PDA

View Full Version : OMG! EL DUBB DUBB WAS RIGHT AGAIN!



LWW
08-09-2012, 05:54 AM
THE REGIME RUNS THE WORST DUNG SLINGING CAMPAIGN IN MODERN HISTORY (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-camp-denies-knowledge-cancer-tale-told-may-195237581.html)

Soflasnapper
08-09-2012, 07:35 AM
No you are not right, no they aren't doing it, and no, it is far from what you claim. Even for this cycle.

You've apparently forgotten all the top political leaders in the government and the media on the right stating as a fact that Obama was going to have the government euthanize the elderly with chronic health problems (most of them, eventually) with the alleged death panels. Mass murder, intentionally.

llotter
08-09-2012, 11:18 AM
Are you imputing 'euthanize' into death panel?

Soflasnapper
08-09-2012, 01:09 PM
The death panel concept was that life-saving medical treatment would be denied to seniors or others with certain conditions, as when Palin memorably tweeted that she didn't want to stand before one of the death panels with her Downs Syndrome child.

It's a small step from claiming people would be forced to die by denying them life-saving care, to actual euthanasia.

Here's Gingrich going there:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Palin's even getting some help with her lies from none other than Newt Gingrich, who had the following conversation on ABC with George Stephanopoulos yesterday:

GINGRICH: I think people are very concerned, when you start talking about cost controls, that a bureaucracy we don't you're asking us to trust the government. Now, I'm not talking about the Obama administration. I'm talking about the government. You're asking us to decide that we believe that the government is to be trusted.

We know people who have said routinely, well, you're going to have to make decisions. You're going to have to decide. Communal standards historically is a very dangerous concept.

STEPHANOPOULOS: It's not in the bill.

GINGRICH: But the bill's the bill's 1,000 pages of setting up mechanisms. It sets up 45 different agencies. It has all sorts of panels. You're asking us to trust turning power over to the government, when there clearly are people in America who believe in in establishing euthanasia, including selective standards.

Gingrich brilliantly uses both vagueness and fear-mongering here, threatening innocent Americans with "all sorts of panels." One of these has to be a death panel, right? The strangest part of the exchange is when he reiterates the danger of trusting the government, but then references "people in America" who believe in euthanasia. </div></div>

This was coupled with the end of life (future directives) payment plan in the health care bill, to assert that the government was going to end lives earlier than people wanted.

Here's Grassley:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">At an August 12, 2009 town hall meeting, Senator Chuck Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Health Care subcommittee said, "living wills ... ought to be done within the family.[31] We should not have a government program that determines you're going to pull the plug on Grandma."[15] </div></div>

So, it's clear that the push on 'death panels' included the theories that the government would cause certain people (the elderly or the disabled) to die from lack of necessary health treatments (a kind of passive euthenasia, in effect), and the theory that the elderly would have their lives ended (actual euthenasia).

You didn't remember all of that?

LWW
08-09-2012, 02:39 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No you are not right, no they aren't doing it, and no, it is far from what you claim. Even for this cycle.

You've apparently forgotten all the top political leaders in the government and the media on the right stating as a fact that Obama was going to have the government euthanize the elderly with chronic health problems (most of them, eventually) with the alleged death panels. Mass murder, intentionally. </div></div>

So you think the ad was just peachy?

Seriously?

But claiming that John Forbes Kerry was a war criminal simply because John Forbes Kerry went on national TV and confessed to being a war criminal was unfair?

Really?

Soflasnapper
08-09-2012, 03:14 PM
I find that ad somewhat misleading and unfair. Although not exactly untrue, not any new depths of sleaze, and beyond its middling character on those metrics, also not an Obama campaign ad.

What actually is untrue is the characterization of this ad, that it claims Bain or Romney caused her cancer, or that Romney murdered her, neither of which are claimed. Lying about the ad to say it is horrible seems to me to indicate it is not so horrible at all, if what it really says isn't bad enough that they have to pad it with unfounded interpretive lines that are not in the ad.

Although it did lead to a shocking Limbaugh quote, if we are to use the Romney style of quotation.

He actually said, 'so, not only is Romney a felon, he is also a murderer.' Quote/unquote. Meaning it as ridicule, in the opposite meaning of its literal meaning, to denounce the supposed claims 'some' are making, in his view. Which I understood of course, as would most people hearing his commentary. But to re-emphasize the point, going Romney style, it would be 'fair' (Romney would claim) to have an ad 'quoting' Rush (in his own words, mind you), apparently making this claim as his own belief.

As for Kerry, in ads 8 years ago? I could care less, and have not mentioned that in any counterpoint post. I have no idea why you've addressed that to me. Yes, he did say that. And....?

Qtec
08-10-2012, 02:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So you think the ad was just peachy?

Seriously? </div></div>

Actions have consequences. Should we not talk about Mitt's actions that affected so many people?

I can see Mitt before God when he dies.

God: " Tell me Willard, how could you rip people off, destroy their lives and devastate whole communities.etc.. just to make a fast buck?"

Willard: "It was legal??? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/frown.gif "

Q

Qtec
08-10-2012, 02:03 AM
link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uMlsQ9HiFo&feature=player_embedded)

When is he going to come clean with America?

LOL there are a lot of reasons NOT to elect me! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oz1aLR05eb8&feature=relmfu)

Q

LWW
08-10-2012, 02:09 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">So you think the ad was just peachy?

Seriously? </div></div>

Actions have consequences. Should we not talk about Mitt's actions that affected so many people?

I can see Mitt before God when he dies.

God: " Tell me Willard, how could you rip people off, destroy their lives and devastate whole communities.etc.. just to make a fast buck?"

Willard: "It was legal??? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/frown.gif "
R
Q </div></div>

You are aware that the ad is a proven fraud?

Are you awar the regime admits it is a fraud?

Does it even matter to you?

Qtec
08-10-2012, 03:13 AM
BTW, I can't remember you being right about anything, ever!

Q

LWW
08-10-2012, 03:31 AM
Nobody thought truth mattered to you, the question was entirely rhetorical, therefore your confirmation of same ... although appreciated, was not required.

Qtec
08-10-2012, 03:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are aware that the ad is a proven fraud? </div></div>

Right now, if you weren't just a troll you would lay out your argument. You don't.

You never do.

You don't have one.


Q

LWW
08-10-2012, 04:09 AM
I apologize again that I can't dumb it own to you level ... but I'll try one more time.

- The regime ran this guy out with a known lie for political gain.

- The l was proved to b a lie.

- The regime then denied knowledge of the lie being a lie.

- That also was proved to be a lie.

- The regime then denied any link to the ad being ran.

- That also was shown to be a lie.

- People such as yourself embraced the lie even after learning that it was a lie.

- The regime counts on such useful Obmatrons accepting every lie the regime puts out.

- That is why they continue to lie.

This is here you ignore reality and prove yourself to be a loyal subject of the state.

Stretch
08-10-2012, 04:39 AM
[quote=LWW] <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> </div></div> ... but I'll try one more time. <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> </div></div>

Promise? St.

Soflasnapper
08-10-2012, 07:37 AM
No, the ad is not a lie. It is misleading, but it misleads with truthful statements.

The people who put it out continue to argue for its accuracy, and ask, what fact it asserts is untrue?

The ad was put out by one or another independent group, which as you know is forbidden by law from coordinating with the Obama campaign. We can easily find Romney disclaiming any ability to control outside expenditure messaging, for this exact reason, and it happens to be the truth about the law.

Simple minded persons, or aggressively mendacious political operatives, have claimed they know the Obama campaign is responsible, because this man's case was mentioned on a conference call (albeit without any of the details laid out in this ad, which the Obama official says she didn't know).

So about everything you claim is wrong, and fairly weak-minded as well. The facts do not support your version, which is the RW echo chamber Bizarro world version.

LWW
08-10-2012, 08:43 AM
Are you really pimped so shamelessly?

Soflasnapper
08-11-2012, 12:55 PM
No, I have rarely ever considered any of your claims remotely plausible. So there's that.

LWW
08-11-2012, 02:17 PM
Then how dan you say the ad isn't a lie?

This situation proves NAZI prpaganda theory was correct.

Soflasnapper
08-11-2012, 02:23 PM
It leaves out arguably relevant details, and compresses the time frame, but uses no false statements in its possibly misleading, possibly not misleading, presentation.

Even considering all the left out facts, nothing stated in the ad is false-- it's all factually correct-- or it's a personal opinion of this guy that isn't subject to being false. He really does have this opinion that he states, and it's highly credible that the payoff line, that Romney just simply doesn't care about the little people whose lives he disrupts in major consequential ways, is the stone cold truth.

LWW
08-11-2012, 02:29 PM
Somewhere a member of the Goebbells family has been made proud.

Soflasnapper
08-11-2012, 02:39 PM
Your plaintive bleatings would be more credible if you ever, once, condemned the lies in the campaign ads against the party you disprefer. Which are direct and obvious lies, unlike this one, which relies on insinuation and the viewer's filling in the blanks incorrectly.

LWW
08-11-2012, 03:16 PM
I disprefer both.

If you can show me a lie I have no issue condemning it.

Soflasnapper
08-11-2012, 03:29 PM
You (cough) disprefer both, yet only attack one side?

Sure, that must be true, then. Not.

You want a lie? Look at the Romney campaign ad concerning how "Obama's plan" ends the work requirement to receive welfare.

Even Gingrich, now mendaciously supporting Romney, had to eventually admit there was no truth to the ad's claims in reality, and only prospectively, as a matter of belief about the future.