Re: Lie lie lie

[JAB]

On Sat, 01 Sep 2012 22:06:37 -0400, WaIIy <WaIIy@(nft).invalid> wrote:

>What Mr. Newhouse actually said
>was, “These fact-checkers come to those ads with their own sets of
>thoughts and beliefs. We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by
>fact-checkers.”
>
> Mr. Newhouse did not say, “We will not let the truth get in the
>way.”

Still can't see thru the fog?

Thoughts and beliefs have nothing to do with facts (objective
observations/etc).

As such, "fact-checkers" are synonymous with truth (objective
observations/etc).

Therefore, Mr. Newhouse has indicated the degree of political slant he
will follow.

[Buzz]

On Sat, 01 Sep 2012 22:59:01 -0500, JAB <he...@toadsfoot.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 01 Sep 2012 22:06:37 -0400, WaIIy <WaIIy@(nft).invalid> wrote:
>
>>What Mr. Newhouse actually said
>>was, “These fact-checkers come to those ads with their own sets of
>>thoughts and beliefs. We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by
>>fact-checkers.”
>>
>> Mr. Newhouse did not say, “We will not let the truth get in the
>>way.”
>
>Still can't see thru the fog?
>
>Thoughts and beliefs have nothing to do with facts (objective
>observations/etc).
>
>As such, "fact-checkers" are synonymous with truth (objective
>observations/etc).

Wrong again. "fact-checkers" are synonymous with fooling the
ignorant, blinded, gullible and downright stupid.

The famous PolitiFact took issue with Ryan pointing out that the
community organizer visited the GM Janesville plant and committed to
keeping it open (after all, the amateur would have a dem Congress who
can do nothing if not throw money that other people have earned at
unions).

"And I believe that if our government is there to support you, and
give you the assistance you need to re-tool and make this transition,
that this plant will be here for another hundred years. " - the
community organizer told gullible union dolts in 2008.

As is usually the case, results and what the community organizer says
are 180 degrees out of sync.


But, PolitiFact, like your type, attempts to pretend reality isn't
reality, and twists, turns, and lies, all while adopting a high-minded
"I'm only interested in FACTS" attitude. After all, PolitiFact knows
how dim their target audience is.

In part, in their pathetic attempt to shift attention away from yet
another flub by their leader and instead attempt to point a finger at
someone else, PolitiFact says:

"Ryan said Obama broke his promise to keep a Wisconsin GM plant from
closing. But we don't see evidence he explicitly made such a promise
-- and more importantly, the Janesville plant shut down before he took
office.

We rate Ryan's statement False."

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2012/aug/29/paul-ryan/did-barack-obama-break-promise-keep-gm-plant-open/

"The Janesville plant shut down BEFORE he (obama) took office." ???

That must come as a surprise to those who were still working at the
plant in April of 2009, three months after the community organizer
took office. Equally surprised must be the local Janesville newspaper.

http://gazettextra.com/news/2009/apr/21/thursday-last-day-production-isuzu-line-comes-end/

So, you may want to reevaluate your assertion that "fact-checkers"
are synonymous with truth (objective observations/etc)" I doubt it,
but you may.

>
>Therefore, Mr. Newhouse has indicated the degree of political slant he
>will follow.

Oh, the irony.


Those pesky facts are SO inconvenient, aye? Well, at least you can
pat yourself on the back for only being duped by a ***Fact*** checker.

Heh. This is where Dave will tell you that you only see what you want
to see... oh wait, Dave probably wants to see this lie, too.

--

"If you voted for Obama in 2008 to prove you’re not a racist,
you’ll have to vote for someone else in 2012 to prove you’re
not an idiot." - spotted bumper sticker

[Buzz]

On Sat, 01 Sep 2012 22:59:01 -0500, JAB <he...@toadsfoot.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 01 Sep 2012 22:06:37 -0400, WaIIy <WaIIy@(nft).invalid> wrote:
>
>>What Mr. Newhouse actually said
>>was, �These fact-checkers come to those ads with their own sets of
>>thoughts and beliefs. We�re not going to let our campaign be dictated by
>>fact-checkers.�
>>
>> Mr. Newhouse did not say, �We will not let the truth get in the
>>way.�
>
>Still can't see thru the fog?

Uhh, I forgot that you apparently need the obvious pointed out to
you... Wally's article has a quote from the community organizer...

"And they were asked about it and they said � one of their campaign
people said, �We won�t have the fact-checkers dictate our campaign. We
will not let the truth get in the way.��

Yeppers, that's your boy, the amateur community organizer, just flat
out telling another lie.

>
>Thoughts and beliefs have nothing to do with facts (objective
>observations/etc).

And lies have nothing to do with truth or honesty. Why do you think
the community organizer lies, knowing that anyone with half a brain
can do a simple check and see that he's lying? That's a rhetorical
question, BTW.

>
>As such, "fact-checkers" are synonymous with truth (objective
>observations/etc).
>
>Therefore, Mr. Newhouse has indicated the degree of political slant he
>will follow.

There you go again. Read the article. obama was lying. The entire
article is about obama lying. But here you are talking about Mr.
Newhouse, apparently since you believed obama's lie.

Hello?

[JAB]

On Sun, 02 Sep 2012 10:33:44 -0400, Buzz <bu...@buzz.org> wrote:

>There you go again. Read the article. obama was lying. The entire
>article is about obama lying. But here you are talking about Mr.
>Newhouse, apparently since you believed obama's lie.
>
>Hello?

Hello...I was giving a generalized overview...using those conceptual
words as basis for the argument.

The OP did not provide cites, and I ain't got the time to track down
cite(s).

PS: Political slanting tends to rise, as an election draws nearer.

[Buzz]

On Sun, 02 Sep 2012 22:13:09 -0500, JAB <he...@toadsfoot.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 02 Sep 2012 10:33:44 -0400, Buzz <bu...@buzz.org> wrote:
>
>>There you go again. Read the article. obama was lying. The entire
>>article is about obama lying. But here you are talking about Mr.
>>Newhouse, apparently since you believed obama's lie.
>>
>>Hello?
>
>Hello...I was giving a generalized overview...using those conceptual
>words as basis for the argument.

Conceptual words? They were quotes.

>
>The OP did not provide cites, and I ain't got the time to track down
>cite(s).

It wasn't an OP.

So you choose to glom on to obama's lies, even when you're responding
to a news story pointing out that obama was lying? Really? In the
time you spent responding, you could have easily verified that obama
was simply lying again. Then, your post would have been unnecessary
and you could have saved yourself the embarrassment.

>
>PS: Political slanting tends to rise, as an election draws nearer.

Does *political slanting* refer to obama lying, you believing, or
both?
--

"To ignore the evidence, and hope that it cannot be true,
is more an evidence of mental illness" - William Blase

[JAB]

On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 10:04:45 -0400, Buzz <bu...@buzz.org> wrote:

>>The OP did not provide cites, and I ain't got the time to track down
>>cite(s).
>
>It wasn't an OP.

OP denotes Original Poster, or in this case, Wally.

>Does *political slanting* refer to obama lying, you believing, or
>both?

I would have to examine a specific case in point.

Here's political BS:

The Democratic National Committee is raising a number of eyebrows
after choosing to proceed with hosting Islamic �Jumah� prayers for two
hours on the Friday of its convention, though it denied a Catholic
cardinal�s request to say a prayer at the same event.

with the reality being:

Q: Is the Democratic National Convention hosting a Muslim �Jumah�
prayer service after rejecting a Catholic cardinal�s offer to lead a
prayer?

A: No. A Muslim group scheduled an event that was independent of the
convention at a city park. The cardinal is leading the convention�s
closing prayer.

http://factcheck.org/2012/08/muslim-prayer-service-at-the-dnc/

[Buzz]

On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 14:11:27 -0500, JAB <he...@toadsfoot.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 10:04:45 -0400, Buzz <bu...@buzz.org> wrote:
>
>>>The OP did not provide cites, and I ain't got the time to track down
>>>cite(s).
>>
>>It wasn't an OP.
>
>OP denotes Original Poster, or in this case, Wally.
>
>>Does *political slanting* refer to obama lying, you believing, or
>>both?
>
>I would have to examine a specific case in point.

OK, here's one...before your ADD kicks in again.....

“Sometimes they just make things up. But they’ve got a bunch of
folks who can write $10 million checks, and they’ll just keep on
running
them,” he said. “I mean, somebody was challenging one of their ads —
they made it up — about work and welfare. And every outlet said this
is
just not true. And they were asked about it and they said — one of

their
campaign people said, ‘We won’t have the fact-checkers dictate our

campaign. We will not let the truth get in the way.’”

Mr. Obama was referring, as many other critics of the Romney
campaign have, to a comment that its pollster, Neil Newhouse, made to
reporters at the Republican convention on Tuesday, dismissive of those
faulting the campaign’s television ads. What Mr. Newhouse actually

said
was, “These fact-checkers come to those ads with their own sets of
thoughts and beliefs. We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated
by
fact-checkers.”

Mr. Newhouse did not say, “We will not let the truth get in the

way.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/us/politics/obama-moves-to-speak-on-romneys-character.html?_r=1

So, the community organizer was lying when he quoted Mr. Newhouse as
saying "We will not let the truth get in the way".

Do you think anyone is black hole stupid enough to believe that lie?

Yeah, me too.

>
>Here's political BS:

No, this is ADD.

>
>The Democratic National Committee is raising a number of eyebrows
>after choosing to proceed with hosting Islamic “Jumah” prayers for two
>hours on the Friday of its convention, though it denied a Catholic
>cardinal’s request to say a prayer at the same event.
>
>with the reality being:
>
>Q: Is the Democratic National Convention hosting a Muslim “Jumah”
>prayer service after rejecting a Catholic cardinal’s offer to lead a
>prayer?
>
>A: No. A Muslim group scheduled an event that was independent of the
>convention at a city park. The cardinal is leading the convention’s
>closing prayer.
>
>http://factcheck.org/2012/08/muslim-prayer-service-at-the-dnc/

--

"This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow
and our planet began to heal". - Megalomaniac barrack hussein
obama, before realizing that being President requires some actual
thought, planning and execution of *something* besides race baiting,
class warfare and blaming George Bush.

[Buzz]

On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 21:15:21 -0400, WaIIy <WaIIy@(nft).invalid> wrote:

>No question Barry lied. Man, what a snake.
>

What's he going to do except lie? He can't run on his pathetic
record. He can't even claim that he's been working hard on things. He
just meanders around, waiting for something to criticize or a
microphone that he can read lies into.

He's a joke.

[JAB]

On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 20:26:25 -0400, Buzz <bu...@buzz.org> wrote:

>So, the community organizer was lying when he quoted Mr. Newhouse as
>saying "We will not let the truth get in the way".
>
>Do you think anyone is black hole stupid enough to believe that lie?

Gee Whiz...ain't much difference between:

1. "We will not let the truth get in the way.”

2. "We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by
fact-checkers."

Reality Check: "Criticism from the Obama campaign could well be
dismissed among voters as the usual stuff of politics, and independent
fact-checkers have criticized some of Mr. Obama’s statements, too.
Still, the number of falsehoods and misleading statements from the
Romney campaign coming in for independent criticism has reached a
level not typically seen."

Hence, Mr. Newhouse is clearly inline with item one or two.

[Buzz]

On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 17:34:48 -0500, Ray <ask...@notthere-there.net>
wrote:

>On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 10:04:45 -0400, Buzz <bu...@buzz.org> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 02 Sep 2012 22:13:09 -0500, JAB <he...@toadsfoot.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 02 Sep 2012 10:33:44 -0400, Buzz <bu...@buzz.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>There you go again. Read the article. obama was lying. The entire
>>>>article is about obama lying. But here you are talking about Mr.
>>>>Newhouse, apparently since you believed obama's lie.
>>>>
>>>>Hello?
>>>
>>>Hello...I was giving a generalized overview...using those conceptual
>>>words as basis for the argument.
>>
>>Conceptual words? They were quotes.
>>
>>>
>>>The OP did not provide cites, and I ain't got the time to track down
>>>cite(s).
>>
>>It wasn't an OP.
>>
>>So you choose to glom on to obama's lies, even when you're responding
>>to a news story pointing out that obama was lying? Really? In the
>>time you spent responding, you could have easily verified that obama
>>was simply lying again. Then, your post would have been unnecessary
>>and you could have saved yourself the embarrassment.
>

>People like him & Dave don't have the smarts to be embarrassed.

Nor the character.

[Buzz]

On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 20:30:58 -0400, WaIIy <WaIIy@(nft).invalid> wrote:

>On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 21:42:18 -0400, Buzz <bu...@buzz.org> wrote:
>
>>He's a joke.
>
>BTW, I was watching Antiques Roadshow and a guy brought in a Strat
>with the serial number 047 (maybe 049).
>
>Wow

I was going to ask how much it was worth when I saw that Judy had
already asked.

I would have guessed it would fetch 6 figures easily.

When do you pick it up?

[Buzz]

On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 09:38:35 -0400, WaIIy <WaIIy@(nft).invalid> wrote:

>I offered him $85,000 in 20 dollar bills and he took it :)
>
>I'll bring it down and let you play it.

Unless it has black & white keys, I can't play it. Now my brother,
that's a different story.