by Jack
09/29/2014 – 0850 am. We’ve been looking forward to a positive report on the battle damage from our bombings on ISIS. Finally here’s a small bit of that information came forth about an hour ago.
An ISIS defector that uses the fictitious name Abu Omar spoke with a CNN reporter in Turkey, “Some equipment they hid in civilian neighborhoods. Some they hid underground. He didn’t think the air strikes did much damage.
Abu Omar also said ISIS relies heavily on foreign members — including Westerners — to carry out its mission. “The French, they have so much control — they’re even more extreme than we are,” the defector said. “They come from France, but it’s as if they have been part of the ‘Islamic State’ for years.” England estimates they have between 600 to 1200 British Nationals are fighting for ISIS.
Abu Omar initially tried to defend the group’s atrocities — including crucifixions, beheadings and indiscriminate killings. But eventually, the brutally became too much for him.
“I used to hope that they would fix their mistakes,” he said. “If they had, it wouldn’t be like this.”
When the United States and Arab partners started pounding the ISIS stronghold of Raqqa last week, many militants scattered. And Abu Omar found an opportunity to flee. But he still trembles when he talks, fearful he has a target on his back.
Abu Omar said while he still dreams of a caliphate in the region, he is haunted by what he witnessed. “I saw a 70-year-old sheikh killed in front of me,” he said. “The ‘Islamic State’ can’t continue like this. … There are a lot of youth who are joining — 14, 15 years old. Maybe my voice can make them think again.”
Another CNN interview with an active ISIS member gave a different view. This terrorist admitted the bombing of the oil refinery took out a source of revenue for ISIS, but he defiantly said they have many other sources and it would not hurt them. He also claimed they moved most of their equipment out of their headquarters long before the air attacks began. They had been well prepared for the bombings and they used many hidden locations to store equipment and house their soldiers. He claims the attacks did minimal damage. Of course whatever this terrorist says has to be weighed against it’s propaganda value.
Here’s a bombshell: Rep. Michelle Bachman said that American Muslim’s that went to fight for ISIS are going to be allowed to return to the US, unlike in the UK where they are permanently denied re-entry. An article from the DC Clothesline reported the Bachman story, ”Any American citizen, who has gone to join ISIS and fight alongside the enemy of America, will be allowed back into the country by the very agencies which pretend to “secure America from terrorists” while violating the Constitution to do it. These individuals have joined a “foreign” army or fighting force that has been declared an enemy of the United States, have actively engaged in heinous crimes, and Citizen ISIS Fighters Allowed To Return to America “you-do-realize-that-the-us-funded-and-trained-ISIS-right” supported those who kill other US 
citizens, Christians, Jews and Non-Muslims. At the very least, these individuals who claim US citizenship are traitors and deserve to be treated as such.”
Why hasn’t President Obama or Congress moved quickly to deny re-entry to ISIS terrorists to America? I would think this would be a high priority. It’s crazy to let ISIS fighters re-enter the US. Americans fighting for ISIS is a serious federal crime.
“A senior Obama administration official told reporters on Monday that American citizens who have fought alongside the ISIS terror army have managed to come back into the country and are under active surveillance by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The stunning revelation came ten days after a Democratic New York congressman spilled the beans with a public but little-noticed claim that there were 40 such ‘foreign fighter’ jihadis back on U.S. soil. In a gathering with selected journalists, the administration official acknowledged that it’s true. National Counterterrorism Center’s latest determination, the official said, ‘includes those who’ve gone, those who’ve tried to go, some who’ve come back and are under active - the FBI is looking at them.” Dailymail.co.uk/news
Here’s another bombshell.
3 Times Obama Administration Was Warned About ISIS:
http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=25843517
Note the above was from ABC. It’s kind of nice posting something that doesn’t have to come from Fox.
And this.
Karl vs. Earnest: How Can Obama Say Underestimating ISIS Was An Intelligence Failure When He Was Warned?:
JON KARL, ABC NEWS: Did the intelligence community underestimate ISIL or did the president underestimate ISIL?
JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE: The way I would describe it is that everybody did. That everybody was surprised to see the rapid advance that ISIL was able to make across from Syria across the Iraqi border and to take over such large swaths of territory in Iraq did come as a surprise. And it’s something the president has said many times and it’s something that even senior members of the intelligence community have acknowledged as well.
A lot of that was predicated on the underestimation of the will of the Iraqi security forces to fight for their country.
KARL: But, Josh, on that question you don’t even need to go back to February, you can go back to November of last year, Brett McGurk, who is Assistant Secretary of State and one of the key point people for the administration on Iraq, he described almost exactly what the threat was, both on the side of the Iraqis not being able to confront it, the fact that they were benefiting from a sanctuary across a porous border in Syria.
I mean, his description back in November was: “we have seen upwards of 40 suicide bombers per month, targeting play grounds, mosques, and markets, in addition to government sites from Basra to Baghdad to Erbil. ISIS has benefited from a permissive operating environment due to inherent weaknesses of Iraqi security forces.”
This is one of your key people on Iraq who was raising this alarm in November of last year. Did this message get to the president? Did he believe it? Did he not hear it? What happened?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/09/29/karl_vs_earnest_how_can_obama_say_underestimating_isis_was_an_intelligence_failure_when_he_was_warned.html
Rep. Michelle Bachman said that American Muslim’s that went to fight for ISIS are going to be allowed to return to the US –
OMG !!!!!
Bachman is a lunatic and I believe nothing she says…. She is an embarrassment!
If you fight with ISIL you are an enemy of the state by law.
It is Treason to take up Arms against the USA as a citizen. There is already a law and she is stiring the pot.
Any body who repeats it is stiring the pot while the country laughs and gives her no Mind.
We are waiting for her to leave. Why is she leaving trying to avoid campaign fraud charges!
Also are we not having a conversation about killing American citizens abroad without trial…LOL
Obama droned 1 already so which is it?
Hypocrisy
No one is going to advertise what will happen to them before it does.
Bachman was also debunked by McCain several times! She is a fear-monger with no basis. Too crazy for even McCain!
Bachman/West 2016!!!!!
If someone slipped into the country before the problems were detected and they have surveillance….
Point is if they have evidence they will arrest them. You have no case without evidence.
Inside this country I want the laws Obeyed. We will not start killing and detaining people without proof.
Dewey: “OMG !!!!! Bachman is a lunatic…”
Back off Bozo. Bachman served on the House Foreign Intelligence Committee…she is no dummy and is well educated and informed. Bachman is merely reporting the fact that this is being allowed by the administration. She is appalled; read her words: “…At the very least, these individuals who claim US citizenship are traitors and deserve to be treated as such.”
Slug…performing slug duties.!
Larry Gatlin and the Gatlin Brothers
DEAR GUTLESS WORTHLESS COWARDS… A MESSAGE FROM ME AND MY BUDDY Billy Dean
NEW SONG WE JUST WROTE “AN AMERICAN WITH A REMINGTON”
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152332582041835
Good song Peggy…good men!
Back off Bozo. Bachman served on the House Foreign Intelligence Committee –
hat is the scary part! LOL bachman is a nut job and not fit for the committee…She also has been under investigation
Why do you pretend every Tea party Politician is so honest as they get busted?
Hypocrisy everywhere here!
Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann Are Under FBI Investigation For Several Federal Crimes
The subpoena lists several possible crimes being investigated including false reporting of campaign finance data by federal campaign committees, false statements to the FEC, obstruction of justice and concealing a federal crime.
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/09/04/ron-paul-michele-bachmann-fbi-investigation-federal-crimes.html
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/09/12/michele-bachmann-investigation-gets-house-ethics-committee-extension.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/30/us/politics/michele-bachmann-wont-seek-re-election-next-year.html?_r=0
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/michele-bachmann-presidential-campaign-investigated-ethics-watchdog/story?id=18808705
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/05/29/former-bachmann-aide-ethics-probe-about-to-come-to-a-boil
Are you really clueless or just against democracy? Come on These guys are all a bunch of crooks and you act like none of this is true because Fox does not cover it?
WOW
Jack: “Here’s a bombshell: Rep. Michelle Bachman said that American Muslim’s that went to fight for ISIS are going to be allowed to return to the US, unlike in the UK where they are permanently denied re-entry. An article from the DC Clothesline reported the Bachman story,”
The DC Clothesline is a satire website, Jack. Or, more accurately, it’s a failed attempt at a satire website; it’s obvious reading the headlines that none of them are true, but none of them are even remotely funny, either.
Bachmann is an incurious, conspiracy-minded lunatic, but she never said what your article claimed she said.
So count yourself as double-gullible: not only did you believe a crazy liar, which is bad enough, you believed an unfunny satire website which made up a quote about a crazy liar.
Which is why, Dewey, explaining to Jack and Tina why Bachmann is not a reliable source is a fool’s errand: they are Bachmann’s target audience, which means they’re going to believe every crazy thing she says regardless of what we do.
In the interest of fairness, let’s talk about a batshit crazy thing Bachmann actually did say, instead of a batshit crazy thing Jack was easily tricked into believing Bachmann said.
Speaking at the Values Voter Summit–hosted by the rabidly anti-gay Family Research Council, a hate group which supports criminalizing homosexuality, yet still enjoys widespread support and defense among the Republican Party–Bachmann suggested that President Obama should declare war on Islam.
Yes, I thought this was bad satire at first too. But it’s not. It’s what she actually said:
“Yes, Mr. President, it is about Islam! And I believe if you have an evil of an order of this magnitude, you take it seriously. You declare war on it, you don’t dance around it. Just like the Islamic State has declared war on the United States of America.”
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/09/michele-bachmann-to-obama-islam-is-the-problem-and-you-need-to-declare-war-on-it/#.VCWgk16IO-k.facebook
Bachmann made no mention of the practicalities of waging war on the world’s third largest religion, nor did she seem to recognize that war between Islam and the West is the exact goal of the terrorists, nor did she acknowledge that even President Bush was wise enough to declare that “we are not at war with Islam.”
She did go on to say a number of other wildly stupid things, including:
Complaining about “the rise of radical Islamic jihad — though that’s redundant,” thereby conflating all Muslims with radical jihadists;
Saying “Well, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton, we want our 1980s foreign policy back! Peace through strength! Peace through strength! We don’t want your failed ‘Russian reset’! We don’t want four Americans dead in Benghazi!” Apparently Bachmann is totally fine with 300 Americans dead in Beirut, since that’s what happened under Reagan’s foreign policy, and it happened in two separate attacks that were months apart. (But at least they didn’t blame a video! Er, actually, the Benghazi attackers said they were motivated by the video…so…uh…BENGHAZIIIIII!!!!!”)
Giving war advice to Obama such as “You kill their leader, you kill their councils, you kill their army until they wave the white flag of surrender. That’s how you win a war!” Obama immediately realized Bachmann was right, and then traveled back in time to order the killing of more terrorists than any other president in history.
Bachmann is a moron, and you are her target audience.
Stop being such easy targets.
Guess what? They’re heeere!
ISIS Supporters in America: The Jihadis Next Door?
“Vocativ has found dozens of Americans around the country who openly support ISIS. And they’re all followers of a radical Michigan-based cleric.”
http://www.vocativ.com/usa/nat-sec/isis-america-jihadi-next-door/?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000618
Chris, just because you and Dewey don’t like hearing the truth doesn’t mean the message isn’t true or the teller a liar.
Here is Ms. Bachman on Newsmax TV’s “The Steve Malzberg Show,” which isn’t considered a satire show. Listen very closely to exactly what SHE says and stop relying on someone else’s biased or unbiased interpretation of what she said.
Wednesday on Newsmax TV’s “The Steve Malzberg Show,” Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) detailed a private classified meeting she had with the FBI to ask if any citizens from Minnesota were fighting with ISIS.:
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/09/10/Michele-Bachmann-FBI-Told-Me-Americans-Who-Fight-With-ISIS-Will-Be-Allowed-To-Returned-To-US
Peggy, where is the evidence for Bachmann’s claim? You seem to accept Bachmann’s statement as “truth” just because she said it.
Give her record, this is unwise. On her Politifact file, only 9 of her statements the site has checked were rated “True” or “Mostly True;” 14 were rated “Half True” or “Mostly False; 21 were rated “False;” and 16 were rated “Pants on Fire.” That means a whopping 62% of her statements judged by Politifact have been untrue. This is one of the worst records of any politician Politifact has evaluated.
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/michele-bachmann/
Things Michele Bachmann has lied about include:
–Claiming that President Obama has “virtually no one in his cabinet with private sector experience”
–Claiming that President Obama has the lowest approval ratings of any modern president
–Claiming that Mitt Romney implemented “socialized medicine” in Massachusetts
–Claiming that Obamacare puts the IRS in charge of healthcare
–Claiming the IPAB, which only regulates Medicare spending, will “make all major health care decisions for over 300 million Americans”
–Claiming that the HPV vaccine causes mental retardation
–Claiming that her and her husband have never received “a penny of money” from their farm
–Claiming that Obama took a $200 million a day trip to India
–Claiming that 30% of physicians said they would quit the profession if Obamacare became law
–Claiming that Ezekiel Emanuel said that the disabled should not get Medicare
And many more at the link.
Forgive me if I need more.
What happens when a reporter calls out Bachmann on a lie? She refuses to acknowledge it and changes the subject:
SCHIEFFER: I want to ask you about something else. A lot of your critics say you have been very fast and loose with the truth.
You know, the PolitiFact, which is a website that won a Pulitzer, did an analysis of 23 statements that you made recently. Of these 23, only one they said was completely true. Seven they call “pants on fire” kind of falsehoods. Four were “barely true” and two were “half- true.”
How do you answer that criticism?
Because here’s one of them. You know, you said on the record there had been only one offshore oil drilling permit during the Obama administration. And in fact, at that time, there had been 270. How do you explain that?
BACHMANN: Well, you know, I think that what’s clear more than anything is the fact that President Obama has not been issuing the permits that he should have been issuing on offshore drilling. That’s why we’re in the problems we’re in.
SCHIEFFER: But it has to be more than 300 now. At that time, there had been 200-and-something, and you said there had been only one.
BACHMANN: But, as far as drilling goes, we hadn’t been drilling what we need to. That’s why we just saw this week…
SCHIEFFER: But that’s different, isn’t it?
BACHMANN: Well, that’s why, this week, it’s ironic and sad that the president released all of the oil from the Strategic Oil Reserve because the president doesn’t have an energy policy.
SCHIEFFER: Do you think that was a good move?
BACHMANN: He has a politically correct environmental policy.
SCHIEFFER: Was that a good thing?
BACHMANN: It was a very bad move. It put — it has made the United States more vulnerable. There’s only a limited amount of oil that we have in the Strategic Oil Reserve. It’s there for emergencies.
We do not — the emergency that we have is the fact that the — the president of the United States has failed to give the American people an energy policy.
Here’s the good news that a lot of Americans don’t even realize. We are the number one energy-resource-rich nation in the world, according to the Congressional Research Service. But the president of the United States has unfortunately put American energy resources off- limits. We need to open those up so we can bring down the price of gasoline at
the pump. The president has it exactly wrong when it comes to energy.
SCHIEFFER: Just quickly, though, the original question I asked you is all of these statements that you have made that have later proven to be sort of true or totally false in some cases — what’s your answer when people say that to you? Do you feel you have misled people?
BACHMANN: No, I haven’t misled people at all. I think the question would be asked of President Obama, when you told the American people that, if we borrow $1 trillion from other countries and spend it on a stimulus, that we won’t have unemployment go above 8 percent, and today, as we are sitting here, it’s 9.1 percent and the economy is tanking — that is what’s serious. That’s a very serious statement that the president made.
Did he mislead the American people? Not only did he mislead the American people, he’s caused our economy to go down to depths that we haven’t seen. That’s what’s serious.
SCHIEFFER: Again, I have to say, Congresswoman, I asked you a question and you — to my knowledge, I don’t believe you answered it. But I want to thank you. I know you’re — you’re very excited about what happened out in Iowa and we wish you the best. Hope to see you down the trail.
BACHMANN: Thank you, Bob.
SCHIEFFER: Thank you.
Sorry Chris, but I don’t believe your left-leaning source any more than you don’t repeatedly accept information Tina, Jack and I have provide from right-leaning source.
All of those claims you listed sound like made up lies, or words taken out of content.
Don’t bother trying to convince me to change my mind, because it won’t do you any good. I believe she’s an honorable and smart woman who deserves to be treated with more respect than you are obviously willing to give her. I wonder if you’d treat her the same if her last name was Obama instead of Bachman.
Dewey: “…bachman is a nut job and not fit for the committee…She also has been under investigation ”
The people that elected her, AND IT IS THEY WHO COUNT, don’t think she’s a nut job. You opinion is irrelevant.
She was under investigation only because the radical activist left can’t stand allowing alternate positions if your talking about what I think you’re talking about. They don’t care that she was elected by her state’s citizens any more than you do.
In today’s world of Saul Alinsky radical left politics being “under investigation” has become nearly meaningless. The radical left will stoop to anything to slime and deter their political opponents.
In this country we are innocent until PROVEN guilty. Even then we have PC lefty judges who rule in favor of democrat opinion rather than the law.
So yes…back off Bozo. Get back to me when there is a conviction and I will be happy to consider the merits of the ruling.
Chris listing Bachman lies:
“Claiming that President Obama has “virtually no one in his cabinet with private sector experience”
She is accurate. Private sector experience refers to business experience. All of the President’s cabinet come from academe.
“Claiming that President Obama has the lowest approval ratings of any modern president ”
35% is “among” the lowest. The lowest was GWB at 19%. But GWB also has high approval at 92% and Obama only reached 76%. So it depends on how someone looks at the statistics.
I would bet if the president were a white male his number would be much lower.
“Claiming that Mitt Romney implemented “socialized medicine” in Massachusetts”
Depending on what is meant by socialist he did. Socialism, defined as “social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy,” which is fascism light, is exactly what was implemented in Massachusetts. When the state determines in the name of the people the coverage that will be available it is socialism.
“Claiming that Obamacare puts the IRS in charge of healthcare”
CNS News:
I never had to consult with the IRS to decide what insurance to buy before.
Breitbart:
The cost to do taxes for high earners just soared through the roof because of Obamacare. The IRS has said that filing taxes this year will be a nightmare and the number of errors will be unprecedented.
Also see video of Issa in hearings discussing the ways IRS will be involved in healthcare.
Americans for Tax Reform announces “New Obamacare Tax Form Mandates Americans Report Personal Health ID Info to IRS”
Forbes reports, “Two Obamacare Mandates That Dramatically Expand The Internal Revenue Service’s Power”:
“Claiming the IPAB, which only regulates Medicare spending, will “make all major health care decisions for over 300 million Americans”
What do you think is the authoritative body insurers look to for federal regulations? IT IS the Medicare system.
If I had the hall monitor bug that most liberals possess I would go out and make a list of all the flat out wrong things that have been uttered by democrats through the years. Joe Biden alone would provide a treasure trove from which to mine. The current President is a gold star performer!
Chris you, and Dewey, are welcome to your partisan and cooky positions and you are welcome to continue this nutty targeting but please don’t think the candidates you support could not easily be subjected to same. This is a stupid game in my opinion and game playing is the last thing this nation needs right now.
I don’t know when the Schieffer interview took place. In fact the President also misrepresented the facts in the debates with Romney.
Factcheck.org published in October of 2012 the following:
The Presidents record is less than stellar. The random attacking On Michelle Bachman, or any republican right now is nothing more than a game playing act of desperation.
It certainly doesn’t contribute anything to the current election cycle (She isn’t running) or to repair of the mess the presidents terms have brought this nation.
Peggy I think we have a couple of morons her on PS that can’t admit the man in the WH has made a big mess. Lacking a good defense they have gone on the attack and even stoop to targeting someone who isn’t even up for re-election. Bachman serves on a committee that entitles her to classified info…she might just know more than they do.
Peggy: “Sorry Chris, but I don’t believe your left-leaning source any more than you don’t repeatedly accept information Tina, Jack and I have provide from right-leaning source.”
Politifact is not a right-leaning source. It has named lies from Democrats “Lie of the Year” more than once, including last year when they awarded this distinction to no less than Barack Obama for his “If you like your plan” whopper.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/dec/12/lie-year-if-you-like-your-health-care-plan-keep-it/
“Don’t bother trying to convince me to change my mind, because it won’t do you any good.”
Noted.
But you realize that refusing to change one’s mind no matter what the evidence is not an admirable quality, right?*
Tina: “So yes…back off Bozo. Get back to me when there is a conviction and I will be happy to consider the merits of the ruling.”
You realize this is utterly at odds with your insistence that Democrats and feminists should judge Bill Clinton based on the accusations of sexual assault, right?** He has also never been convicted, but you talk as if you know he is guilty.
*Never mind. Of course you don’t realize that.
**Never mind. Of course you don’t realize that.
Tina: “Chris listing Bachman lies:
“Claiming that President Obama has “virtually no one in his cabinet with private sector experience”
She is accurate. Private sector experience refers to business experience. All of the President’s cabinet come from academe.”
No. Had you followed the Politifact link, you would have seen that this oft-repeated conservative lie was debunked back in 2009, and once again in 2011 when Bachmann repeated the tired lie.
Members of Obama’s cabinet with prior business/private sector experience include:
“• Shaun Donovan, Obama’s secretary of Housing and Urban Development, served as managing director of Prudential Mortgage Capital Co., where he oversaw its investments in affordable housing loans.
• Energy Secretary Steven Chu headed the electronics research lab at one of America’s storied corporate research-and-development facilities, AT&T Bell Laboratories, where his work won a Nobel Prize for physics.
• Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, in addition to serving as Colorado attorney general and a U.S. senator, has been a partner in his family’s farm for decades and, with his wife, owned and operated a Dairy Queen and radio stations in his home state of Colorado.
All three remain in Obama’s Cabinet.
Three other Obama Cabinet members worked as lawyers for private-sector law firms, most of them with business clients: Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke. And Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner once worked for Kissinger Associates, a consulting firm that advises international corporations on political and economic conditions overseas.
Of these, Clinton, Vilsack and Geithner remain in the Cabinet…
• Obama’s nominee for Commerce Secretary, John Bryson. Bryson has served as chairman and CEO of Edison International, the parent company of Southern California Edison, a major utility.
• White House chief of staff Bill Daley. Daley has served in several top-level positions with JP Morgan Chase, as president of SBC Communications and as president and chief operating officer of Amalgamated Bank of Chicago.
• Office of Management and Budget director Jack Lew. Lew, a longtime senior federal manager, has also served as managing director and chief operating officer of Citi Global Wealth Management and later Citi Alternative Investments.
We can also add six names to the list of those who have worked as lawyers or consultants for private-sector companies. Though Cembalest treated them as different from other private sector workers, we see no reason to:
• Vice President Joe Biden. Biden, something of an entrepreneur, founded his own law firm, Biden and Walsh, early in his career, and it still exists in a later incarnation, Monzack Mersky McLaughlin and Browder, P.A. Biden also supplemented his income by managing real estate properties, including a neighborhood swimming pool. Of course, he later became a long-serving U.S. senator from Delaware.
• Attorney General Eric Holder. Holder, a former judge and deputy attorney general, has also worked as a litigation partner at the law firm Covington & Burling LLP.
• Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. Panetta, a former Member of Congress and Central Intelligence Agency director, worked in private practice as a lawyer for five years.
• Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano. Napolitano, the former two-term governor of Arizona, also practiced law in Phoenix with the firm Lewis and Roca.
• U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk. Kirk, the former mayor of Dallas, has also worked as a partner in the Texas-based international law firm Vinson & Elkins.
• U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice. Rice, a veteran of the State Department and foreign-policy think tanks, worked early in her career as a management consultant with McKinsey & Co., which advises corporations on how to run their businesses more effectively…
Now let’s add the numbers together.
If you take the most restrictive definition — those employed by businesses other than private law and consulting firms — Obama can count six members of his 22-member Cabinet with private-sector experience, or 27 percent. (We’re counting Bryson, who hasn’t been confirmed yet.)
If you take what we consider the more common-sense definition — which includes those who have worked for private law or consulting firms — then Obama can count 15 out of 22 with private-sector experience, or 68 percent.
That leaves seven of 22 Cabinet members without private-sector experience, or 32 percent.”
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/01/michele-bachmann/bachmann-says-obama-has-virtually-no-one-his-cabin/
Next lie:
Tina: ““Claiming that President Obama has the lowest approval ratings of any modern president ”
35% is “among” the lowest. The lowest was GWB at 19%. But GWB also has high approval at 92% and Obama only reached 76%. So it depends on how someone looks at the statistics.”
Tina, Bachmann told this lie in 2011, before Obama’s approval rating had ever dipped to 35%. At the time Bachmann told this lie, Obama’s lowest approval rating was 40% on Gallup. Politifact shows that nine previous presidents had had lower numbers during their entire terms, and five previous presidents had had lower numbers during their first 968 days, which was how long Obama had served when Bachmann made the claim.
Now some may consider that to be “among” the lowest, but that makes no difference, because that is not what Bachmann said. She did not say “among,” she said “the lowest.” Period. That was a lie. Period.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/23/michele-bachmann/michele-bachmann-says-barack-obama-has-lowest-publ/
“I would bet if the president were a white male his number would be much lower.”
You would bet that.
Next lie:
““Claiming that Mitt Romney implemented “socialized medicine” in Massachusetts”
Depending on what is meant by socialist he did. Socialism, defined as “social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy,” which is fascism light, is exactly what was implemented in Massachusetts.”
No. That is ridiculous. The people of Massachusetts have not at any point in time “owned the means of production.”
Also, nice to see you were ready to vote for a candidate who you believe was merely a “light fascist.”
It’s a damn shame Romney wasn’t able to run on his record–his health insurance plan was very popular in his state and did a lot of good for a lot of people. It was his signature accomplishment! But by the time he was nominated the party had moved so far to the right that Romneycare became poison to the base, and Romney had to run on bashing poor people instead. How’d that work out for you?
“”Socialized medicine,” describes some health systems in place in the United States, such as those for veterans and active-duty military. But changes to Massachusetts health care under Romney don’t begin to approach government-paid and government-provided care. The Massachusetts plan relies, in fact, on the same private employer-based health insurance system most Americans are familiar with. That’s so different from “socialized medicine” — practically the other end of the public-private spectrum — that Bachmann’s use of the label is, frankly, ridiculous. We rate her statement Pants on Fire.”
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/dec/11/michele-bachmann/michele-bachmann-says-former-mass-gov-mitt-romney-/
Next lie:
““Claiming that Obamacare puts the IRS in charge of healthcare”
CNS News…
I never had to consult with the IRS to decide what insurance to buy before.”
You don’t have to consult with the IRS to decide what insurance to buy now, genius.
Absolutely none of your evidence shows that the IRS is now “in charge of healthcare.”
“The IRS does play a number of key roles under the health care law, but it’s wrong to say it would “be in charge” of any American’s health care. The IRS won’t oversee interactions between doctors and patients, nor will it play any more of a role than confirming that exchange purchasers qualify for subsidies. Even within the government, HHS plays a much bigger role. We rate Bachmann’s claim False.”
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/may/20/michele-bachmann/michele-bachmann-says-irs-going-be-charge-our-heal/
Next lie:
““Claiming the IPAB, which only regulates Medicare spending, will “make all major health care decisions for over 300 million Americans”
What do you think is the authoritative body insurers look to for federal regulations? IT IS the Medicare system.”
This statement in no way supports the lie that the IPAB will “make all major healthcare decisions” for anyone. Again, the IPAB sets cost-saving measures to Medicare–something Republicans claim to support, until it’s done by a Democrat, then it’s DEATH PANELS–and is expressly forbidden from cutting benefits.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/oct/12/michele-bachmann/ipab-board-15-bureaucrats-who-will-decide-nation-s/
“If I had the hall monitor bug that most liberals possess I would go out and make a list of all the flat out wrong things that have been uttered by democrats through the years.”
You have, many times. You literally just described half of what this blog does.
“Chris you, and Dewey, are welcome to your partisan and cooky positions”
Seriously? But claiming that vaccines cause retardation isn’t cooky? Saying we should declare war on Islam isn’t cooky?
“and you are welcome to continue this nutty targeting but please don’t think the candidates you support could not easily be subjected to same.”
They ARE subjected to the same! Look up Obama’s Politifact score if you want; the site calls him out for lying all the time, even awarding him “Lie of the Year” last year. His track record isn’t exactly admirable, but it’s still better than Bachmann’s.
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/
“This is a stupid game in my opinion and game playing is the last thing this nation needs right now.”
It’s not a game. It’s deadly serious. Bachmann is an incorrigible idiot with a terrible record with the truth, and the fact that she’s achieved any position of political power in our nation is damning to our entire country.
“Bachman serves on a committee that entitles her to classified info…”
Yes, that’s what’s so scary, and why calling her out on her lunacy is so important.
Chris: “You realize this is utterly at odds with your insistence that Democrats and feminists should judge Bill Clinton based on the accusations of sexual assault, right.”
First of all the response to Dewey was about not being able to comment for lack of information. Dewey was just tossing bombs.
Secondly there is very compelling testimony and points of record against the accused Bill Clinton and there are multiple accusers which doesn’t help his case. His tortured “definition of is” statement was truly bizarre even for someone who loves words and the meaning of words. See also here.
Third the problem of Bill’s dalliances was so great that in Arkansas Hillary Clinton and Betsey Wright came up with a strategy to deal with what they called “Bimbo Eruptions” (A derogatory term for the women, most of them professionals, he tried to diddle). While running for the Senate Hillary referred to her husband as a “hard dog to keep on the porch,” and said dealing with “bimbo eruptions had long been part of their marriage.” Betsey Wright was Clinton’s Chief of Staff when he was Governor of Arkansas.
The American Spectator touches on the approach Hillary took to the women who bravely came forward to accuse this very powerful man:
My position usually has more to do with feminists reaction to an accused Bill Clinton vs their response to Republicans accused of being too eager to give a hug. Friendly republican men are beasts and ol’ Bill was a guy any of them would, shall we say, show him a good time. Please recall we are talking about charges of rape in some cases with these women. Not just verbal harrassment or too many hugs. My position also stems from the horrible way these women were portrayed and treated by feminists, media, and democrats generally. The only women feminists and Democrats rush to rally behind in cases of rape are their own…the ones considered in the club. All other women accusers are “trailer trash,” that deserve to be treated like trash. Bill’s guilt or innocence has little to do with the hypocrisy which is gargantuan.
So you can just back off too and you can take that snide/superior attitude of yours and shove it.
The party you support is filled to the brim with unscrupulous, duplicitous, mean, nasty lying, narcissistic losers who don’t give a rip about anything except their own power and ability to live large on other people’s money.
You are their eager beaver dupe.
Chris: “All three remain in Obama’s Cabinet.”
Wow. I’m so impressed. Three people. Woo hoo! Can you visualize the confetti and streamers?
Bachman as idiot can’t hold a candle to the twin idiots running the country right now!
A squirrel and a panda could do a better job.
Bomb tossing a woman who will not be returning to Congress just shows YOU ARE DESPERATE TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT AND DEFLECT ATTENTION FROM THE REAL MONUMENTAL FAILURES AND SCANDAL OF THE OBAMA TEAM.
Yes, I am yelling and I do not care that it’s considered bad form!
The subject of this article is, “ISIS Defector Talks About Bombing – Terrorists Coming Home to USA”
Why don’t you try giving a fig about that.
Chris: “But you realize that refusing to change one’s mind no matter what the evidence is not an admirable quality, right?”
Yes I do. Do you?*
You have repeatedly refused to accept various article presented by Tina, Jack and myself, because you claim they were written by an unacceptable right-leaning sources. So, I intentionally turned the table on you and used your own justification to not accept your source to show just what a hypocrite you are.
Jack, Tina or I could be standing in front of you telling you we were holding the original Constitution and you’d call us liars because of what we are. Those awful, in your eyes, conservative right-leaners.
You aren’t interested in the truth Chris, you’re only interested in proving you are right on everything and we are always wrong.
Ever been on a debate team? Here’s how it works, if you haven’t. You go do the research on a subject for both the pros and cons, because you don’t know which side you’re going to be arguing/presenting. It’s a great learning experience, plus it exposes you to both sides of issues which opens the door to make really informed decisions. You really should try it instead of always presenting one side based on left-leaning sources and denying that the other side exist or accusing anyone who believes the opposing view is wrong, stupid or a liar.
Have a good night. How does it feel to be had by a conservative?**
*Never mind. Of course you don’t realize that.
**Never mind. Of course you don’t realize that.
Tina, thanks for bringing the conversation full circle. The quotes from the Indian newspaper story you linked to are fake. You were duped by fake quotes AGAIN.
http://mediamatters.org/video/2006/04/19/on-cnns-situation-room-kuiper-admitted-he-cant/135444
“Wow. I’m so impressed. Three people. Woo hoo! Can you visualize the confetti and streamers?”
You really need to read the entire quoted portion before you reveal your ignorance like this.
The actual total, depending on one’s definition of private sector experience, is either 6 out of 22 (27%) or 15 out of 22 (68%). Neither can reasonably be described as “virtually no one.”
“Bomb tossing a woman who will not be returning to Congress”
She is still considered a prominent Republican, and she is clearly someone whom many Republicans, including yourself, admire and look up to. That is why it is important to expose what a dangerous fanatic she is. The woman said we should declare war on Islam! Do you not understand how bigoted and wrong-headed that is?
Of course you don’t; your party continues to have a close relationship to the FRC, the hosts of the Values Voter Summit, despite the fact that if the FRC had it their way gay people who acted on their attraction would be put in jail.
You are totally fine with bigotry and inequality as long as your side is perpetrating it.
Peggy: “You have repeatedly refused to accept various article presented by Tina, Jack and myself, because you claim they were written by an unacceptable right-leaning sources.”
This is partially true, but you are leaving out important context. I have never refused to accept information simply because it is from a right-leaning source. In fact, I have quoted right-leaning sources myself many times.
I have refused to accept information from sources with a record of promoting conspiracy theories about Obama’s birth certificate, death panels, Benghazi, and climate change. That is rational and fair. Sources with a record of lying should not be trusted.
You, on the other hand, did nothing but claim (falsely) that Politifact was a left-leaning source. You did not do anything to show that Politifact has a history of lying or promoting conspiracy theories. So really, your accusation that I am engaging in a double standard is meritless. My standard is fair and equal. I will not accept left-leaning sources that spread lies and conspiracy theories either. I stopped reading Andrew Sullivan when he engaged in Trig Palin birtherism, because I was disgusted, and I feel it’s important to keep political discussions grounded in reality. It doesn’t matter who the target is or who the perpetrator; unfair attacks are unfair attacks.
“So, I intentionally turned the table on you and used your own justification to not accept your source to show just what a hypocrite you are.”
Except that, a) Politifact is not a left-leaning source, and b) even if it was, you haven’t shown that it has a record of dishonesty, like the discredited sources you typically rely on. So you absolutely failed to show that I am being hypocritical.
“Those awful, in your eyes, conservative right-leaners.”
Is this really what you think I think of conservative right-leaners? I have many conservative friends and family members, Peggy, and I certainly don’t think they are “awful” or wrong about everything. There are many conservatives I respect and think make good points often. Rod Dreher, for instance, is extremely principled and rational on many issues, even though I think his stance on gay rights is abysmal. I don’t have a problem with conservatives. I do have a problem with how radical the movement has become, and I will always call out the radicals when I think it’s necessary.
“Ever been on a debate team? Here’s how it works, if you haven’t. You go do the research on a subject for both the pros and cons, because you don’t know which side you’re going to be arguing/presenting. It’s a great learning experience, plus it exposes you to both sides of issues which opens the door to make really informed decisions. You really should try it instead of always presenting one side based on left-leaning sources and denying that the other side exist or accusing anyone who believes the opposing view is wrong, stupid or a liar.”
I actually love this idea.
So why don’t we try it? I’ll write an article defending the conservative point of view on an issue, and you can write one defending the liberal point of view. If I make the most convincing case (as judged by Tina and Jack), you have to come up with ten nice things about Obama; if you make the most convincing case, I have to come up with ten nice things about Sarah Palin.
Whaddya say?
“Have a good night. How does it feel to be had by a conservative?**”
Oh that was a whole different night, but to answer: rough, yet strangely thrilling. 😉
Chris: “The quotes from the Indian newspaper story you linked to are fake.
Sorry Chris but the word “fake” is deceptive. What the man said was that he couldn’t “verify” that the words were “100% true.” That leaves a lot of room. They could be 20%, 60% or 95% true. It could be that they are true but he isn’t sure every quote was exact. Or it could mean that he doesn’t have transcripts or tape, hard evidence, only testimony from people who heard the words she spoke.
“You really need to read the entire quoted portion before you reveal your ignorance like this.”
Chris almost all of the people running our government are academics (and lawyers) with little or no practical world experience and it is spectacularly evident in everything they touch.
“The woman said we should declare war on Islam!”
Alinsky strikes again!
CNS News has the words Bachman used in full context:
Do you disagree?
The President is being accused of not taking this seriously enough, of not paying attention to advice he is given, and is blaming others for his reluctance to make hard decisions.
Bachman sees a lot of the same material that the President sees. She is an educated, informed spokesman and her words have been distorted ON PURPOSE to further slime her.
“Of course you don’t; your party continues to have a close relationship to the FRC, the hosts of the Values Voter Summit, despite the fact that if the FRC had it their way gay people who acted on their attraction would be put in jail.”
I suppose you read that in Media Matters too, the George Soros sponsored activist group that specializes in such smears. The radical left cannot tolerate differences of opinion so they demonize the opposition. Your party stinks to high heaven. The radicals in power are intolerant, amoral, mean liars and you are their willing dupe!
“You are totally fine with bigotry and inequality as long as your side is perpetrating it.”
Wrong! Try doing your homework smarta$$!
Tina: I enjoyed reading your comment! That was a very well reasoned, fact laden response to what amounted to low jabs and smears on Bachman and the right. I hope our (silent) readers appreciate the contrast you’ve provided against with the hateful and/or deceptive tactics of the typical liberal representative.
Thanks Jack. I hope our silent readers benefit from information they find here too. The right has been targeted by the radicals on the left for such a long time and with impunity since for so long they had monopolistic control given our compromised media. We do our small part and remain dedicated to the pursuit of truth.
#25 Chris: “I have never refused to accept information simply because it is from a right-leaning source. In fact, I have quoted right-leaning sources myself many times.”
Not true. You have repeatedly refused to read articles from WND or their writers. The discussion on the Bundy Ranch for one comes to mind.
“You, on the other hand, did nothing but claim (falsely) that Politifact was a left-leaning source. You did not do anything to show that Politifact has a history of lying or promoting conspiracy theories.”
Well, here are the facts as presented by Wikipedia. The numbers don’t lie and clearly show Politifact as having a left-leaning bias.
From Wikipedia.
Analysis of PolitiFact’s ratings[edit]
“University of Minnesota political science professor Eric Ostermeier did an analysis of 511 selected PolitiFact stories issued from January 2010 through January 2011. He said “PolitiFact has generally devoted an equal amount of time analyzing Republicans (191 statements, 50.4 percent) as they have Democrats (179 stories, 47.2 percent)…” Republican officeholders were considered by Politifact to have made substantially more “false” or “pants on fire” statements than their Democratic counterparts. Of 98 statements PolitiFact judged “false” or “pants on fire” from partisan political figures, 74 came from Republicans (76 percent) compared to 22 from Democrats (22 percent) during the selected period reviewed. Ostermeier concluded “By levying 23 Pants on Fire ratings to Republicans over the past year compared to just 4 to Democrats, it appears the sport of choice is game hunting – and the game is elephants.”[23] A writer with the left-leaning magazine The Nation argued that findings like this are a reflection of “fact-checkers simply doing their job… Republicans today just happen to be more egregiously wrong….”[24] A writer with the right-leaning Human Events claimed that after looking at Politifact’s work on a case by case basis a pattern emerged whereby Politifact critiqued straw man claims; that is, “dismissed the speaker’s claim, made up a different claim and checked that instead.” The conservative magazine noted Politifact’s use of language such as “[although the speaker] used [a specific] phrase… in his claim, [it] could fairly be interpreted to mean [something more general that is false]…” Human Events cited Bryan White’s PolitiFactBias blog to state that “from the end of that partnership [with the Congressional Quarterly] to the end of 2011, the national PolitiFact operation has issued 119 Pants on Fire ratings for Republican or conservative claims, and only 13 for liberal or Democratic claims.”[25]”
“Except that, a) Politifact is not a left-leaning source, and b) even if it was, you haven’t shown that it has a record of dishonesty, like the discredited sources you typically rely on. So you absolutely failed to show that I am being hypocritical.”
I believe I have proved Politifact is left-leaning.
“There are many conservatives I respect and think make good points often.”
Then show some of that respect here and stop attacking people who disagree with you by calling them “liars.” Your constant bullying gets really old and does not show respect for the individual or what the individual has a right to believe.
“I actually love this idea. So why don’t we try it? I’ll write an article defending the conservative point of view on an issue, and you can write one defending the liberal point of view. If I make the most convincing case (as judged by Tina and Jack), you have to come up with ten nice things about Obama; if you make the most convincing case, I have to come up with ten nice things about Sarah Palin.”
I didn’t make the suggestion of researching both sides of an issue to get into a school yard pissing contest where the winner gets to beat their chest and the loser is publicly humiliated. I was merely suggesting that you explore information from sources other then left-leaning publicans to gain some insight to the contributing factors that form views by those who believe differently than you.
As I have said before, if we looked first for the things we have in common we would accomplish so much more instead of looking for those issues we disagree on.
My 60 plus years of life experiences has given me a window into both sides of issues. I’ve been a part and
single owner of two business and also served on a union negotiation team for 20 years, held union officers positions including the president of an almost 400 union members. So, I have an understanding of a private sector owner’s issues in running a business and the worker’s issues of a public sector institution.
Chris, at your age you haven’t had the years under your belt to have that same insight. This is why I suggested you take the approach on your own to learn the other side of issues, before you take a stand or draw a conclusion.
More from Wikipedia:
“Criticism of specific fact checks[edit]
Barack Obama’s Saturday Night Live campaign promises[edit]
In October 2009, PolitiFact.com fact-checked a skit on the sketch comedy television show Saturday Night Live that showed President Obama stating that he had not accomplished anything thus far;[26] PolitiFact’s appraisal was then reported on CNN. Wall Street Journal writer James Taranto called the fact-checking “a bizarre exercise”, and added, “PolitiFact does not appear to have done the same for past “SNL” sketches spoofing Republican politicians … It’s as if CNN and the St. Petersburg Times are trying to reinforce the impression that they are in the tank for Obama.”[27]
Success of Recovery Act[edit]
In February 2010, PolitiFact.com rated President Obama’s statement that the Recovery Act had saved or created 2 million jobs in the United States as “half true”, stating that the real figure was 1 million according to several independent studies.[28] Economist Brian Riedl of the conservative Heritage Foundation responded that such a statement “belongs in an opinion editorial – not a fact check”, since “there is no way to determine how the economy would have performed without a stimulus.”[29]
Halliburton use of tax money[edit]
In July 2010, Huffington Post blogger Ayo Adeyeye criticized them for labelling a statement by Arianna Huffington that the company Halliburton was “defraud[ing] the American taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars” as half-true, instead of fully true.[30]
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act[edit]
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also referred to as the ACA and “Obamacare”, has been a frequent subject of PolitiFact’s rulings both before and after it was passed into law in 2010. Statements about it have constituted three of PolitiFact’s “lie of the year” awards, in 2009, 2010 and 2013.
Taranto of the Wall Street Journal said PolitiFact was “less seeker of truth than servant of power”, after it ranked as “Lie of the Year” Sarah Palin’s claim that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act would lead to “death panels”. Taranto wrote that the act “necessarily expands the power of federal bureaucrats to make [life and death] decisions, and it creates enormous fiscal pressures to err on the side of death.”[31][32]
After PolitiFact ruled the claim that the act represented a “government takeover of healthcare” to be its “lie of the year” in 2010, a Wall Street Journal editorial criticized the ruling, saying that the legislation would “convert insurers into government contractors in the business of fulfilling political demands… All citizens will be required to pay into this system, regardless of their individual needs or preferences. Sounds like a government takeover to us.”[19]”
Continued… (Interesting read.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com
Also this.
Help PolitiFact Get The Facts Right:
“But PolitiFact’s record as a watchdog pundit is suspect so far. The ratio of fact checks is running almost 4-1 against right-leaning commentators, and a third of the nine critiques have been aimed at Rush Limbaugh, the king of conservative talk radio.
PolitiFact has accused Limbaugh of one falsehood and one “barely true” argument but gave him a “mostly true” grade for his analysis of how Senate Republicans could use parliamentary procedures to block votes on judicial nominees. PolitiFact also has refuted claims made by Bill O’Reilly of Fox News and MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough.
The Web site adopted particularly harsh language for Scarborough, mocking him with the rhetorical question, “Do they pay Joe to make claims like this?”
Keith Olbermann, whose name has become synonymous with media stupidity, and Rachel Maddow, both far-left talkers on MSNBC, are the only liberals critiqued by PolitiFact to date — and Olbermann earned a “mostly true” rating. That’s too bad because there is plenty of punditry on the left ripe for the fact-checking.
Think of how much fun PolitiFact could have had when commentators like Olbermann and Maddow, as well as news hosts like CNN’s Anderson Cooper, embraced distortions of the “tea party” movement earlier this year. And now that healthcare policy is at the top of the agenda, all kinds of bogus statistics are making their way into the media.
PolitiFact will be doing the public a great service if it casts a bright light on the erroneous facts parroted by journalists and commentators as they report on health care and other policies.”
http://www.aim.org/on-target-blog/help-politifact-get-the-facts-right/
PolitiFact denies affirming accuracy of Bachmann attacks on Gingrich:
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/199937-politifact-denies-affirming-accuracy-of-bachmann-attacks-on-gingrich
Bottom line Chris is don’t use just one or two sources to form an opinion. Always, go to the original speaker or writer and form your OWN opinion.
Tina: “Sorry Chris but the word “fake” is deceptive. What the man said was that he couldn’t “verify” that the words were “100% true.” That leaves a lot of room. They could be 20%, 60% or 95% true. It could be that they are true but he isn’t sure every quote was exact. Or it could mean that he doesn’t have transcripts or tape, hard evidence, only testimony from people who heard the words she spoke.”
Good point, but either way, do you see how presenting those quotes as fact was unethical?
“Chris almost all”
“Almost all” is not a number. I gave you actual numbers. Under a slightly broader definition, the MAJORITY (62%) of Obama’s cabinet has private sector experience. Using a strict definition it’s 27%, which is still not “virtually no one.” Bachmann’s statement was not factual.
Anyway, you’ve picked the most trivial falsehoods to begin with; what of her smearing Ezekiel Emanuel by claiming he said the disabled shouldn’t get healthcare? What about spreading harmful disinformation about a vaccine by claiming (in opposition to all medical evidence) that it causes retardation? These are the types of lies that make Bachmann truly dangerous.
“CNS News has the words Bachman used in full context”
The quotes you provided come from an interview Bachmann gave after her speech at the Values Voter Summit, which were quite different from what she actually said there.
I am glad to see Bachmann acknowledge moderate Muslims in the CNS interview, but it doesn’t jive with what she said in her speech:
“Yes, Mr. President, it is about Islam! And I believe if you have an evil of an order of this magnitude, you take it seriously. You declare war on it, you don’t dance around it. Just like the Islamic State has declared war on the United States of America.”
Grammatically, the “it” that Bachmann is imploring us to declare war on is Islam. It’s possible that Bachmann misspoke, but why not show more caution when giving a speech that Bachmann obviously believes is important? It seems almost as if she is saying different things to different audiences. Because the Values Voter Summit is a more evangelical audience, perhaps she felt more comfortable implying that Islam itself is evil, and that we need to go to war against it.
This type of double talk is common among critics of Islam. Sometimes they show that they understand that moderate Muslims exist, and other times they talk as if they are condemning the religion as a whole and conflate the moderates with the fanatics. And I think this is done intentionally, because there is a not-insignificant portion of the base that really is bigoted toward Muslims.
“I suppose you read that in Media Matters too,”
At first, yes. Then I confirmed it by reading the exact words of a representative of the Family Research Council, Peter Sprigg.
From an interview on “Hardball:”
“MATTHEWS: Do you think we should outlaw gay behavior?
SPRIGG: Well, I certainly…
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: I‘m just asking you, should we outlaw gay behavior?
SPRIGG: I think that the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned the sodomy laws in this country, was wrongly decided. I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior.
MATTHEWS: So, we should outlaw gay behavior?
Advertise
SPRIGG: Yes.
MATTHEWS: OK. Thank you very much, Peter Sprigg. We know your position. It‘s a clear one.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alvin-mcewen/frcs-peter-sprigg-support_b_446854.html
Accurately describing the views of a person or organization is neither “smearing” nor “demonizing” them, Tina. You know what actual smearing and demonization looks like, Tina? Comparing your opposition to pedophiles and Nazis, which the FRC does to gays as a matter of routine. For some reason, you find the act of doing this acceptable, but the act of pointing out that they do this to be the REAL bigotry. That makes no sense.
Me: “#25 Chris: “I have never refused to accept information simply because it is from a right-leaning source. In fact, I have quoted right-leaning sources myself many times.”
Peggy: “Not true. You have repeatedly refused to read articles from WND or their writers.”
Either you did not read my entire response, or you are intentionally cropping my quote in order to mislead.
I repeat:
“I have refused to accept information from sources with a record of promoting conspiracy theories about Obama’s birth certificate, death panels, Benghazi, and climate change. That is rational and fair. Sources with a record of lying should not be trusted.”
I do not refuse to read World Net Daily because they are conservative. I refuse to read World Net Daily because they are lying conspiracy theorists.
This is not partisan bias. This is rational time management.
“I believe I have proved Politifact is left-leaning.”
Then you are holding yourself to a ridiculously low standard of “proof,” a standard which you would never apply to a political opponent. You quoted Human Events–hardly an objective, non-partisan source–accusing Politifact of unfairly characterizing Republicans, and then provided absolutely no proof or evidence for this claim.
Why do you believe evidence-free accusations count as “proof” when they back up what you already want to believe, when you would never accept such accusations as proof when made by a political opponent?
“I didn’t make the suggestion of researching both sides of an issue to get into a school yard pissing contest where the winner gets to beat their chest and the loser is publicly humiliated.”
What?
I wasn’t suggesting a “pissing contest.” I thought it would be a legitimately interesting and fun intellectual exercise.
You’re the one who brought up the value of being able to argue for a side you don’t necessarily support. I was simply suggesting that we test that value.
And there was absolutely no “public humiliation” involved in my suggesting! I don’t consider the idea of saying ten nice things about Sarah Palin to be “humiliating.” And if that’s how you see the prospect of having to say ten nice things about Obama, then I would have to conclude that your dislike of the man must be quite personal, and crosses the line into irrationality.
Again, if you’re serious about the value of researching and being able to defend both sides, then I hope you’ll put your money where your mouth is and consider my reasonable, friendly challenge.
Of course, there’s always the possibility that you didn’t really mean what you said.
“I was merely suggesting that you explore information from sources other then left-leaning publicans to gain some insight to the contributing factors that form views by those who believe differently than you.”
I’m here every day, aren’t I?
I don’t see how anyone familiar with my presence here could argue that I just haven’t exposed myself to conservative positions and sources of information.
What liberal blogs do you visit and comment on frequently, Peggy?