I guess that's lights out for the Cain campaign

The point being that if we were all held responsible for the misspoken statements we had made on occasion most of us would be in prison. In the time he has been in office how many such misstatements has he made. Is it a significant enough percentage to call him stupid? I don't think so.

 

You don't go to prison for "misspoken statements" (AKA slips of the tongue). However, you do lose votes for promises not even tried (live CNN coverage) and go to jail for lies under oath (I didn't hear about it until it was on the news).

 

*

I thought I was the hall monitor! *pouts*

 

You are, Jo. The job is way too big for one person.

 

What I said was supposed to be a hyperbolic statement about the consequences of mis-spoken words.

I looked into Obama broken promises. He has made about 508 promises according to http://www.politifact.com/ of which he has broken 53 which makes for a 10% rate. Of course, it would be better to have 100% of the promises completed, but that is unrealistic.

At exactly what point did Obama lie under oath?

 

Without going into the particulars, I see Promise Kept 155. BTW, "Launch robust diplomatic effort with Iraq and its neighbors" = compromise?

 

Back to the original topic, I wonder why I cannot find any youtubes (or similar) of the questions about Cain in tonight's debate.

 

I expected very little of you David and as usual you delivered same. I'll give you points for predictability and tiresome consistency.

The job's all yours but the pay sucks!

Back to topic.

Have I mentioned that I think Cain is toast?

 

I have three things to say, but I'll start with the third..(soon as I can remember it). ROFL!!!

 

No, I want particulars. I asked the question

and you gave a vague response.
What lie has Obama given under oath?

 

...and I have come to expect the same tired posts from you...now what?
By the way, I don't see any of the real forum mgmt online at the moment so I guess you'll need to start taking names!

 

You want me to give you particulars from your own post?
I never said Obama lied under oath. What I said was " However, you .... go to jail for lies under oath (I didn't hear about it until it was on the news)". "You = i.e. people. The exact quote should have been "Well I heard about it from the news reports." I think you should recognize who said that.

 

We were discussing Obama being referred to as stupid due to a couple of incidences of slipped speech.
What I find interesting is the part of your statement you left out. The part which states "do lose votes for promises not even tried (live CNN coverage) and". In a conversation about a person such a statement indicates you think this about the person being discussed. The reworking to concentrate on the parts you can defend is somewhat disingenuous. Lets do some reconstruction and see what we get.

CoinOKC posted a video about Obama claiming to have visited 57 states.
I said:

To which David replied:

CoinOKC replied:

I said:

You then jumped into the conversation about Obama and said:

Which refers to the conversation about Obama and makes your statement about Obama.In the flow of conversation this means your statement is that Obama lied under oath. I asked you about it and all of a sudden you claim that is not what you were trying to say. You even modified your own statement to make it seem that you were just talking in general.

Sorry, I don't buy it. I have run across this methodology from people of certain political and philosophical viewpoints to often. They reword statements so that they will say something they didn't and then act defensive when called on it. Cherry picking is a fine sport.

As for Obama claiming that he didn't know about it until the news broke doesn't surprise me. It reflects the tendency for things to occur in large governments without the people at the top didn't know. It happened to Bush, too. Do you remember the jet flyby of New York which scared the crap out of New York. Bush claimed he didn't know anything about it until after it happened which I accepted because that is the way government works sometimes. There is simply no way for a single person, no matter how well informed, to know everything that happens in such a large organization.

Edited on November 10, 2011 at 10:18 EST to correct incorrect attribution of video posting.

 

I guess you really don't "recognize who said that". Apparently it went way over your head, so don't worry about it.

 

No I didn't.
But I do think BO is stupid for not knowing there are 50 states. I also think he is stupid for claiming our national motto is E Pluribus Unum. These are just a couple of reasons I think BO is a moron.

 

I corrected it. Thanks.

 

...but of course... that's what the focus is on now... on how you incorrectly attributed a video posting to David instead of rlm, or okc (they actually can be considered one unit, and attributes to any is virtually correct, since they are of the same or similar ideology and "have each others backs" here)... all that other "stuff" about rlm's assertion that Obama lied under oath is far less important now...

 

...ohhhh, there you go again... posting intelligent observations and other fluff... (sighs) ...it's what we've come to expect of you though...

 

I'd love to see you and him debate any issue. You'd have to go home and tell your mama that you just had your ass handed to you by a moron. What does that make you?

 

Yeah, this is a pretty common post for him. He starts twisting the topic until it is so far beyond recognition that nobody could follow it and then claims that he was being clear and it just went over your head. I just ignore him. There is no rhyme or reason to anything he says and he always wants the last word. Just give it to him and move along. He'll never be able to admit any mistakes because I'm sure he believes everything he says. He could debate his way out of a wet paper bag.