One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: just_sayin'
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 12 next>>
Nov 13, 2014 11:37:48   #
Glaucon wrote:
You wingers claim lies were told, but are unable to produce examples of these mythical lies. To normal people, that suggests you are full of s**t and very dishonest.


"unable to produce examples of these mythical lies."

Allow me. These are just the top 5. There are too many to cite them all.

5. “My father left my family when I was 2 years old.”
Obama made this claim in September 2009, when addressing the nation’s schoolkids. By then, the blogosphere knew that baby Obama had never spent a night under the same roof as his father, let alone two years.
4. “The Fast and Furious program was a field-initiated program begun under the previous administration.”
Obama spun this fiction at a September 2012 Univision forum knowing it was false. In fact, the bizarre, deadly idea to let American guns “walk” into Mexico, where they were used by drug cartels to k**l dozens, began in October 2009.
3. “Not even a smidgen of corruption.”
If there were not even a “smidgen of corruption,” as Obama insisted, it is hard to understand what outraged him, or at least seemed to, when news of the IRS scandal first broke. “It’s inexcusable, and Americans are right to be angry about it, and I am angry about it,” Obama said in May 2013. Obama routinely expressed anger when some new scandal erupted on his watch — IRS, the failed ObamaCare website, the VA scandal, Fast and Furious — but never before had he shoved a scandal down the memory hole so quickly.
And how could Obama know there wasn’t a smidgen of corruption before the investigation was even over? Perhaps because the administration knew that any proof of that was gone with deleted emails and destroyed hard drives?[/color]
2. “We revealed to the American people exactly what we understood at the time.”
He first answered questions about B******i a full week later, and this is what he said to David Letterman:
“You had a video that was released by somebody who lives here, sort of a shadowy character who — who made an extremely offensive video directed at — at Mohammed and Islam.”
We all know now that he knew then that the video story was a politically motivated fabrication. He knew at the time of the attack that it was a terrorist attack. [/color]

And the number one lie:

1. “T***sparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency.”
No explanation necessary here.

These were excerpts from Jack Cashill's article at http://nypost.com/2014/09/13/how-falsehoods-and-fibs-have-shaped-the-obama-presidency/
Go to
Nov 11, 2014 12:07:33   #
http://www.vox.com/2014/11/5/7160523/40-maps-and-charts-that-explain-the-2014-midterm-e******ns
Go to
Nov 10, 2014 14:31:59   #
MarvinSussman wrote:
How would you prevent maniacs from getting a gun?


Nobody should be prevented from getting a gun. However, when - not if - one of these "maniacs" starts randomly shooting at people, (which DOES happen) the nearest, armed, non-maniac can take them out. That only works if a high percentage of non-maniacs is carrying.
Go to
Nov 10, 2014 10:42:41   #
An essay by Marko Kloos, first published in 2007, and every bit as relevant today (and forever).




Excerpts:

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument or forcing me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception.

Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing witha19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a car load of drunken guys with baseball bats.
The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I can not be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation… and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
Go to
Nov 7, 2014 14:40:21   #
Sicilianthing wrote:
Obama Blurs the Line Between Deception and Denial

Obama has virtually never embraced any Republican ideas.

During his Wednesday press conference reacting to the massive gains Republicans made in this year’s midterm e******ns, President Obama said that he still believes in the principle he espoused on the night of his e******n in 2008: that “We are simply more than just a collection of red and blue states — we are the United States.”

Could’ve fooled me.

There is something of the serial philanderer about Obama (metaphorically, of course).

It takes a certain kind of chutzpah to keep saying the same thing year after year when your actions always cut to the contrary.

That behavior eventually catches up, however, to even the most charming of cads.

What’s remarkable in 2014 is how much of a con job the Obama of 2008 has turned out to be.

This was a candidate who ran almost exclusively on his ability to transcend conventional partisan politics, and yet he doesn’t have a single major bipartisan achievement to his name.

George W. Bush had No Child Left Behind. Bill Clinton had welfare reform. Ronald Reagan had a blockbuster deal with Tip O’Neil on Social Security reform.

Obama? Bupkis.

Despite the record, he still carries on as if he’s Solomon on the Potomac. During Wednesday’s presser, Obama repeatedly asserted that he’s open to good ideas from across the aisle. Ever the pseudo-pragmatist, he noted “I want to just see what works.”

That is a shopworn l*****t trope, a head f**e to make it seem as if the speaker is above petty ideological concerns and solely concerned with the mechanics of government. The evidence, of course, tells a different story.

Obama has virtually never embraced any Republican ideas. And if his tenure in office has been dedicated to the pursuit of “what works,” the White House is doing an awfully good job of concealing it.

Should we expect a new era of bipartisan cooperation?

No.

The President spent a considerable amount of his press conference threatening to take executive action on immigration if congressional Republicans fail to act — a threat he reiterated even after being told that soon-to-be Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had said that such an offensive would “poison the well” for congressional-executive relations.

Obama’s blasé response was that Republicans are free to act to supplant any action of his they end up unhappy with, a stunning (because willful) misreading of the Constitution’s separation of powers.

The absence of Congressional action is not a hall pass for p**********l mischief-making. Inaction itself is an expression of legislative power — one over which Obama’s promised unilateralism would run roughshod.

One has to extend a certain respect to someone capable of practicing deception at such a refined level.

Watching Obama address the press corps, however, there was a nagging sense that he may have even fooled himself.

He boasted about the country’s economic performance and improvements in health care — two fronts on which the public has turned decisively against him.

He proudly touted increased energy production (a real phenomenon, but one which his administration has actively sought to impede). And he described the v**ers’ message on Tuesday night as, “they just want us to get the job done.”

If the v**ers were so frustrated with gridlock in both parties, taking it out exclusively on Democrats was a peculiar way of expressing it.

In 2008, Obama and his fellow Democrats assailed George W. Bush for his stubbornness and his d******eness. Two years prior, it bears noting — after a similarly brutal midterm — Bush had sacked his Secretary of Defense and completely rethought his strategy in Iraq in reaction to public disquiet.

Today, Obama steams ahead with no indication that he will make even minor adjustments after suffering a rebuke just as severe. It used to be a laugh line to quote Bush’s assertion that he was “a uniter and not a divider.”

By the time Barack Obama is done with Washington, however, Bush may look like a model of bipartisanship by comparison.
Obama Blurs the Line Between Deception and Denial ... (show quote)


Sicilian Thing: Don't be a plagiarist. Give credit where it's due. This article was written by Troy Senik

http://cfif.org/v/index.php/commentary/54/2369-obama-blurs-the-line-between-deception-and-denial
Go to
Nov 3, 2014 09:33:21   #
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/11/black_man_campaigning_for_republicans_in_arkansas_shares_his_journey_from_left_to_right.html
Go to
Oct 30, 2014 15:11:02   #
Unlike the v**e buying done by PACs and lobbyists. Now THAT'S legal. hmmmmm...
Go to
Oct 28, 2014 14:39:02   #
Margaret Sanger? Really??? How does she fit in? Looks more like "which one is not like the others?"
Go to
Oct 20, 2014 12:46:55   #
"Suppose you have another line coming in from the other side, and you want to figure out where they are going to intersect. Suppose on one line you go over two to the right for every one you go up, and the other line goes over three to the right for every one that it goes up, and they start twenty steps apart."
-Richard Feynman
Go to
Oct 14, 2014 15:40:20   #
Brian,
"You can spin this any way you wish, however it is just spin---and nothing more."

I posted publicly vetted information straight off of wikipedia. The spin is all yous, as usual.
Go to
Oct 14, 2014 15:13:48   #
Snoopy, I think all the people who v**ed "wrongly" would consider these tax hikes a victory.

You don't think they would EVER have to worry about "top" tax brackets, capital gains or estate taxes, do you?
Go to
Oct 14, 2014 15:05:13   #
Brian Devon wrote:
***********

Don,
Of course members of the military should be taking their legal advice from Allan West. Who wouldn't want to get advice from a man who had to resign from the military----in lieu of a pending court-martial???

Boy, you just can't write this stuff.

More free material for the writers at Comedy Central.

:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:


How about telling the t***h instead of making up "stuff"? From Wikipedia:

West was charged with violating Articles 128 (assault) and 134 (general article) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. During a hearing held as part of an Article 32 investigation in November 2003, West stated, "I know the method I used was not right, but I wanted to take care of my soldiers."

The charges were ultimately referred to an Article 15 proceeding rather than court-martial, at which West was fined $5,000. Lieutenant Colonel West accepted the judgment and retired with full benefits in the summer of 2004.

Asked if he would act differently under similar circumstances, West testified, "If it's about the lives of my soldiers at stake, I'd go through hell with a gasoline can." At his hearing, West said that there were no ambushes against American forces in Taji until he was relieved of his leadership post a month later.

After West's retirement he received more than 2,000 letters and e-mails offering him moral support. A letter supporting West was signed by 95 members of Congress and sent to the Secretary of the Army."

So please tell us, where in the world did you get that he was "a man who had to resign from the military"?
Go to
Oct 14, 2014 10:02:02   #
Elwood wrote:
http://www.leanrightamerica.org/uncategorized/texas-judge-strikes-down-v**er-id-law-libs-celebrate/

Here is one judge that should not be on the bench. The libertards have an ulterior motive. This allows i******s to grow their v**er base. We have to provide ID for practically everything else we do to function in this society so their argument that it restricts the ability of the minorities to v**e is specious at best. :hunf: :XD: :XD:
Go to
Oct 9, 2014 15:56:11   #
"It is with profound sadness and heartfelt disappointment..." "He fought courageously in this battle..."

Are you serious??? You have GOT TO BE kidding me! This diseased rat purposely came here, by LYING to the "screeners" at the airports through which he passed.

How many more, and will we feel "profound sadness and heartfelt disappointment" when they die, or when our innocents contract their diseases?
Go to
Oct 9, 2014 14:55:59   #
Is raising money what he does best? Really? I thought he was best at lying. No, wait, obfuscating. No, wait, cover-ups. No, wait deflection. But I digress...
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 12 next>>
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.