Anonymous wrote:
Jeff, how is it possible that I lied about what Obama said when I provided not only a transcript but the video?

Someone is trying to change some framework here. YOU.

Did you attend the Eric Holder school of deceit, deception and delay???

Here is how my dictionary defines lie:

lie
noun
an intentionally false statement.

Note, it does not say "an intentionally false statement followed by a link to contradictory information." It does not say "an intentionally false statement followed by other examples of alleged lying."

You lied by writing an intentionally false statement.

You have had several opportunities to correct that intentionally false statement. You have attempted to justify it by claiming it was a headline, attempted to justify it with ad hominem attacks, attempted to justify it by providing examples of other alleged lies, and attempted to justify it by saying that you linked to additional information. Therefore, the only conclusion is that you continue to standby your intentionally false statement. Therefore, you continue to be a liar.

Anonymous wrote:
Jeff, Obama had it all his way the first two years and the polls seem to show that the majority feel we are on the wrong path. Whatever he accomplished when he had all the cards apparently had no lasting effect. Obama also lead some to believe that he was going to charm the pants off adversarial foreign leaders. Can you name just ONE that he has won over with his charms?

I understand your desire to change the framework of this discussion. If I had told a blatant lie and been called on it, I would probably want to reframe the issue as well. My argument is not whether Obama was right or wrong. My argument is that you lied about what Obama said.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He didn't say that. He said he would compare himself to other presidents except for the greats.

So sorry, he said he would put his accomplishments up against any other president besides the few he mentioned. Putting up against surely does suggest the superiority complex this man carries in every aspect of his life. He may soon suggest that he composed 7 operas in two years, shot 40 under par and had 12 holes in one in one round of golf. He is delusional like the departed head of North Korea. It is just a matter of degree, but Obama has time to catch up.

Again, if Obama is as delusional as you make him out to be, please list the presidents who have greater legislative and foreign policy accomplishments. Why must you rely on ad hominem and false attacks when you claim to have the facts on your side? Obama has not composed an opera and, therefore, has not claimed to have done so. He does have legislative accomplishments.

Anonymous wrote:
Jeff, you silly goose of course you are commenting on the interview. It is the topic of this thread. The fact is that you are lost in attempting to defend Obama's laughable yet sad commentary and further lost trying to defend 60 Minutes editing to minimize the exhibition of Obama's delusional state of mind.

Fine, I condemn 60 Minutes for editing out that portion of the interview. This does nothing to change the fact that you lied about what Obama said. If you think Obama is delusional, please list presidents beyond those he mentioned who had greater legislative or foreign policy accomplishments. Prove that you can oppose Obama with more than lies.

Anonymous wrote:
Jeff, I realize that you are grasping wildly when you assert that a lie has been told. FYI a headline is a headline. Headlines are followed by more information, details. For you to suggest that a lie has been told when the headline is followed by more detail and the idiots exact words just shows what an ass you can be.

Technically, your lie was contained in the "subject" of your post. The body contained nothing to elaborate on the subject. Your rationalization that a headline -- or a subject for that matter -- can be totally dishonest further demonstrates your lack of commitment to the truth. You told a lie. Simple as that.

It's Romney. He will change his position regarding the release of tax returns any day now. Then, he will change it back. Then, he will change, well you know how it goes.

Anonymous wrote:
Jeff, you are so so sensitive. If this blather of Obama was so on target, why did it get edited out of the broadcast?

I am not commenting on the interview which I did not watch. i am commenting on your posting a demonstrable lie.

Anonymous wrote:If you would like to examine lies, you could start with "Bill Ayars is JUST A GUY FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD." My understanding is that George was almost fired for asking that question; and as you know, it was never asked again. You love liars. Just admit it.

You are welcome to examine any lie that you wish to examine. However, the existence of other lies does not justify your own lie. You are only further discrediting yourself.

takoma wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The cut is worth 2 percent of your salary, up to about $110,000.

So, 40 bucks a month is about $1,000 a year, which is the savings to someone earnign $50,000.

If you are paying the maximum, then 2% is about $40 per week. Perhaps that's where the $40 figure comes from.

Most people get paid every two weeks. It's 40 dollars per paycheck. 52 weeks in a year equals 26 paychecks. $40 x 26 = $1040.

You are a liar. Here is what Obama actually said:

"I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president — with the possible exceptions of Johnson, F.D.R., and Lincoln — just in terms of what we've gotten done in modern history"

He specifically limits his claims to legislative and foreign policy accomplishments. There is more to being "the best" or even "4th best" than those two areas. For instance, Obama's achievements in economic policy are not notable and in the area of civil liberties he has actually set us back.

If you want to argue that there are presidents beyond those mentioned by Obama who have had greater legislative or foreign policy accomplishments, make the argument. But, don't come in here telling outright lies.

Okay, after receiving considerable feedback that the thread should be removed (including a request from the OP), I have removed it.

I am very disappointed in some of the responses in that thread. I can only assume that the holiday season is having a negative effect on some posters. One would expect that a forum consisting primarily of mothers would be capable of much more compassion then is demonstrated in that thread. Also, for all of those who have been theorizing that increased negativity on DCUM is a result of people from outside the region posting here, the negative posts were all from this area (though not from DC itself, thankfully).

With all that said, I am not in favor of removing the thread. I prefer that our kinder-hearted users take advantage of that thread to show another side of DCUM. Hopefully, they can flood that thread with positive posts.

Anonymous wrote:Thanks, I guess I must have clicked preview by accident.

That's possible, but I believe I did remove posts from the threads you mentioned. I just don't think they were yours. I could be at fault. But, if so, it was likely unintentional.

I don't recall removing any of your posts. Is it possible that you replied to a post that I removed and then I removed yours because it was no longer relevant? It would seem strange for that to happen multiple times, but that's the best explanation that I have other than it happening by accident.

Here is a tangible OWS achievement:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/19/occupy-atlanta-saves-iraq-veterans-home-from-foreclosure_n_1158097.html

OccupyAtlanta occupied the home of an Iraq War vet that was being foreclosed on. JPMorgan Chase had sent owner an eviction notice, but after the house was occupied, began discussing a loan modification. That modification became official today and the family will be able to remain in the house.

Perhaps a very small victory in the big picture, but very important to one family. Not bad for a bunch of loser thugs.

Newt is falling in the polls so he has to ramp up the crazy. Perry will now call Newt soft on judges and promise that he will not simply have them arrested, but lined up against a wall shot.

Anonymous wrote:
Do you honestly think they are focused or effective? Have you seen change come about from their movement? Outside of the increased amount of man-hours for local law enforcement.

I don't - I see more talk - and maybe because my job is talk, talk, talk - I don't see talk bringing about change. Their "so called" movement was supposed to bring about change. I don't see it.

If it has happened, please point it out to me.

Given the immensity of the change that OWS is demanding, you are hardly being realistic to have expected them to have accomplished it by now. But, as I posted earlier in this thread, the impact of OSS is not deniable. I pointed out the dramatic increase in the times "income inequality" was mentioned in the media. Simply getting people to talk about the topic is significant. I also illustrated how Obama's speech and, indeed, the entire focus of his re-election campaign has been influenced by OWS. A OWS protester was on the cover of Time's "Person of the Year" issue and, of course, "Person of the Year" was "The Protester".

We are now in the "Get off of my lawn" phase of the protest in which grumpy people who have never done anything to change anything are complaining about OWS not changing things.