Friday, August 24, 2012

Political Potpourri

Here are a few political tidbits for the weekend, apparently unrelated and in no particular order...

Obama Spokesmouth Stephanie Cutter is a Shameless Liar

Here's what the lying liar said:
"you know, 27 months we’ve created 4.5 million private sector jobs. That’s more jobs than in the Bush recovery, in the Reagan recovery"
It's a brazen lie. Past servants of totalitarianism are applauding from graveyards all over the world.  James Pethokoukis sets the record straight:
From the end of the recession in June 2009 through July 2012 — the first 37 months of the Obama recovery — the U.S. economy has generated 2.7 million net new jobs. From the jobs low point in February 2010, the U.S. economy has generated 4 million net new jobs.
From the end of the 1981-82 recession through the end of of 1985 — the first 37 months of the Reagan recovery — the U.S.created 9.8 million net new jobs. And if you adjust for the larger U.S. population today, the comparable figure is more than 12 million jobs.
Go read the whole article here. He includes pictures for the illiterate left who won't pause to read the truth.

The Crisis-Solution-Crisis Cycle
Politics now consists almost exclusively of a negative cycle: Government enacts a “solution” that causes a crisis, necessitating another “solution” that causes another crisis…  Repeat ad infinitum, ad nauseum, ad bankruptcy.

Obama's solution to the drought?  Drive the price of food even higher!
Campaigning in Missouri Valley, Iowa, yesterday, President Obama announced yet another government spending program -- this time designed to inflate meat prices in Midwest swing states. "Today the Department of Agriculture announced that it will buy up to $100 million worth of pork products, $50 million worth of chicken, and $20 million worth of lamb and farm-raised catfish," Obama explained to reporters in front of a drought-stricken cornfield.
"Prices are low, farmers and ranchers need help, so it makes sense," Obama explained. "It makes sense for farmers who get to sell more of their product, and it makes sense for taxpayers who will save money because we're getting food we would have bought anyway at a better price."
None of this makes sense. In fact, Obama's move only harms American consumers while protecting a corrupt federal program. (Obama to the Rescue!)
This on top of the Ethanol mandate that starves people to feed cars. If he wanted to do some good, he would end all money-wasting government subsidies and mandates for inefficient corn-based fuels. No wonder we’re all sick of politics.
**********************

Politifact – Lie of the Year 2011:  Republicans Voted to End Medicare
PolitiFact debunked the Medicare charge in nine separate fact-checks rated False or Pants on Fire, most often in attacks leveled against Republican House members.
The headline is from last year, but it's important because the hysterical Hottentots on the left will continue to demonize Paul Ryan with their fear and smear agitprop.

I suggest you go read it and then bookmark it.  We'll need it handy to repel the left's serial assaults on the truth throughout this campaign.  

It is particularly useful because Politifact doesn't just debunk that one lie, they unravel the entire ball of democrat party lies on this subject.
***************************************

Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire!

The Washington Post has a nice wrap-up of the recent Welfare Debate. The Romney camp went a little too far claiming Obama had removed the work requirement from the law.

What Obama did was make it optional. See the difference?

Romney got four Pinocchios. Obama got three

Lost in the debate was the important question: Where in the constitution does it say a president can unilaterally tinker with federal laws he doesn't like?
**************************************

Voter Fraud in Pennsylvania

John Fund has written a useful article on voter fraud in Pennsylvania and that state's new voter ID law.
Last month, City Commissioner Al Schmidt, a Republican, issued a 27-page report on irregularities he found in a sample of Philadelphia precincts during this year’s primary. The report, which looked at only 1 percent of the city’s 1,687 districts, found cases of double voting, voter impersonation, and voting by non-citizens, as well as 23 people who were not registered to vote but nonetheless voted. Schmidt also found reports of people who were counted as voting in the wrong party’s primary.
Liberal critics here have pointed out that voter ID laws won't solve the whole problem, and they're right.  States also need the power to purge voter rolls.

Even worse for liberal democrats, almost nobody agrees with their come one, come all, vote early vote often attitude.  Guilty white far-left liberals are alone in their majority opposition to common sense voting laws. 

62 comments:

TOM said...

There is nothing common sense about voting laws that deny 10's of thousands of legitimate voters their right to vote

Always On Watch said...

Has Stephanie Cutter seen THIS?

conservativesonfire said...

Serving in political office should be a noble thing to do. But, the sewer stench is overpowering.

Ducky's here said...

Regarding the welfare work requirement.

What Obama did was permit states to ask for a waiver if they had an alternative.

Now possibly that alternative proves a better idea but the 10th amendment crowd still jumps down his throat. Really dumb.

Ducky's here said...

States don't have the power to purge the voter rolls?

Are you on drugs?

What the Pennsylvania study discovered is that there is NO EVIDENCE of the conspiracy that would be necessary to swing elections.
Please note that the ID law (which is intended to suppress the vote) would not have been effective in the case of people not registered or double voting.

Ducky's here said...

As far as the meat purchase. Ranchers are going to be slaughtering their stock because of the cost of feed and the government purchase will maintain prices.

Now, you can argue the ethics of the purchase but it accomplishes a purchase.

Overlooked was a Dept. of Agriculture suggestion that when meat prices inevitably rise in the future that people reduce their consumption of meat.
Republican congressman went ballistic and started laying out huge spreads of meat at group meetings and scheduling barbecues.
Total assholes but that's a Rethug for you.

Silverfiddle said...

Now possibly that alternative proves a better idea but the 10th amendment crowd still jumps down his throat. Really dumb.

Which is why the federal government should not be in the welfare business at all.

Keep your diversionary bomblets in your pockets, Ducky. Nobody said there was a "conspiracy," and states do have to ask permission, or take the federal government to court in order to purge their rolls. Read the news lately? My own state just got a judge to back down Minister of inJustice Heinrich Holder.

And your final comment reveals your economic ignorance. There is a market for meat in this country, the government doesn't have to buy anything.

Bunkerville said...

These days it takes a full time job to refute the lies, but then that is the strategy. Nice roundup of a few SF,

Ducky's here said...

And your final comment reveals your economic ignorance. There is a market for meat in this country, the government doesn't have to buy anything.

-----
Hey bimbo, the idea is to absorb some of the surplus short term production to prevent a steep drop in price.

Now can private consumers accomplish that, probably not.

Really, you should stop calling people ignorant when all you can do is wave your arms and scream "market".

Ducky's here said...

AOW, why are you surprised at that headline?

The left has been screaming that for over a decade.

Do you really believe Romney/Galt are intent on reversing that trend?

Jack Camwell said...

My favorite argument is this:

"voter fraud accounts for only .000000000001% of the vote, so it doesn't matter."

If there's no way to stop or prove voter fraud, then how can you be sure that it's only accounting for a small percentage of the votes? Isn't the whole point of committing voter fraud is that you pump in a bunch of fraud votes without anyone noticing?

Usually, people who commit fraud and get away with it will never admit that they're committing fraud, because that would defeat the purpose. And they get away with it because they're good at covering their tracks.

Fraud is a TRICK, and I think that we've all be duped.

And as for unregistered voters, what do you think the demographics are like for unregistered voters who still vote?

Seeing as how it's beyond easy to register, my guess is that most of these unregistered voters are people who are not legally allowed to vote. Like, say, undocumented immigrants? Convicted felons?

And don't give me an "accessiblity" line. Any poor minority person can walk to their local library, fill out the registration card, and drop it in a mailbox.

Wake up Ducky. The Democrat leadership isn't worried that it will suppress legitimate voters: their worried that it will suppress fraudulent votes. I realize it's pretty comforting to feel like your Party is on the side of good and integrity, but you need to wise up and realize that they're just as malfeasant as any Republican.

Z said...

Wait, is Ducky suggesting Americans need to be enticed to eat meat!? That is hilarious!

As for LIES, SF....It's pretty clear that the Obama thugs are quite happy with continuing lies (remember, Obama didn't stop that video of the lying man lying about his wife dying because of Romney when it was proven it was a LIE) because PEOPLE HEAR THE LIE and BELIEVE IT. The Obama people know most Americans don't ask "is that TRUE?" It's a good ploy...dishonest, hateful, and ugly, but a very effective ploy.

skudrunner said...

If voter fraud is not a big thing, why is the attack and blame party so against voter ID. Do you suppose they figure they have more to lose which means they believe there is voter fraud.

-FJ said...

THIS is "no evidence"? Really duckman? Who knew?

-FJ said...

When voting machines register more votes than registered voters, how can one categorically state that there was no evidence supporting a conspiracy to swing an election?

Where did the extra votes come from? Unenquiering minds DON'T want you to know....

Ducky's here said...

let's try to explain it to z real slow.

1. Drought (climate change anyone) causes the price of feed to rise.

2. Maintaining animal stock becomes more expensive than the price at market.

3. Livestock is slaughtered because maintaining the animals is not economically feasible.

4. Long term inflation will result.

5. By purchasing meat the government can help maintain the price and lower future inflation.

Now you may disagree with the action but to call it hilarious makes you appear ignorant.

Mark Adams said...

"the idea is to absorb some of the surplus short term production to prevent a steep drop in price."
Or in other words, remove the surplus, short the market and drive the price up.

Ducky's here said...

In fact z it's even funnier.

We are going to have a short term surplus of meat followed by a shortage of undetermined duration, depends on the length of the drought.

So the government suggests actions which will help maintain a more stable price.
Now what the Baggers prefer is to just let it happen and then complain that Obama caused the inflation. Children, absolutely ignorant adolescents throwing a tantrum.

skudrunner said...

Duck

I think that is called free markets. Remember the mortgage mess when the democrats pushed a house for everyone, didn't work out so great. Remember when the democrats gave the auto companies millions so they wouldn't file bankruptcy, didn't work out so great unless you are the unions.

When the government interferes with free markets, it seldom works out, generally costs the taxpayer a a bundle and will be settled with the free market taking over.

Had the incompetent incumbent let the markets adjust, it would have been a tough time but wouldn't have lasted for four years.

The just give me more Free Stuff is not working.

Silverfiddle said...

Here's your fundamental misunderstanding, Ducky:

2. Maintaining animal stock becomes more expensive than the price at market.

No, the price at the market goes up accordingly, it's elastic. It buyers refuse to pay (they won't, people want their meat) that's when the farmers start slaughtering their animals.

This latest move by Obama won't keep the prices from rising, and it also costs us because We The Taxpayer are footing the bill for his political largess that is designed only to keep Iowa in the Dem column for this November.

You people on the left are so naive.

viburnum said...

Ducky: "Please note that the ID law (which is intended to suppress the vote) ..."

Are you accusing the Democrats next door in Rhode Island of attempting to suppress the votes of the poor, elderly, and minorities? Voter ID passed both the Democratically controlled house and senate and was signed into law by Linc Chaffee

http://sos.ri.gov/elections/voterid/

viburnum said...

$100 million worth of pork products, $50 million worth of chicken, and $20 million worth of lamb and farm-raised catfish

Makes you wonder which one of his donors owns that farm, doesn't it?

Ducky's here said...

That's right Silver. Ranchers butcher their stock causing oversupply and the price rises.

Please stop.

Silverfiddle said...

Ducky: Put on your eyeglasses, jackass! And stop misquoting me.

No, the price at the market goes up accordingly, it's elastic. If buyers refuse to pay (they won't, people want their meat) that's when the farmers start slaughtering their animals.

Oh nevermind. You're ignorant of economics and your an ideological slave. I'm wasting my breath.

Finntann said...

We are going to have a short term surplus of meat followed by a shortage of undetermined duration, depends on the length of the drought.

So the government suggests actions which will help maintain a more stable price.

So Ducky... when we move into 'shortage' is the government going to subsidize the price of meat for consumers?

No... they use our money to prop up the price until it rises even more from the shortage in order to buy the farm 'business' vote and in the end we all get screwed.

This is why government doesn't belong in the markets. There is always going to be one group that gets preferential treatment at the expense of another. How much you want to bet its agrogiants like Tyson, Cargill, JBS, and National that go dancing off with the cake while the rest of us, farmers and ranchers included take it in the rear.

It is an immoral and an illegitimate use of government.

viburnum said...

Where in the constitution does it say a president can unilaterally tinker with federal laws he doesn't like?

In a word? Nowhere!

Hmmm. I think I feel a song parody coming on. ;-)

Ducky's here said...

Are you accusing the Democrats next door in Rhode Island of attempting to suppress the votes of the poor, elderly, and minorities?
-----------

If they are passing voter ID they are voting for vote suppression and it's wrong.

One thing that is missing in this "discussion" is the fringe right's inability to differentiate between voter infractions which run quite a gamete and voter impersonation violations which are the violations addressed by ID laws and also a small subset of the total.

FreeThinke said...

Ducky slaps his bow down, scrapes it unmercifully across the strings of his viol, and ungodly shrieks and moans ensue.

Instead of clapping hands over ears, everyone JUMPS to attention and DANCES to whatever corrupt, cacophonous cavatina Canardo creakingly coaxes into chorus after chorus after chorus.

I've seen it happen in many places for years and years.

All I can think of is The Masque of the Red Death, whenever this sorry spectacle recurs.

I've never been an admirer of Danse Macabre.

~ FreeThinke

Finntann said...

If they are passing voter ID they are voting for vote suppression and it's wrong.

And where were you when they were suppressing the purchase of alcohol by minorities, the elderly, and poor?

OH WAIT... that's never been a problem.

Go sing your sorry old song elsewhere.

viburnum said...

Ducky:" One thing that is missing in this "discussion" is the fringe right's inability to differentiate between voter infractions which run quite a gamete and voter impersonation violations which are the violations addressed by ID laws and also a small subset of the total."

And what's missing from the left's critique is an acknowledgement that they are all interconnected. If you have to prove who you are in order to vote, it makes it far more difficult to pretend to be your late Aunt Matilda, and six other people. Or an admission that every vote cast by someone ineligible negates the vote of an American citizen.

Kid said...

Lying is all they have.

If this POS was a repub, he'd be top stories and front page prime time all day for weeks.

Meanwhile, it's not even on the back pages of CNN, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, nor will it be.

http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/167128005.html?refer=y

A Duluth legislator who admitted to police that he had oral sex with a 17-year-old boy at a rest stop has bowed to relentless pressure from DFL leaders and will not seek a second term.

He's 56, Democrat

Hey libs, hows it feel to have to lie about everything and hide everything from the American public like evil little children? That's your platform. Your core.

Ducky's here said...

@FT -- I've never been an admirer of Danse Macabre.
----

Then become an aficionado of cinema. The danse in final scene of The Seventh Seal is on of the great scenes in film.

Ducky's here said...

@viburnum -- And what's missing from the left's critique is an acknowledgement that they are all interconnected.

---------
No. Absolutely wrong.

We are talking about voter ID laws which will not address the bulk of voter fraud and in your heart of hearts you know what this is all about and there is no point ducking.

viburnum said...

Ducky: "We are talking about voter ID laws which will not address the bulk of voter fraud and in your heart of hearts you know what this is all about and there is no point ducking."

I assume you're alluding to some fanciful 'voter suppression' plot, and it's bullshit. Spare me your conspiracy theories. You however seem to be ducking my other point which is that every illegal vote cast disenfranchises a legitimate voter. Care to try and refute that?

Leticia said...

Do they actually know definition of the word "truth?" Because it sure as hell doesn't seem like it.

Z said...

From Ducky "If they are passing voter ID they are voting for vote suppression and it's wrong."

How insane is that? It's been proven that states which have pushed for voter ID have had higher voter turnouts. I believe one of those states was Georgia?
I kind of trust the American people more than the Left does; I don't believe they're too stupid to get a legal voter ID.

Anybody who's trying to stop voter ID requirements doesn't understand common sense or the righteousness of past American elections. The way the Left's leading us today, we'll need Haitians to come HERE to guard the voting process. I suppose the left would love that; another notch in the "America's no better than that country" platform

Ducky's here said...


How insane is that? It's been proven that states which have pushed for voter ID have had higher voter turnouts. I believe one of those states was Georgia?
---------------------
Voter ID laws increase turnout but you can't point to the figures.

Thanks for that, short bus.

viburnum said...

Turnout among black voters in Georgia in 2006 before voter ID was 42.9%

Their participation in 2010 was 50.4% with the law in effect. A 7 1/2 % increase.


And are you're still avoiding my other point?







My Daily Rant said...

Below is a great rant by Mychal Massie:
Why I Do Not Like The Obamas
The other evening on my twitter, a person asked me why I didn’t like the Obama’s? Specifically I was asked: “I have to ask, why do you hate the Obama’s? It seems personal not policy related. You even dissed their Christmas family pic.” The truth is I do not like the Obamas, what they represent, their ideology, and I certainly do not like his policies and legislation.
I’ve made no secret of my contempt for the Obamas. As I responded to the person who asked me the aforementioned question, I don’t like them because they are committed to the fundamental change of my/our country into what can only be regarded as a Communist state.
I don’t hate them per definition, but I condemn them because they are the worst kind of racialists, they are elitist Leninists with contempt for traditional America. They display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds, and for those who are willing to admit same Michelle Obama’s raw contempt for white America is transpicuous.
I don’t like them because they comport themselves as emperor and empress. I expect, no I demand respect for the Office of President and a love of our country and her citizenry from the leader entrusted with the governance of same. President and Mrs. Reagan displayed an unparalleled love for the country and her people. The Reagans made Americans feel good about themselves and about what we could accomplish. Could you envision President Reagan instructing his Justice Department to act like jack-booted thugs?
Presidents are politicians and all politicians are known and pretty much expected to manipulate the truth, if not outright lie, but even using that low standard, the Obama’s have taken lies, dishonesty, deceit, mendacity, subterfuge and obfuscation to new depths. They are verbally abusive to the citizenry and they display an animus for civility.
I do not like them, because they both display bigotry overtly, as in the case of Harvard Professor Louis Gates, when he accused the Cambridge Police of acting stupidly, and her code speak pursuant to now being able too be proud of America. I view that statement and that mindset as an insult to those who died to provide a country where a Kenyan, his illegal alien relatives, and his alleged progeny, could come and not only live freely, but rise to the highest, most powerful, position in the world. Michelle Obama is free to hate and disparage whites, because Americans of every description paid with their blood to ensure her right to do same.

My Daily Rant said...

I have a saying, that “the only reason a person hides things, is because they have something to hide.” No president in history has spent over a million dollars to keep his records and his past sealed. And what the two of them have shared has been proved to be lies. He lied about when and how they met, he lied about his mother’s death and problems with insurance, Michelle lied to a crowd pursuant to nearly $500,000 bank stocks they inherited from his family. He has lied about his father’s military service, about the civil rights movement, ad nauseum.
He lied to the world about the Supreme Court in a State of the Union address. He berated and publicly insulted a sitting Congressman. He has surrounded himself with the most rabidly, radical, socialist academicians today. He has fought for abortion procedures and opposed rulings that protected women and children, that even Planned Parenthood did not seek to support. He is openly hostile to business and aggressively hostile to Israel.
His wife treats being the First Lady, as her personal American Express Black Card (arguably the most prestigious credit card in the world). I condemn them because, as people are suffering, losing their homes, their jobs, their retirements, he and his family are arrogantly showing off their life of entitlement – as he goes about creating and fomenting class warfare.
I don’t like them, and I neither apologize nor retreat from my public condemnation of them and of his policies. We should condemn them for the disrespect they show our people, for his willful and unconstitutional actions pursuant to obeying the Constitutional parameters he is bound by, and his willful disregard for Congressional authority.
Dislike for them has nothing to do with the color of their skin, it has everything to do with their behavior, attitudes, and policies. And I have open scorn for their playing the race.
It is my intention to do all within my ability to ensure their reign is one term. I could go on, but let me conclude with this. I condemn in the strongest possible terms the media for refusing to investigate them as they did President Bush and President Clinton, and for refusing to label them for what they truly are. There is no scenario known to man, whereby a white president and his wife could ignore laws, flaunt their position, and lord over the people as these two are permitted out of fear for their color.
Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader. He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequalled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood…Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement while America’s people go homeless, hungry and unemployed.”

FreeThinke said...

"A Duluth legislator who admitted to police that he had oral sex with a 17-year-old boy at a rest stop has bowed to relentless pressure from DFL leaders and will not seek a second term.

He's 56, Democrat"


Two questions:

1. Why would anyone ever admit anything like that to anyone, unless he was literally caught on videotape "red-mouthed," as it were?

2. I hope you didn't want us to draw the inference that only a D'Rat could be capable of performing such an act?

A third question might be this: When it became known that Bill Klinton tickled Monica Lewinsky's G-Spot and presumably brought her to orgasm with the tip of his (hopefully unlighted) cigar, why was it it that his popularity soared into the stratosphere, and those who were determined to investigate the Clewinsky Affair aka "Cigargate" came out looking like the bad guys?

This prompts further questions:

What does that say about us as a PEOPLE?

What does that say about our POPULAR CULTURE?

What does that imply our FUTURE is bound to be if a mentality like that holds sway with the masses?

Could it POSSIBLY be that what people do with their genitals with consenting partners of any age has absolutely NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on their fitness to hold public office?

If, indeed, it DOES have bearing, why then do we not apply these standard CONSISTENTLY?

~ FreeThinke

FreeThinke said...

My Daily Rant, please visit Freethinke's blog.

http://freethinkesblog.blogspot.com/?zx=da63e836789862c5

You'll love this morning's post, I guarantee.

Your true name isn't Bartlett Oswald de Grade by any chance, is it?

~ FreeThinke

FreeThinke said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
FreeThinke said...

"The danse [sic] in [the] final scene of The Seventh Seal is on of the great scenes in film."

I much prefer Irene Dunne's delightful song and dance routine to "Gone With The Wind" by which she rescues Cary Grant from the clutches of a suffocating, stupefyingly stuffy set of potential in-laws in The Awful Truth.

Every Ingmar Bergman film I ever saw left me fighting a nearly uncontrollable urge to commit suicide. And yes, I dutifully went to see them all when they first came out from Wild Strawberries, to The Seventh Seal, to Winter Light, to The Magician, through The Virgin Spring and finally Cries and Whispers.

I don't need to go to the movies to get thoroughly depressed. All I need to do is listen to the News, and read your caustic communistic commentary at various blogs, thank you very much.

Sincerely yours,

Phil Istein

Shaw Kenawe said...

"No president in history has spent over a million dollars to keep his records and his past sealed..."

FALSE.

From FactCheck.org:

FULL ANSWER

This is an example of mostly old baloney in a new casing. It mainly recycles years-old falsehoods and insinuations, most of which we covered long ago, in connection with an earlier viral email.

But with President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign heating up, this new graphic has appeared on countless anti-Obama websites and in viral emails like the one we’ve reprinted here. Very little that it contains is new, and the old falsehoods have not improved with age.

Nothing ‘Sealed’


The idea that any Obama record is “sealed” is a falsehood, to start. The word “sealed” when applied to documents ordinarily refers to records that would normally be public, but that a judge has ruled cannot be released without the court’s permission. Common examples of truly “sealed” documents include records of crimes committed as a juvenile or records of adoptions. None of the claims in this message refers to records actually “sealed” in that usual sense.

In some cases, the records this screed claims are “sealed” are actually public, and open for anyone to see. Other supposedly “sealed” records are normally private documents that Obama hasn’t released — and that other presidential candidates haven’t released either.

So as with earlier versions, this is little more than an attempt to raise suspicions by asking for records that aren’t ordinarily made public, without any evidence that those records contain anything derogatory. We’ll take the claims and questions in the order they appear.

Also:

FALSE, PANTS ON FIRE --PolitiFACT.

Joe Conservative said...

Tax returns aren't "normally private documents"? Then why the clamour for "disclosure"?

Show us the birth certificate! Show us the college records! Or shut up.

FreeThinke said...

Ms. Shaw your "Annenbergian" sources have no credibility.

They are the type of people who would, if Nixon had walked across San Francisco Bay to Alcatraz and backwith nary a rescue boat in sight before TV Cameras, would doubtless have reported in banner headlines NIXON PROVES HE CAN'T SWIM!.

Yes, it's a joke -- and a hoary old one at that -- but it really, truly does provide an excellent satirical understanding of the profound Marxist-Leninist BIAS that has existed in "major media" since before the days of Walter Duranty.

Your sources STINK. PERIOD!

~ FreeThinke

Shaw Kenawe said...

Of course you would say that, FT. Anything that interferes with your blind ideology stinks. LOL!

You can have your own opinions, FT, but you can't have your own facts.

Until you come up with facts that disprove what FactCheck.org and Politifact have stated, you're wrong.

And I mean that in the nicest way.

My Daily Rant said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Z said...

Freethinke, I think you're absolutely right. WHat WAS the term Hawaii used when they clamped shut on the birth certificate that weekend when Obama'd gone to pay his last visit to his dying grandmother? Suddenly, after that, nobody could see the birth certificate.

I wouldn't put much credence in Fact Checkers anymore! They're the ones I'll never forget, who said, when Bachmann misspoke about some historical fact, "TRUE"...and explained in detail the error of her statement .
When Obama said we had 57 states, I Googled Fact Checkers and some said "True..BUT..." And their explanation for that amazing misspeak was "He is TIRED". I'll never forget that.
SO....not to give them too much credence is probably a prudent thing. It's like looking to msnbc for unbiased facts; it isn't going to happen no matter HOW severe and authoritarian Maddow delivers the lie.

My Daily Rant said...

Beneath every lie, there is one common denominator...: the evil deceptive ploys and tactics of George Soros

And let us not forget that this is Obama’s number one backer..

My Daily Rant said...

"Fact Check" Don’t you just love all of this typical far left gobbly gook..
Where is it said that because something is posted on the internet, is must be true?

Shaw Kenawe said...

"My Daily Rant said...
"Fact Check" Don’t you just love all of this typical far left gobbly gook..
Where is it said that because something is posted on the internet, is must be true?"


You just posted upthread a long, long rant you got off the internet.

So perhaps what you posted is just a collection of lies?


viburnum said...

Steve: "You are simple racist bigots"

His race was never in question. What was at issue was whether or not he met the Constitutional criteria to assume the office. It was a legitimate question.

My Daily Rant said...

Shaw Kenawe said...
"You just posted upthread a long, long rant you got off the internet.
So perhaps what you posted is just a collection of lies?


And I state that on my Home Page. I don't pretend otherwise.

FreeThinke said...

TIME FOR A LEVITY BREAK!



A spirited woman named Shaw
Has a penchant that sticks in my craw.
She equates facts with truth,
Which is gauche and uncouth,
While her views she conflates with God’s Law!



Using facts as a drunk uses lamp posts
For support of uncommonly damp posts
All manifestation
Of illumination
Stays obscured by the Frankfurters’ damned ghosts!



Fondly,

FT

Anita Davis said...

FreeThinke, this woman is the author of a very stupid little pathetic blog.

FreeThinke said...

What do I mean by "uncommonly damp posts?"

Who are "The Frankfurter's damned ghosts?"

Could you translate the new-minted limericks into plain, everyday English?


Perhaps I've been smitten by Cupid,
For Ms. Shaw I would never call stupid.
Though we oft disagree,
I feel perfectly free
To say to her, "I'm fond of you, kid."
;-)

~ FT





Silverfiddle said...

You're a hopeless romantic, FreeThinke...

beamish said...

When voting machines register more votes than registered voters, how can one categorically state that there was no evidence supporting a conspiracy to swing an election?

It is a fact that there are more registered voters than people old enough to vote in 52 of Missouri's 114 counties.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"Anita Davis said...
FreeThinke, this woman is the author of a very stupid little pathetic blog.

8/25/12 3:26 PM"

Well, m'dear, you would certainly know a lot about things that are pathetic and stupid, wouldn't you.

My goodness. I've p.o.'d a number of your blogging friends, SF.

And their invective against me is quite inspiring.


viburnum said...

@Steve

The last presidential candidate who's birthplace was called into question was John McCain

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28mccain.html

And who do you suppose was asking those questions?

The article provides a list of others, so get over it.