PDA

View Full Version : Doug Lamborn, 'Tar Baby' Representative,



Qtec
08-16-2011, 09:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Doug Lamborn, the U.S. Representative from Colorado Springs who likened the debt-ceiling debacle and President Obama earlier this month to "dealing with a tar baby," is on a public relations roll.

Likely in response to the many protests his comment triggered, Lamborn's office now sports a sidewalk-facing sign that reads: "Private Property -- No Soliciting,<span style='font-size: 26pt'> No Protesting,</span> No Loitering." </div></div>

The Freedom party strikes again.

http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/43982/slide_43982_330829_large.jpg
Q

LWW
08-16-2011, 09:33 AM
1 - That office is located at 1271 Kelly Johnson Blvd. Suite 110. Colorado Springs, CO 80920.

2 - Their are at least 8 other tenants in the building.

3 - There is no evidence that Lamborn is anything other than a person renting office space.

4 - That means the sign was put there by the owners of the property and not by Lamborn.

5 - In all likelihood, one or more of the other tenants requested that the sign be placed there to keep barking moonbats from disturbing their business operations.

6 - You were spoon fed a lie that you wanted to hear.

7 - You were had ... again.

8 - It took me less than one minute to find the truth.

9 - You had no desire to find the truth.

OH DEAR! (http://lamborn.house.gov/)

OH MY! (http://www.google.com/search?q=owner+of+1271+Kelly+Johnson+Blvd.+Colorad o+Springs,+CO+80920&hl=en&prmd=ivnscom&source=univ&tbm=plcs&tbo=u&ei=3YxKTqWAG6PisQKcyb3DCA&sa=X&oi=local_group&ct=more-results&resnum=1&ved=0CD0QtwMwAA)

Qtec
08-16-2011, 09:50 AM
Don't you think that as someone who is sworn to uphold the USCON he should have been duty bound to do something about that?

Q

Qtec
08-16-2011, 09:51 AM
LOL. What kind of links are those?????????????

Q

LWW
08-16-2011, 11:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Don't you think that as someone who is sworn to uphold the USCON he should have been duty bound to do something about that?

Q </div></div>

Unless they own the property ... they can't.

Much to your chagrin, the US isn't a dictatorship.

LWW
08-16-2011, 11:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL. What kind of links are those?????????????

Q </div></div>

The kind you click on to learn if the "TRUTH" they put on the spoon for you is actually the truth.

What's the matter?

Afraid to look?

I won't tell dear leader ... but another cabal member might.

eg8r
08-16-2011, 11:33 AM
LOL, no kidding. It is just sad to see how ignorant he really is.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
08-16-2011, 02:42 PM
5 - In all likelihood, one or more of the other tenants requested that the sign be placed there to keep barking moonbats from disturbing their business operations.


There is no evidence for your claim of likelihood. (What is it, a numerical analysis, that Lamborn has only a 1 in 8 chance, as if all the tenants would be equally likely?)

Just as likely, it would seem if the owners of the building did it, it was at the request of Rep. Lamborn himself rather than the other tenants. That's a decent operating hypothesis, unless and until the Rep denies it.

You have no way to tell, but you immediately call the equally likely or more likely alternative to your story 'a lie,' and then trash someone suggesting it?

On no knowledge, but your keen analysis of 'in all likelihood'?

It took you less than one minute "TO FIND THE TRUTH"? Yes it appears true that there are other tenants. It is far from decided whether the truth is as you claim is 'in all likelihood,' which is another way to say, "I ASSUME, AND HAVE NO IDEA OR EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER."

eg8r
08-16-2011, 04:38 PM
After typing all of that you did not disprove anything other than to say "but maybe the Rep did request it". If he requested it then it makes complete sense just like if anyone else did or if the owner did it.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
08-16-2011, 05:05 PM
That's not a lot of typing for me, as you surely know by now!

But no, you've got it wrong.

IF THE REPRESENTATIVE DID IT (by his request, even if not his own handiwork), then the point of this reporting, said by LWW to be a hit piece, and those quoting it, stupid beyond words, IS CORRECT.

Correct, in that the representative would be found denying his constituents the right to petition the government for redress of grievances, and their right to peacefully assemble, as it relates to his public office location.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. </div></div>

No, by his actions, if there were his actions, he wouldn't have broken this Constitutional amendment, because he wouldn't have passed a LAW to accomplish this stripping of guarantees.

However, by those actions, if his, he certainly would have restricted these rights, thus violating the spirit of the amendment, if not the text.

eg8r
08-16-2011, 07:07 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">then the point of this reporting, said by LWW to be a hit piece, and those quoting it, stupid beyond words, IS CORRECT.
</div></div>However the point is that you have as much proof the Rep did it as lww has stating the Rep didn't. So yes all your post amounted to was saying, "but the Rep could have done it".

Whether he did it or not the ultimate decision is the owners. The Rep cannot just put signs out as he pleases. This is private property so the restriction of rights is perfectly allowable. There is nothing stopping their right to peacefully assemble on the sidewalk however you guys would not even recognize this and attack the Rep (with no proof) for trying to restrict the right to assemble when this sign doesn't do that at all.

eg8r

LWW
08-17-2011, 02:49 AM
Here's the bottom line.

Snoopy claims that the congressman requested the sign ... yet offers no evidence that he actually did.

It is not my responsibility to make his and your point convincing ... althoiugh I do find it quite easy to show how full of holes the idea is.

Face it ... you were spoon fed a tale and accepted it without question ... and blame me because I had the initiative to spend a brief moment to see if the story had any credence at all.

This is where you insist that just because you can't back up your point doesn't mean that you can't back up your point.

LWW
08-17-2011, 02:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Correct, in that the representative would be found denying his constituents the right to petition the government for redress of grievances, and their right to peacefully assemble, as it relates to his public office location. </div></div>

Absolutely false.

That office complex is not public property.

Qtec
08-17-2011, 03:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's the bottom line.

Snoopy claims that the congressman requested the sign ... yet offers no evidence that he actually did.

</div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Doug Lamborn, the U.S. Representative from Colorado Springs who likened the debt-ceiling debacle and President Obama earlier this month to "dealing with a tar baby," is on a public relations roll.

Likely in response to the many protests his comment triggered, Lamborn's office now sports a sidewalk-facing sign that reads: "Private Property -- No Soliciting, No Protesting, No Loitering." (emph. added) (see photo below)

The Colorado Springs blog Not My Tribe presents images of the sign<span style='font-size: 14pt'> installed on August 11, </span> [ Lamborn's "tar baby" comment was on August 1st.] as well as a screen shot of a pro-Lamborn rally held the next day, timestamped August 12. As ColoradoPols notes, evidently the no-protesting rule does not apply to pro-Lamborn demonstrations. </div></div>

link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/15/rep-lamborn-tar-baby-no-protest_n_927763.html#s330830)

link (http://coloradopols.com/diary/16204/spontaneous-rally-for-lamborn-today)

Q

LWW
08-17-2011, 03:39 AM
<span style='font-size: 11pt'>A BIT OF A LENGTHY AND SOMEWHAT DRY TECHNICAL EXPLANATION OF THE CHICANERY INVOLVED IN THIS FOLLOWS THE PHOTOS ... I SUGGEST THAT ANYONE WANTING TO SEE WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED READ IT TO THE END.</span>

To add on to what you posted, here is where the sign is as you enter the property:

http://notmytribe.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/congressman-doug-lamborn-office-kelly-johnson.jpg

Here is a different angle view showing that the public roadway and public walkway is unimpeded and nothing is blocking protesters:

http://notmytribe.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/congressman-doug-lamborn-office-building.jpg

And here is the spoon fed photo:

http://notmytribe.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/doug-lamborn-no-protesting.jpg


Anyone knowledgeable of photography is aware that wide angle and telephoto lenses can alter perspective in a photo significantly from reality. Witha telephoto this distortion is image compression.

As an example, if one uses a 300MM lens on a standard APC frame DSLR, the lens will make the object appear to be only 1/9 of the distance that it actually is from the lens. If 2 objects are in a line that are 90 feet apart, this compression will make them appear to be 10 feet apart.

Also ... opening one of the pics in PHOTOSHOP I find that all EXIF data has been scrubbed, thus making it impossible to tell what camera lens/body was used ... what aperture it was shot at ... what ISO was used ... and if any other photo manipulation was done.

Now, let's look at the photos.

Snoopy's posted photo makes it appear that the sign is by the door. If you look at the second photo however you can see that the sign is a good bit from the door. Snoopy's photo is also significantly grainier than the other 2 and is not in near the tack sharp focus. This tells me that the DSLR was set at a very high ISO to allow the photo shot at a very small aperture ... probably f22 ... and still be shot handheld, and that the fcus point was fudged to get both near and far in OK focus versus one or the other being crisply sharp.

Now, if we go to the first photo, the one with the walker, the no protest sign appears to be very close to the stone entrance sign. Going back to the second photo ... it clearly is not.

A close look leads me to believe that the entrance sign section showing the congressman's office was cut from the rights side ... where it appears in photo 2 ... and pasted to the left side.

Doing that would give a picture with the sign much closer to his name, and that part of the sign is in sharper focus than the rest of the picture ... a telltale sign of digital manipulation.

These photos were taken from the HuffPost's SOURCE (http://notmytribe.com/2011/springs-congressman-doug-lamborn-tells-his-constituents-to-stuff-it-826325.html).

The bottom line is that this was a clumsily set up hit piece ... and it was the lie that the left wanted to hear, so they went for it.

LWW
08-17-2011, 03:41 AM
You didn't need to confirm that you had no evidence... it is amazing that adding the word "LIKELY" is all it takes to pimp your simple mind.

Qtec
08-17-2011, 06:47 AM
How come they also posted this pic?

http://notmytribe.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/congressman-doug-lamborn-office-building.jpg

Or this,
http://notmytribe.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/KOAA-screenshot-lamborn-rally.jpg

Q.............don't give us opinion., give us facts, if you can.

eg8r
08-17-2011, 07:58 AM
Why did you bold the "installed on August 11" part. Were you having trouble reading it because it sure doesn't prove that the sign was requested by the Rep.

You made the accusation that the Rep requested the sign and it is your burden to prove it. We both know you cannot do so with the info available right now so you keep acting stupid and I will keep laughing.

eg8r

LWW
08-17-2011, 02:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How come they also posted this pic?

http://notmytribe.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/congressman-doug-lamborn-office-building.jpg

Or this,
http://notmytribe.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/KOAA-screenshot-lamborn-rally.jpg

Q.............don't give us opinion., give us facts, if you can.


</div></div>

They were betting that you would be too stupid to know you were being duped is my guess.

Also ... notice his supporters staying on public property.

Gayle in MD
09-14-2011, 10:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Doug Lamborn, the U.S. Representative from Colorado Springs who likened the debt-ceiling debacle and President Obama earlier this month to "dealing with a tar baby," is on a public relations roll.

Likely in response to the many protests his comment triggered, Lamborn's office now sports a sidewalk-facing sign that reads: "Private Property -- No Soliciting,<span style='font-size: 26pt'> No Protesting,</span> No Loitering." </div></div>


<span style='font-size: 20pt'> We must destroy Repiglican Fascism before it's too late! </span>

The Freedom party strikes again.

http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/43982/slide_43982_330829_large.jpg
Q </div></div>