Thanks for the entertainment in this one folks.
A post about how Obama lies is started with a quote that cannot be verified and then what follows in an article that is full of lies and many statements without any support. Jeff posts facts and reasonable arguments, RK attacks but does not post facts to counter, the word comrade gets mixed in, and the next thing you are talking about illegal immigrants, and finally, the teleprompter. To complete the right wing talking point circle, I'll just ask: where is his birth certificate? Where is it?
Speaking of repeating something enough times so folks start believe it. Just how many times is Obama called a socialist here and in that article?
The original article makes many statements that I view as lies. Could someone here provide specific support for the statements in the article likereally, how, specifically?President Obama has in a very short time remade America
orOk, list some. As has been pointed out the 47 million is supported by the census.President Obama is a most gifted liar.
ororHe lies to cover his liesPlease, provide some specifics.Obama is a Socialist.
Regarding all the health care reform lies in the article, just search health care reform myths and all of those presented are refuted by credible non-partisan sources.
If you want to review an administration that pathologically lied check out http://www.bushwatch.com/bushlies.htm or google search "cheney lies". Too many to cite there. Hope you have a lot of bandwidth.
Last edited by Henry V; 09-04-2009 at 10:38 PM.
Yardleys "facts" (as well as yours) are as questionable and debatable as any one elses.
His sources are no better than anyone elses.
And his sources more often than not are as politically and ideologically slanted as anyone elses.
But every post that isn't aligned with his veiws is "Snoped" or debunk by some other link that matches your collective ideologies!
And if I'm not mistaken, (ask Yardley, he will admit this) he has called people names on this board (such as "blowhard" ).
And in regard to your sanctimonious indignation on where this thread has gone.......get over it.
They all go goofy!!
You seem to have difficulty understanding the distinction between facts and opinions since you treat the terms almost as synonyms.
According to Merriam-Webster an opinion is defined as:
1 a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter
2 a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge
A fact is defined as:
3 : the quality of being actual : actuality <a question of fact hinges on evidence>
4 a : something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact> b : an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage>
5 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality
An opinion may be based simply on faith or may be the product of detailed analysis of evidence. One may choose to value opinions more or less depending on how they are justified and/or the credibility of the person expressing them. However, they remain opinions. When I say that I believe that George Bush was one of the worst Presidents in the history of our country. I am clearly expressing an opinion.
If I say that George Bush became President in 2001 following an election where his opponent received a larger number of votes than Bush and the electoral college vote ultimately came down to the state of Florida where the Supreme Court determined that a recount could not be done despite the closeness of the vote, that is a statement of historic fact that can be demonstrated through any number of authoritative sources, including the certified voting results from each state and the written opinion of the Supreme Court.
One can legitimately have disagreements about both facts and opinions.
Where there are disagreements about opinion, standard form is for each party to provide some description of the thought process behind their opinion. It is possible that, through such an exchange, one or both parties may modify their opinions. It is also possible that some predictions that were originally expressed as opinions may be proven either right or wrong. Just as it is fair to impeach a witness by showing that they have a demonstrable history of lying, one may impeach opinions expressed by an individual by showing a pattern of predictive errors.
Where there are disagreements about facts, standard form is a presentation of evidence. In some cases, there may be legitimate disagreements. An example of that happened in the interchange between Buzz and Hew concerning the language of the teaching material for preK-6 kids. As became apparent, Hew was reading an earlier version of the material and Buzz was reading a newer one. Buzz was of the opinion that only the most recent version should be considered. Hew was more concerned about the attitude that allowed the earlier version to ever be released. Both of those opinions are worth considering, but could not even be discussed rationally without first sorting out the apparent factual discrepancy concerning the contents of the document.
If you read Henry V's post, he makes few if any statements of opinion. Instead, he makes some factual assertions, and asks some questions concerning the evidence supporting factual assertion that you have made. Do you reply to any of these? No. Instead you simply respond saying "That is your opinion, nothing more, nothing less." It may sound good, but it is an evasion, not a logical argument.
I do not bother to read your bloviating anymore.
I have checked many of your "sources" for your facts.
They are no more definitve than mine.
("there are lies, damned lies & statistics")
So......you and your fellow idealogues can come at me and ironically discredit my sources, but it doesn't matter.
I get a number of PM's thanking me for standing up to you.
Which I am not, I am standing up for my vision of America, which is slightly different than yours.
I had to listen to the left complain about fabricted facts about President Bush for 8 years.
Your side still ruthlessly attacks S. Palin.
Now it's your turn.
Deal with it.
With secular progressive total wisdom lies in Harvard.
With my side, total wisdom lies with God.
Never the twain shall meet.
I owe you nothing, but as long as I see what I see here, I will keep coming.
If I have to go it alone I will.
But I will NEVER give up MY America........NEVER!!
I don't much care if you like my style.
"Keep on keepin' on," cause road kill says so!!"
bob dylan, tangled up in blue
And this your post also smacks of dishonesty, because you do not really suspect that, it was just the first insult you could think of.
Thanks for proving my point!!
May God be with you!!
Personal insult regards!!
BTW---I have an EE from UW College of Engineering, no Harvard but.......
Since Bush 41 beat back the Iraq military, they were not allowed to fly planes in Iraq. Most of their tanks were wiped out. Their army was almost wiped out. They had really no way to defend themselves in a war against America and that is why it was a cake walk for our troops to invade Iraq.
Bush said our main goal in invading Afghanistan was to go after Bin Laden. How did that work for you. Even with illegal torture techniques Bush could still not find Bin Laden and later in his Presidency declared he was not really looking for him anymore.
Fact: Bush's failed economic policy almost ruined America. It put us in a recession and almost into a depression.
I do not know who you were listening to for 8 years about people complaining about Bush. It certainly was not here.
U.S. military operation Operation Enduring Freedom, was launched by the United States with the United Kingdom in response to the September 11 attacks.
The stated aim of the invasion was to find Osama bin Laden and other high-ranking Al-Qaeda members and put them on trial, to destroy the whole organization of Al-Qaeda, and to remove the Taliban regime which supported and gave safe harbor to Al-Qaeda. The United States' Bush Doctrine stated that, as policy, it would not distinguish between terrorist organisations and nations or governments that harbor them.