The Lying Precedent [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : The Lying Precedent


Flintlocker
10-11-2012, 13:08
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/10/the-lying-precedent/


It must be the case that many Americans recognize his contortions, and will vote for him regardless because they dont like the president. Thats their right. But if Mr. Romney wins, hell set a nasty precedent. Candidates will be justified in assuming not only that they can lie, but that they can tell different lies to different audiences from week to week, and voters will actually reward them.

countrygun
10-11-2012, 13:16
Desperation much?

rgregoryb
10-11-2012, 13:16
The lying President
sort of like "closing Gitmo"

Gundude
10-11-2012, 13:47
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/10/the-lying-precedent/


It must be the case that many Americans recognize his contortions, and will vote for him regardless because they dont like the president. Thats their right. But if Mr. Romney wins, hell set a nasty precedent. Candidates will be justified in assuming not only that they can lie, but that they can tell different lies to different audiences from week to week, and voters will actually reward them.I'm no fan of Romney, but I'm pretty sure that precedent was set thousands of years before Romney opened his mouth.

JFrame
10-11-2012, 13:57
Wow -- and I thought the "the Pastor says Romney's not a Christian" thread was the lamest ever...

I guess the leftist ammo can really IS empty... http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/facepalm.gif


.

GAFinch
10-11-2012, 13:59
He's been saying for a couple years now that he wanted to do both tax rate cuts and deduction cuts as part of a tax code simplification. He hasn't been lying - the debate, which was broadcast unedited, exposed the lamestream media and the DNC as liars for falsely reporting on his plan over the past few months.

series1811
10-11-2012, 15:00
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/10/the-lying-precedent/


It must be the case that many Americans recognize his contortions, and will vote for him regardless because they dont like the president. Thats their right. But if Mr. Romney wins, hell set a nasty precedent. Candidates will be justified in assuming not only that they can lie, but that they can tell different lies to different audiences from week to week, and voters will actually reward them.

This is getting pathetic.

JBnTX
10-11-2012, 16:00
This is getting pathetic.

Flintlocker reminds me of that little choo-choo.
I think I can, I think I can, I think I can.

michael_b
10-11-2012, 16:03
The lying President
sort of like "closing Gitmo"

Closing GITMO in his first year as I recall.

Also, if they were troops still in Iraq when took office in Jan '09 his FIRST priority was to bring them home IMMEDIATELY- and I quote "You can take that to the bank!" - must have been Lehmann Brothers.

I believe with still have, what? Half a division there?


-On mobile

Snowman92D
10-11-2012, 16:06
...if Mr. Romney wins, he’ll set a nasty precedent. Candidates will be justified in assuming not only that they can lie, but that they can tell different lies to different audiences from week to week, and voters will actually reward them.

How about Presidents who lie when they swear to uphold the Constitution and U.S. law?

http://www.examiner.com/article/illegal-fundraising-by-obama-campaign-exposed-by-watchdog-group?CID=examiner_alerts_article

Interesting article.

countrygun
10-11-2012, 16:06
Flintlocker reminds me of that little choo-choo.
I think I can, I think I can, I think I can.


Naw, he is more like the amourous ant crawling up the elephant's leg saying "Don't worry baby, I'll be gentle"

Gundude
10-11-2012, 16:13
Closing GITMO in his first year as I recall.He said would work towards it on "day one"!

Just like Romney would work to repeal Obamacare on "day one"!

Those "day one" promises sure reel in the suckers, don't they?

rgregoryb
10-11-2012, 16:24
He said would work towards it on "day one"!

Just like Romney would work to repeal Obamacare on "day one"!

Those "day one" promises sure reel in the suckers, don't they?

evidently, it worked on you dude,

dude, dude, hey dude who stole my car

cool dude, narley dude

Gun Shark
10-11-2012, 16:32
evidently, it worked on you dude,

dude, dude, hey dude who stole my car

cool dude, narley dude

Duuuuuuude.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

wjv
10-11-2012, 16:40
Most transparent administration

No lobbyist

Unemployment under 8%

End the war

Not raise taxes

Kill the coal industry - Oh wait, he's actually doing that. .

Snowman92D
10-11-2012, 17:15
This event will, at best, be a draw for Ryan. The MSM ain't gonna have it any other way. :bluesbrothers:

series1811
10-12-2012, 07:13
He said would work towards it on "day one"!



He's trying so hard to talk the guy who has to sign the order to close it, into doing it. :supergrin:

dbcooper
10-12-2012, 08:23
On June 5th 2007 Sen. Obama gave a speech at Hampton University. He complained that the Federal Government didn't waive the Stafford Act that requires a community recieving Federal Disaster Relief funds to contribute 10% of what the feds give them for New Orleans as they had for Florida after Andrew hit and for NYC after 9-11.

Problem is on May 24th 2007, 2 weeks before the speech, the Senate voted to do exactly that. He must have known that little fact being as he was there and voted AGAINST the waiver.

I guess he doesn't like black people.

The man is the Liar in Chief.

JFrame
10-12-2012, 08:26
On June 5th 2007 Sen. Obama gave a speech at Hampton University. He complained that the Federal Government didn't waive the Stafford Act that requires a community recieving Federal Disaster Relief funds to contribute 10% of what the feds give them for New Orleans as they had for Florida after Andrew hit and for NYC after 9-11.

Problem is on May 24th 2007, 2 weeks before the speech, the Senate voted to do exactly that. He must have known that little fact being as he was there and voted AGAINST the waiver.

I guess he doesn't like black people.

The man is the Liar in Chief.


Yep -- that single outrageous act of lying totally diffuses any allegations of dishonesty Obama might try to heap on the opposition...You just can't get any more blatant, obvious, and corrupt than that.


.

Sam Spade
10-12-2012, 08:40
I expected a thread on Benghazi. I am disappoint.

2-8 Marine
10-12-2012, 08:55
More correctly the thread title should have been, The Lying President.

Bullwinkle J Moose
10-12-2012, 11:21
Fixed the title for you :supergrin:

:rofl:

427
10-12-2012, 11:37
--“I promise 100% transparency in my administration.”.
--“I promise NO NEW TAXES on a family making less than $250K a year.”.
--“I will allow 5 days of public comment before I sign any bills.”.
--“I will remove earmarks from PORK projects before I sign any bill.”.
--“I will end Income Tax for seniors making less than $50K a year.”.
--"I will bring ALL of our troops home within ONE year."
--“I’ll put the Health Care negotiations on CSPAN so everyone can see who is at the table!”.
--“I’ll have no lobbyists in my administration."
--"I'll close Guantanamo."
--"I'll resign if I don't cut the deficit in half by the end of four years."
--"I'll unite the people of this great country."

F350
10-12-2012, 11:51
--I promise 100% transparency in my administration..
--I promise NO NEW TAXES on a family making less than $250K a year..
--I will allow 5 days of public comment before I sign any bills..
--I will remove earmarks from PORK projects before I sign any bill..
--I will end Income Tax for seniors making less than $50K a year..
--"I will bring ALL of our troops home within ONE year."
--Ill put the Health Care negotiations on CSPAN so everyone can see who is at the table!.
--Ill have no lobbyists in my administration."
--"I'll close Guantanamo."
--"I'll resign if I don't cut the deficit in half by the end of four years."
--"I'll unite the people of this great country."

Keep going 427; you don't have anything else to do for the next couple days.

frizz
10-12-2012, 12:16
Partisans iz soooooo funnie!!!

Of course Obama lies. Just like your precious Republican presidents did, and just like the other Democratic presidents did.

Politicians lie, and you bleating partisans seem to think that the other side invented lying but your pols speak only The Golden Truth.

LASTRESORT20
10-12-2012, 12:32
Partisans iz soooooo funnie!!!

Of course Obama lies. Just like your precious Republican presidents did, and just like the other Democratic presidents did.

Politicians lie, and you bleating partisans seem to think that the other side invented lying but your pols speak only The Golden Truth.


Some are worse than others most can see that:

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=I.4551175743341856&pid=15.1



http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/0/5/1/6/6/3/9/525900_296519550438201_199020000188157_633793_143-79264560921.jpeg#525900_296519550438201_199020000188157_633793_143

countrygun
10-12-2012, 12:45
Partisans iz soooooo funnie!!!

Of course Obama lies. Just like your precious Republican presidents did, and just like the other Democratic presidents did.

Politicians lie, and you bleating partisans seem to think that the other side invented lying but your pols speak only The Golden Truth.

As long as there is an opportunity for more than one position on an issue it creates partisanship.

We know what kind of system only has one "non-partisan" position.

you are either pimping for a repulsive system, or you are a babbling idiot. I am inclined to bet on the latter.

frizz
10-13-2012, 17:43
As long as there is an opportunity for more than one position on an issue it creates partisanship.

We know what kind of system only has one "non-partisan" position.

you are either pimping for a repulsive system, or you are a babbling idiot. I am inclined to bet on the latter.

You found me out. I'm a babbling idiot.

It is a shame that I, a babbling idiot, can see the idiocy in your post. The word "partisan" has more than one meaning.

As I used it, it is obvious that I meant the most common meaning: blind, unreasoning allegiance to a political party or ideology.

You twisted the clear meaning to imply that I am some sort of communist.

Go ahead and call Obama the liar that he is, but when you let the lies of your man slide, it makes you look idiotic.

Why? Because partisanship is idiotic. Just look at the definition.

frizz
10-13-2012, 17:56
Some are worse than others most can see that:

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=I.4551175743341856&pid=15.1



http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/0/5/1/6/6/3/9/525900_296519550438201_199020000188157_633793_143-79264560921.jpeg#525900_296519550438201_199020000188157_633793_143

I'm stupid? Because I see the raging dishonesty on both sides? Because I see politicians say anything to be elected or re-elected?

Some may be worse than others, but for the most part, the difference in the amount of dishonesty is so minute that it is effectively nothing.

And between the Dems as a group and the Repubs as a group, that difference is exactly nothing.

countrygun
10-13-2012, 18:00
You found me out. I'm a babbling idiot.

It is a shame that I, a babbling idiot, can see the idiocy in your post. The word "partisan" has more than one meaning.

As I used it, it is obvious that I meant the most common meaning: blind, unreasoning allegiance to a political party or ideology.

You twisted the clear meaning to imply that I am some sort of communist.

Go ahead and call Obama the liar that he is, but when you let the lies of your man slide, it makes you look idiotic.

Why? Because partisanship is idiotic. Just look at the definition.

Professor, you should take a look at Webster's they have 3 definitions, two deal with the military/guerilla aspect, but the first, I think is what you had in mind. You took the liberty of only referencing the second half of that definition to serve your purpose

": a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person; especially: one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance "


Now I grant it is subjective as to "Firm adherence" that could run from voting to campaigning, donating etc. But the fact that we DO have a "two-party" system is inescapable and given the polemic nature of man it is not likely to change.

Ironically the other two definitions of the word deal with war, which generally only has two-sides. So I rather think, it leaves your meaning unclear. A mulri-party system does not exclude partisanship in any way therefore what remains is the idea that the two-parties can work together in a bi-partisan manner. This of course would not be "non-partisan" which is the implication I took from your post.

Zombie Surgeon
10-13-2012, 18:57
Footlicker is desperate.

frizz
10-13-2012, 19:10
Professor, you should take a look at Webster's they have 3 definitions, two deal with the military/guerilla aspect, but the first, I think is what you had in mind. You took the liberty of only referencing the second half of that definition to serve your purpose

": a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person; especially: one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance "


Now I grant it is subjective as to "Firm adherence" that could run from voting to campaigning, donating etc. But the fact that we DO have a "two-party" system is inescapable and given the polemic nature of man it is not likely to change.

Ironically the other two definitions of the word deal with war, which generally only has two-sides. So I rather think, it leaves your meaning unclear. A mulri-party system does not exclude partisanship in any way therefore what remains is the idea that the two-parties can work together in a bi-partisan manner. This of course would not be "non-partisan" which is the implication I took from your post.

Did you really have to look in the dictionary to get the definition of the word? In the context of my post which is in the Political Issues forum, do you really think that I could have meant one of the war definitions? Your own reply references political systems.

Stop insulting my intelligence. Stop making yourself look foolish. Stop lying. You're acting worse than Obama AND Romney.

427
10-13-2012, 19:16
Keep going 427; you don't have anything else to do for the next couple days.

I know, right?

happyguy
10-13-2012, 19:34
So nice of you to start another thread.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

countrygun
10-13-2012, 19:37
Did you really have to look in the dictionary to get the definition of the word? In the context of my post which is in the Political Issues forum, do you really think that I could have meant one of the war definitions? Your own reply references political systems.

Stop insulting my intelligence. Stop making yourself look foolish. Stop lying. You're acting worse than Obama AND Romney.

Re read my post. It would seem pretty clear that I DID not in any way imply you meant the military meaning. You are seeing what you want to see. And yet again YOU are the one who only used, almost verbatim from Webter's THE LAST HALF of the definition and you called it "the most common definition" seems to me you were tailoring the definition, by omission, to fit your need.

frizz
10-13-2012, 20:10
Re read my post. It would seem pretty clear that I DID not in any way imply you meant the military meaning. You are seeing what you want to see. And yet again YOU are the one who only used, almost verbatim from Webter's THE LAST HALF of the definition and you called it "the most common definition" seems to me you were tailoring the definition, by omission, to fit your need.

:upeyes:
You knew good and well what I meant to begin with, now stop lying.

countrygun
10-13-2012, 20:18
:upeyes:
You knew good and well what I meant to begin with, now stop lying.

Quite actually I didn't, and you haven't made it too much more clear. you have thrown a catch phrase around but exactly what do you mean by your definition and how specifically, can you apply it to the current political situation?