustworthy candidates here who could assume that role.

 

Losers can't back up their claims. Take my bet or remain a loser and spout your shit.

 

Not that I don't already know your choice. I just want to make sure you know you are exposing yourself as as someone who just runs their mouth. Talk is cheap, as they say.

You're nuts.

I will gladly put money up to back up what I say, and you won't.

 

You're a two bit liar with no balls. Not that most people here didn't know that already, but thanks for confirming it.

Typical liberal....can't make your own money so you want someone else to give to you. I repeat...you're a loser.

 

I repeat: It was going to go to a charity, not to me.

 

You're not a typical Liberal, typical Conservative, or a typical anybody. You are uniquely you. A loser who can't back up his shit. That's not an empty accusation along the lines of yours. You are demonstrating it right here.

 

I'll put my money where my mouth is, and you won't. Put up or shut up, bitch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, it is not the only way I know how to make money. Let's change the terms and make it a donation to a charity. The escrow holder can do that for us, and there are plenty of trustworthy candidates here who could assume that role.

 

Losers can't back up their claims. Take my bet or remain a loser and spout your shit.

 

Not that I don't already know your choice. I just want to make sure you know you are exposing yourself as as someone who just runs their mouth. Talk is cheap, as they say.

You're nuts.

I will gladly put money up to back up what I say, and you won't.

 

You're a two bit liar with no balls. Not that most people here didn't know that already, but thanks for confirming it.

Typical liberal....can't make your own money so you want someone else to give to you. I repeat...you're a loser.

 

I repeat: It was going to go to a charity, not to me.

 

You're not a typical Liberal, typical Conservative, or a typical anybody. You are uniquely you. A loser who can't back up his shit. That's not an empty accusation along the lines of yours. You are demonstrating it right here.

 

I'll put my money where my mouth is, and you won't. Put up or shut up, bitch.

Give it to the RNC or the NRA

 

I didn't realize those were charities.

 

I am a former member of the NRA, and would be fine with them getting the winnings.

 

Now all we need is an escrow holder. Dabs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even the left wing PolitiFact calls Obama's proclamation after the Charleston tragedy "mostly false".

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/22/barack-obama/barack-obama-correct-mass-killings-dont-happen-oth/

 

we all deserve better.

 

papagayo

Switzerland, Norway, and Finland top the list of fatality rate. How do their gun control laws compare to US ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

There is a level of sensitivity in response to my posts, and I want to see if the same extends to Politifact. I can post criticisms of Obama all day, and nobody on the left calls me on it. I make one post that Bush may have made a slightly wrong decision and the right brands me as a far left commie Obamatron

 

It's odd.

It is odd.

 

You could post criticisms of Obama all day, but I haven't seen you actually do it.

 

You could have criticized the topic lies, but I didn't see that either from you or BD. It's odd.

If you have not seen me criticize Obama, that explains one element. You selectively read what I what I write.

 

I politifact article is correct. What Obama said was not entirely accurate. I suppose I failed to see the drastic implications of it. I mean compared to fuck ups like pulling troops out of a country that was not st all ready for it.

 

I can say something bad about Rubio or Santorum now if it helps put me back in the Obamtron box.

 

 

Oh, I've seen you criticize Obama, just not all day long. Occasionally would be more accurate.

 

Glad to see you're working to overcome your indifference to second amendment rights. Acknowledging that the President lied about them is a good step. Saying it was wrong would be a bigger step. I suppose that one will take more time, but congrats on the progress made so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

There is a level of sensitivity in response to my posts, and I want to see if the same extends to Politifact. I can post criticisms of Obama all day, and nobody on the left calls me on it. I make one post that Bush may have made a slightly wrong decision and the right brands me as a far left commie Obamatron

 

It's odd.

 

It is odd.

 

You could post criticisms of Obama all day, but I haven't seen you actually do it.

 

You could have criticized the topic lies, but I didn't see that either from you or BD. It's odd.

If you have not seen me criticize Obama, that explains one element. You selectively read what I what I write.

 

I politifact article is correct. What Obama said was not entirely accurate. I suppose I failed to see the drastic implications of it. I mean compared to fuck ups like pulling troops out of a country that was not st all ready for it.

 

I can say something bad about Rubio or Santorum now if it helps put me back in the Obamtron box.

Oh, I've seen you criticize Obama, just not all day long. Occasionally would be more accurate.

 

Glad to see you're working to overcome your indifference to second amendment rights. Acknowledging that the President lied about them is a good step. Saying it was wrong would be a bigger step. I suppose that one will take more time, but congrats on the progress made so far.

So you were technically looking for a 24 hour non-stop criticism. I'll admit I have not done that.

 

I thought in saying that he was incorrect I was implying that he was wrong. I've implied that he has been wrong before, by the way. In one case, pretty harshly. I'd quote it, but I am saving that one for my wager with Folding Prop. If the NRA is going to get a grand from him on this, I want it to be worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You said he was "not entirely accurate." So, partly accurate.

 

That's pretty much the same as calling him out for his lie. You at least did mention by implication, if not directly, that part of what he said was not accurate.

 

With withering criticism like that, I doubt he'll stick his neck out and lie about our rights again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You said he was "not entirely accurate." So, partly accurate.

 

That's pretty much the same as calling him out for his lie. You at least did mention by implication, if not directly, that part of what he said was not accurate.

 

With withering criticism like that, I doubt he'll stick his neck out and lie about our rights again.

Lying about "our rights"? Is the mere expression of concern overthe issue of gun violence an infringement of our rights?

 

I don't like seeing a lot of innocent people getting shot. Do I need to give up that concern or risk being labeled a "gun grabber"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

There is a level of sensitivity in response to my posts, and I want to see if the same extends to Politifact. I can post criticisms of Obama all day, and nobody on the left calls me on it. I make one post that Bush may have made a slightly wrong decision and the right brands me as a far left commie Obamatron

 

It's odd.

It is odd.

 

You could post criticisms of Obama all day, but I haven't seen you actually do it.

 

You could have criticized the topic lies, but I didn't see that either from you or BD. It's odd.

If you have not seen me criticize Obama, that explains one element. You selectively read what I what I write.

 

I politifact article is correct. What Obama said was not entirely accurate. I suppose I failed to see the drastic implications of it. I mean compared to fuck ups like pulling troops out of a country that was not st all ready for it.

 

I can say something bad about Rubio or Santorum now if it helps put me back in the Obamtron box.

Oh, I've seen you criticize Obama, just not all day long. Occasionally would be more accurate.

 

Glad to see you're working to overcome your indifference to second amendment rights. Acknowledging that the President lied about them is a good step. Saying it was wrong would be a bigger step. I suppose that one will take more time, but congrats on the progress made so far.

So you were technically looking for a 24 hour non-stop criticism. I'll admit I have not done that.

 

I thought in saying that he was incorrect I was implying that he was wrong. I've implied that he has been wrong before, by the way. In one case, pretty harshly. I'd quote it, but I am saving that one for my wager with Folding Prop. If the NRA is going to get a grand from him on this, I want it to be worth it.

Seriously Ben.... you need help. Please show the world when you have thrown your Kenyan leader under the bus. You sound a lot like Al Sharpton who spends all his time arguing about who said what and when. Sharpton is a bull shitter just like you. From now on I am going to call you bensharpton.

 

YOU are arguing about "who said what when" you fucking moron. Jesus Christ.

 

Still unwilling to back your claim? Once I post examples, our bet is off. That's the point where you go down in forum history as a gutless cunt. Are you sure you want to go there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Even the left wing PolitiFact calls Obama's proclamation after the Charleston tragedy "mostly false".

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/22/barack-obama/barack-obama-correct-mass-killings-dont-happen-oth/

 

we all deserve better.

 

papagayo

Switzerland, Norway, and Finland top the list of fatality rate. How do their gun control laws compare to US ?

 

 

I think they all have laws against killing people. But, then the Swiss sell a lot of high fat cheese.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even the left wing PolitiFact calls Obama's proclamation after the Charleston tragedy "mostly false".

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/22/barack-obama/barack-obama-correct-mass-killings-dont-happen-oth/

 

we all deserve better.

 

papagayo

A demonstrably false statement. Fit's in with most of the shit flying out of politician's mouths these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can post criticisms of Obama all day, and nobody on the left calls me on it.

 

Ben has posted criticisms of the Kenyan but then he is generally correct in his criticisms. So have I.

Said Kenyan ain't perfect. Hell, he nominated Larry Summers as Fed Chairman. That was hella stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You said he was "not entirely accurate." So, partly accurate.

 

That's pretty much the same as calling him out for his lie. You at least did mention by implication, if not directly, that part of what he said was not accurate.

 

With withering criticism like that, I doubt he'll stick his neck out and lie about our rights again.

Lying about "our rights"? Is the mere expression of concern overthe issue of gun violence an infringement of our rights?

 

 

 

 

When the expression of concern includes blatant lies, it becomes something more than an expression of concern. They become lies.

 

When they're part of calls to further restrict our rights, which by the way don't need quotation marks, yes, he's lying about our rights. More specifically, he's lying in support of his efforts to restrict our rights.

 

Olsonist doesn't know it yet, but we have a right to purchase guns and Obama wants more restrictions and will not let a crisis go to waste.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another Liar in Chief. This goes along with Nixon's, "I am not a crook." and Bush's, "Iraq has WMD."

Carnak says "What is one liar, one lie and an error?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Another Liar in Chief. This goes along with Nixon's, "I am not a crook." and Bush's, "Iraq has WMD."

Carnak says "What is one liar, one lie and an error?"

 

Carnak has head up ass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Man up and take the bet, or just STFU.

I won't shut because this America and I can say what the fuck I want to. You Liberals are constantly telling people what they can and can't say. You want a fight....then shove your head up your ass and fight for air.

 

 

Once again, you are wrong. I did not tell you to shut up. I laid out the obvious choice, you focused on the last few words, because you know you won't follow through on the bet.

 

Okay, so man up and take the bet.

 

You leveled the allegation. Challenge Ben.

 

Or, you can duck and weave, only to reinforce that you are nothing by a limp-dick in front of a keyboard and monitor.

 

Prove him wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Man up and take the bet, or just STFU.

I won't shut because this America and I can say what the fuck I want to. You Liberals are constantly telling people what they can and can't say. You want a fight....then shove your head up your ass and fight for air.

Once again, you are wrong. I did not tell you to shut up. I laid out the obvious choice, you focused on the last few words, because you know you won't follow through on the bet.

 

Okay, so man up and take the bet.

 

You leveled the allegation. Challenge Ben.

 

Or, you can duck and weave, only to reinforce that you are nothing by a limp-dick in front of a keyboard and monitor.

 

Prove him wrong.

He's too busy being angry, lashing out, and telling people what they can and can't say. "Man up..." being off limits, for obvious reasons.

 

So... Since Folding Prop lacks the balls to put his money where his big mouth is, shall we speculate on how he backtracks when I post examples this evening?

 

a.) "That's not what I meant."

 

b.) Criticism doesn't reflect enough outrage

 

c.) Random free association with "Just like a Liberal to...." embellishment.

 

d.) Complete dismissal and diversion to pump and dump stock tip.

 

Not sure if I got them all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Man up and take the bet, or just STFU.

I won't shut because this America and I can say what the fuck I want to. You Liberals are constantly telling people what they can and can't say. You want a fight....then shove your head up your ass and fight for air.

 

 

Once again, you are wrong. I did not tell you to shut up. I laid out the obvious choice, you focused on the last few words, because you know you won't follow through on the bet.

 

Okay, so man up and take the bet.

 

You leveled the allegation. Challenge Ben.

 

Or, you can duck and weave, only to reinforce that you are nothing by a limp-dick in front of a keyboard and monitor.

 

Prove him wrong.

 

Prove him right, asshole.

 

 

I have nothing to prove - I didn't level the allegation. You did.

 

Be a man and take the bet or apologize.

 

You look particularly stupid in your spittle-flying tirade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What allegations Just curious. Because the post if I read it correctly stated that he never "saw" any critism of Obama from Ben. How would you prove he saw it unless of course he responded directly to such post. That is entirely possible of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What allegations Just curious. Because the post if I read it correctly stated that he never "saw" any critism of Obama from Ben. How would you prove he saw it unless of course he responded directly to such post. That is entirely possible of course.

He said never saw any criticism. Then he told me to stop pretending to be something I am not. He's contesting my claim based on nothing.

 

The bet I proposed was $1000 that I could quote past criticisms, with the winner donating his winnings to the NRA.

 

As it is, he's both too much of a pussy to take the bet, and too disengenuous to withdraw the accusation.

 

I can still dig up the past posts and make him look like the idiot he is, but his limp dick is costing the NRA a $1,000 donation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FP is just a cranky guy because his wife is liberal except when it comes to having sex with him. His life consists of day trading and trying to insult people. He doesn't seem to be very good at either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FP is just a cranky guy because his wife is liberal except when it comes to having sex with him. His life consists of day trading and trying to insult people. He doesn't seem to be very good at either.

FP's above average when it comes to insulting people. I think you're being a little hard on him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

FP is just a cranky guy because his wife is liberal except when it comes to having sex with him. His life consists of day trading and trying to insult people. He doesn't seem to be very good at either.

FP's above average when it comes to insulting people. I think you're being a little hard on him.

 

If he is in grade school yes, otherwise not even close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even the left wing PolitiFact calls Obama's proclamation after the Charleston tragedy "mostly false".

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/22/barack-obama/barack-obama-correct-mass-killings-dont-happen-oth/

 

we all deserve better.

 

papagayo

There is a difference between lying and being wrong about something.

Your terminology is deliberately misapplied and as such just as much of a "lie" as the statements about which you are complaining

 

Had you simply written, "Obama ignored the statistics to make his point and I don't think presidents should do that"

Well??

I would be agreeing with you rather than writing this post complaining about your asinine attacks.

 

I sure do miss reasoned polite discussions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It takes real focus to ignore references to statistics even as they are coming out of your mouth, but Obama managed it.

 

"Now is the time for mourning and for healing. But let’s be clear: At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency. And it is in our power to do something about it."

 

 

Two different statistical claims in that statement, along with the usual call for "something" to be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While pointing out that now is not the time to address those things...brilliant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Even the left wing PolitiFact calls Obama's proclamation after the Charleston tragedy "mostly false".

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/22/barack-obama/barack-obama-correct-mass-killings-dont-happen-oth/

 

we all deserve better.

 

papagayo

There is a difference between lying and being wrong about something.

Your terminology is deliberately misapplied and as such just as much of a "lie" as the statements about which you are complaining

 

Had you simply written, "Obama ignored the statistics to make his point and I don't think presidents should do that"

Well??

I would be agreeing with you rather than writing this post complaining about your asinine attacks.

 

I sure do miss reasoned polite discussions

So with that same stupid logic the Bush haters should have said, "Bush ignored some intelligence reports and went to war anyway."
No... The same logic would be to call Colin Powell a liar because he presented a whole lot of information supporting military action which turned out to be lousy intelligence

 

Powell said a lot of flat out wrong stuff but my point is his statements were not what we usually call lies.

 

As I wrote above ... There is a huge difference between speaking out of ignorance and lying.

The term liar is usually apied to those who deliberately and maliciously mislead by knowingly fabricating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a dog in this fight, but did folding plop ever take the bet? He's just another gutless coward, so I'm thinking not....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a dog in this fight, but did folding plop ever take the bet? He's just another gutless coward, so I'm thinking not....

Hell no. I was considering quoting some stuff I've posted about Obama, then have a number of us collectively make the $1,000 donation to the NRA for him, since he wimped out on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't have a dog in this fight, but did folding plop ever take the bet? He's just another gutless coward, so I'm thinking not....

Hell no. I was considering quoting some stuff I've posted about Obama, then have a number of us collectively make the $1,000 donation to the NRA for him, since he wimped out on it.

 

 

The SAF is way better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

You said he was "not entirely accurate." So, partly accurate.

 

That's pretty much the same as calling him out for his lie. You at least did mention by implication, if not directly, that part of what he said was not accurate.

 

With withering criticism like that, I doubt he'll stick his neck out and lie about our rights again.

Lying about "our rights"? Is the mere expression of concern overthe issue of gun violence an infringement of our rights?

 

 

 

 

When the expression of concern includes blatant lies, it becomes something more than an expression of concern. They become lies.

 

When they're part of calls to further restrict our rights, which by the way don't need quotation marks, yes, he's lying about our rights. More specifically, he's lying in support of his efforts to restrict our rights.

 

Olsonist doesn't know it yet, but we have a right to purchase guns and Obama wants more restrictions and will not let a crisis go to waste.

 

 

(Hi, all. Sorry for missing any gun-violence related thread.)

 

There's much fluff and hyperbole in Mr. Ray's combined posts, and in his attacks, in this thread..

I seriously challenge Tom, in his puffed up state, to demonstrate any BO lie in the OP quote.

 

This whole group missed something HUGE. STRAW MAN ALERT

 

The article is clever, and well written, and well-researched. I liked it and the info it held, but it's either misinformation or disinformation. The logic of the Politico article's writer has a fatal flaw.

Politifact's intelligent appraisal went to deaths per capita, or relative damage adjusted by population…a quantitative, per capita assessment. They intelligently looked at the relative death toll. But O'bama's criteria was "frequency," a measure of time.

HOW TO LOOK AT FREQUENCY

Divide the total number of mass murders per country, during a defined time period, then compare the math.

I'll wait for it.

Tom, my good man, the lie here is within the source of the OP.

You need to avoid the subject of credibility mate. The Tom Whoppers are accumulating in a pattern around here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am also curious about the purported falsehood contained within Obama's statement "But let’s be clear: At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency."

 

Did he mis-state something here? Are there other 'advanced countries' where the incidence (frequency) of 'mass violence' is higher?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am also curious about the purported falsehood contained within Obama's statement "But let’s be clear: At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency."

 

Did he mis-state something here? Are there other 'advanced countries' where the incidence (frequency) of 'mass violence' is higher?

Norway had a mass shooting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am also curious about the purported falsehood contained within Obama's statement "But let’s be clear: At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency."

 

Did he mis-state something here? Are there other 'advanced countries' where the incidence (frequency) of 'mass violence' is higher?

 

From the info on this thread, that has not been determined.

MANY other countries have had problems with casualties in the teens.

The article is good, but DOES NOT touch on frequency. The article was a straw man.

 

Gary Kleck and John R. Lott each wrote straw man articles recently.

The straw man is Tom Ray's weapon of choice. A PARADE OF TOM RAY STRAW MEN here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am also curious about the purported falsehood contained within Obama's statement "But let’s be clear: At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency."

 

Did he mis-state something here? Are there other 'advanced countries' where the incidence (frequency) of 'mass violence' is higher?

 

Are there any where it does not happen or did you miss that part of his statement?

 

As for frequency, when you adjust for population by looking at the rate, it looks like this according to Politico.

 

mass-shooting-frequency.jpg

 

So Obama is right, we don't see it with that kind of frequency, we see a lower frequency, but that's not what he was trying to imply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A friend of mine has a standard line for this kind of denial "We are politicians - We Lie Deal with it"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't have a dog in this fight, but did folding plop ever take the bet? He's just another gutless coward, so I'm thinking not....

Hell no. I was considering quoting some stuff I've posted about Obama, then have a number of us collectively make the $1,000 donation to the NRA for him, since he wimped out on it.

 

You guys are just butt hurt since your troop leader has left and gone away.

 

Were you the one who drove the stake in his heart?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I am also curious about the purported falsehood contained within Obama's statement "But let’s be clear: At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency."

 

Did he mis-state something here? Are there other 'advanced countries' where the incidence (frequency) of 'mass violence' is higher?

 

Are there any where it does not happen or did you miss that part of his statement?

 

As for frequency, when you adjust for population by looking at the rate, it looks like this according to Politico.

 

mass-shooting-frequency.jpg

 

So Obama is right, we don't see it with that kind of frequency, we see a lower frequency, but that's not what he was trying to imply.

 

 

More dishonest propaganda. O'bama did not specify total victims per capita. The Politico writer did. STRAW MAN ALERT II

 

Thanks for the figures, Tom. The US has had 133 during the time period. The other 10 countries combined have 23, or an average of 2.3 each.

Compared between countries, the mass murder frequency is 57X higher in the USA than the average of these countries.

 

 

 

Edit. In the last column, please note our spiked homicide rates. Note what our supply of guns has done to Mexico.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Note what our supply of guns has done to Mexico.

 

 

I noted it at great length already. I still think some people should be punished for their crimes and their betrayal of their duties.

 

Yep saw that soft ball when it was lobbed in from "left" field

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A friend of mine has a standard line for this kind of denial "We are politicians - We Lie Deal with it"

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even the left wing PolitiFact calls Obama's proclamation after the Charleston tragedy "mostly false".

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/22/barack-obama/barack-obama-correct-mass-killings-dont-happen-oth/

 

we all deserve better.

 

papagayo

 

So you preferred Bush?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even the left wing PolitiFact calls Obama's proclamation after the Charleston tragedy "mostly false".

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/22/barack-obama/barack-obama-correct-mass-killings-dont-happen-oth/

 

we all deserve better.

 

papagayo

 

Obama doubles down

 

While giving a press conference in Paris, President Barack Obama told reporters that the mass shootings that plague the United States just never happen in other countries.

 

“With respect to Planned Parenthood, obviously, my heart goes out to the families of those impacted,” Obama said in response to a reporter’s question. “I mean, I say this every time we’ve got one of these mass shootings; this just doesn’t happen in other countries.”

 

For those living under a rock, the city of Paris itself was just hit with a series of simultaneous terrorist attacks.

 

 

If you can't use a crisis to spread lies about guns, what good is it? Never let a crisis go to waste!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any French speakers here?

 

It is said that following what was at times a painfully slow, slouching, and seemingly disinterested performance by President Obama, some among the French media were heard repeatedly using the words, “Connard!” and “Trouduc!” to describe their feelings regarding Mr. Obama’s bizarre commentary – phrases rather specific to a certain part of the human anatomy.
...

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any French speakers here?

 

It is said that following what was at times a painfully slow, slouching, and seemingly disinterested performance by President Obama, some among the French media were heard repeatedly using the words, “Connard!” and “Trouduc!” to describe their feelings regarding Mr. Obama’s bizarre commentary – phrases rather specific to a certain part of the human anatomy.

...

 

 

 

 

"Webpage unavailable" is English.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Any French speakers here?

 

It is said that following what was at times a painfully slow, slouching, and seemingly disinterested performance by President Obama, some among the French media were heard repeatedly using the words, “Connard!” and “Trouduc!” to describe their feelings regarding Mr. Obama’s bizarre commentary – phrases rather specific to a certain part of the human anatomy.

...

 

 

 

 

"Webpage unavailable" is English.

 

 

"Canard" is french for "duck", and used colloquially to indicate a lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Any French speakers here?

 

It is said that following what was at times a painfully slow, slouching, and seemingly disinterested performance by President Obama, some among the French media were heard repeatedly using the words, “Connard!” and “Trouduc!” to describe their feelings regarding Mr. Obama’s bizarre commentary – phrases rather specific to a certain part of the human anatomy.

...

 

 

 

 

"Webpage unavailable" is English.

 

 

"Canard" is french for "duck", and used colloquially to indicate a lie.

 

 

Closer to "bullshit", actually.

 

They must have been swamped earlier, a good dash of ODS is great for clicks.

Now it's up and obviously yet another piece of "journalism" more concerned with what other people said about Obama than what Obama said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What Obama said was bullshit. They reacted as if they knew it.

 

They were right, it's most unfortunate they are hacks looking for quick clicks and thereby uninterested in and probably unable to conduct a discussion of the hows and whys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What Obama said was bullshit. They reacted as if they knew it.

 

They were right, it's most unfortunate they are hacks looking for quick clicks and thereby uninterested in and probably unable to conduct a discussion of the hows and whys.

 

 

I don't know whether they are bad messengers or not, but at least we agree that the message about Obama being full of shit was right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If all you care about or are capable of grasping is hatred of Obama you are consulting and citing the proper sources of information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If all you care about or are capable of grasping is hatred of Obama you are consulting and citing the proper sources of information.

 

I'm not sure whether you are talking to me nor, if you are, which post of mine you might be referencing, so let me supply one.

 

As a Washington Post reader and (sometimes) a fan of what Obama does (when he's not lying about guns), I said:

 

DOJ Releasing Thousands of Drug Offenders

 

Hat tip to Obama.

 

...The panel estimated that its change in sentencing guidelines eventually could result in 46,000 of the nation’s approximately 100,000 drug offenders in federal prison qualifying for early release. The 6,000 figure, which has not been reported previously, is the first tranche in that process.

 

“The number of people who will be affected is quite exceptional,” said Mary Price, general counsel for Families Against Mandatory Minimums, an advocacy group that supports sentencing reform.

 

 

The Sentencing Commission estimated that an additional 8,550 inmates would be eligible for release between this Nov. 1 and Nov. 1, 2016.

 

The releases are part of a shift in the nation’s approach to criminal justice and drug sentencing that has been driven by a bipartisan consensus that mass incarceration has failed and should be reversed.

 

Along with the commission’s action, the Justice Department has instructed its prosecutors not to charge low-level, nonviolent drug offenders who have no connection to gangs or large-scale drug organizations with offenses that carry severe mandatory sentences.

 

The U.S. Sentencing Commission voted unanimously for the reduction last year after holding two public hearings in which members heard testimony from then-Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., federal judges, federal public defenders, state and local law enforcement officials, and sentencing advocates. The panel also received more than 80,000 public comment letters, with the overwhelming majority favoring the change...

 

 

It has failed because the black market replaces those who are caught before the justice system can sentence them, but also because keeping those people locked up is costing a lot of money and needlessly ruining lives. It's nice to see a failed and destructive big-government program being wound down.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bush was and still is an inarticulate bumkin. His faux puas were legendary and the media rejoiced everytime he opened his mouth.

 

Obama is a fairly bright guy, which makes his mistakes a bit worse in my book. His foreign policy failures will be a blotch on an otherwise interesting legacy.

 

Coming out and saying ISIS is contained on the morning of the Paris Attacks.

 

Standing in Paris and condemning gun violence in the US on the day of the SB attacks "This only happens in the US"

 

Calling ISIS a "JV team" right before they rolled through most of Syria.

 

 

Anyone have others???. I think posting some of this is needed. Not as condemnation but as a reminding both parties that their Leaders are not who they say they are.

 

Feel free to ad Bushisms as well, I have no problem with that.

 

We need to quit the partisan bullshit bickering and start looking for a candidate that can actually bring about change. Granted the last one got taken out from a grassy knoll, but we gotta try.

 

WL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If all you care about or are capable of grasping is hatred of Obama you are consulting and citing the proper sources of information.

 

I'm not sure whether you are talking to me nor, if you are, which post of mine you might be referencing, so let me supply one.

 

As a Washington Post reader and (sometimes) a fan of what Obama does (when he's not lying about guns), I said:

 

DOJ Releasing Thousands of Drug Offenders

 

Hat tip to Obama.

 

...The panel estimated that its change in sentencing guidelines eventually could result in 46,000 of the nation’s approximately 100,000 drug offenders in federal prison qualifying for early release. The 6,000 figure, which has not been reported previously, is the first tranche in that process.

 

“The number of people who will be affected is quite exceptional,” said Mary Price, general counsel for Families Against Mandatory Minimums, an advocacy group that supports sentencing reform.

 

 

The Sentencing Commission estimated that an additional 8,550 inmates would be eligible for release between this Nov. 1 and Nov. 1, 2016.

 

The releases are part of a shift in the nation’s approach to criminal justice and drug sentencing that has been driven by a bipartisan consensus that mass incarceration has failed and should be reversed.

 

Along with the commission’s action, the Justice Department has instructed its prosecutors not to charge low-level, nonviolent drug offenders who have no connection to gangs or large-scale drug organizations with offenses that carry severe mandatory sentences.

 

The U.S. Sentencing Commission voted unanimously for the reduction last year after holding two public hearings in which members heard testimony from then-Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., federal judges, federal public defenders, state and local law enforcement officials, and sentencing advocates. The panel also received more than 80,000 public comment letters, with the overwhelming majority favoring the change...

 

 

It has failed because the black market replaces those who are caught before the justice system can sentence them, but also because keeping those people locked up is costing a lot of money and needlessly ruining lives. It's nice to see a failed and destructive big-government program being wound down.

 

 

 

 

 

The switch to a completely different issue from the Newmax article you now pretend you don't remember indicates you are purely concerned with proving Obama is bad and you are a trouduc spouting canards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

If all you care about or are capable of grasping is hatred of Obama you are consulting and citing the proper sources of information.

 

I'm not sure whether you are talking to me nor, if you are, which post of mine you might be referencing, so let me supply one.

 

As a Washington Post reader and (sometimes) a fan of what Obama does (when he's not lying about guns), I said:

 

DOJ Releasing Thousands of Drug Offenders

 

Hat tip to Obama.

 

...The panel estimated that its change in sentencing guidelines eventually could result in 46,000 of the nation’s approximately 100,000 drug offenders in federal prison qualifying for early release. The 6,000 figure, which has not been reported previously, is the first tranche in that process.

 

“The number of people who will be affected is quite exceptional,” said Mary Price, general counsel for Families Against Mandatory Minimums, an advocacy group that supports sentencing reform.

 

 

The Sentencing Commission estimated that an additional 8,550 inmates would be eligible for release between this Nov. 1 and Nov. 1, 2016.

 

The releases are part of a shift in the nation’s approach to criminal justice and drug sentencing that has been driven by a bipartisan consensus that mass incarceration has failed and should be reversed.

 

Along with the commission’s action, the Justice Department has instructed its prosecutors not to charge low-level, nonviolent drug offenders who have no connection to gangs or large-scale drug organizations with offenses that carry severe mandatory sentences.

 

The U.S. Sentencing Commission voted unanimously for the reduction last year after holding two public hearings in which members heard testimony from then-Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., federal judges, federal public defenders, state and local law enforcement officials, and sentencing advocates. The panel also received more than 80,000 public comment letters, with the overwhelming majority favoring the change...

 

 

It has failed because the black market replaces those who are caught before the justice system can sentence them, but also because keeping those people locked up is costing a lot of money and needlessly ruining lives. It's nice to see a failed and destructive big-government program being wound down.

 

 

 

 

 

The switch to a completely different issue from the Newmax article you now pretend you don't remember indicates you are purely concerned with proving Obama is bad and you are a trouduc spouting canards.

 

 

Sorry to dilute the purity of my concern and ruin your messenger attack by giving an example of my approval of Obama. Must be tough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the context was your messenger attack on the authors of the article, followed by your messenger attack on me.

 

Do you want to go back to the context of Obama telling Parisians that mass shootings don't happen in Paris right after one did? I still think he was full of shit. Again. As usual when it comes to guns.

 

But no, that doesn't mean I disagree with everything he does. I don't hate him. I just don't trust him a bit on the subject of guns.

 

Now tell me what a bad messenger I am but be sure to avoid any discussion of how full of shit Obama was in saying what he said in Paris.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites