If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Snopes)   No, the Obamas did not send a plane with just Bo to Maine. Now that that is settled, we can get back to important things... What's George Zimmerman been up to?   (snopes.com) divider line 111
    More: Obvious, Obamas, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, First Family, Portuguese Water Dog, Urban Legends Reference Pages, personal assistants, Aleutians, Democratic presidents  
•       •       •

1996 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Aug 2013 at 7:06 AM (47 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



111 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-08-13 06:43:59 AM
Well, I guess we move the goalposts, then:

Obama is a terrible dog owner for not having his dog travel with his adopted Family the Obamas
 
2013-08-13 06:48:57 AM
xkcdsnopes.jpg

/meh, can't post it from my phone
 
2013-08-13 07:08:53 AM
I love that Republicans have been starting these types of rumors since 1944.
 
2013-08-13 07:16:40 AM
Still better than the Romneys, who would have strapped the dog to the roof of the plane.
 
2013-08-13 07:18:04 AM
Oh fer fark's sake.

The depressing thing is that the Republicans have been getting their constituents to fall for the same lie since Rrosevelt was in office.
 
2013-08-13 07:20:27 AM
Bo didn't fly the plane himself? Damn.
 
2013-08-13 07:20:29 AM
George Zimmerman drove Bo up to Maine, stopping only to cure cancer along the way.
 
2013-08-13 07:23:53 AM
I heard that they put the original Bo to sleep because he knew too much, and replaced him with another dog.
 
2013-08-13 07:25:12 AM

CarnySaur: I heard that they put the original Bo to sleep because he knew too much, and replaced him with another dog.


I was told Bo was gonna release some damning whistleblowing evidence on Barack, so he had the NSA sacrifice Bo to honor our Reptilian overlords
 
2013-08-13 07:27:41 AM
The link doesn't address any of the current claims, however. Plus, Snopes is disingenuous: example, on the page about "Did Al Gore say he invented the Interner" ( http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp ) they say it's false, yet in the same article they use the quote from CNN where Gore said "I took the initiative in creating the Internet". So according to Snopes, he never said he "invented" the Internet, yet he did try to claim credit for "creating" it, but that's two different things.

So yes, the link doesn't do anything to refute any current claims that a helicopter was used to escort the First Dog, only old stores that are several years old. Plus, given Snopes disingenuous nature, they might say that it was false because it wasn't a plane, it was a helicopter. Just like Gore never said he "invented" the Internet, just "created" it.
 
2013-08-13 07:27:59 AM
One of those mails that has FW: FW: FW: before it.
 
2013-08-13 07:30:06 AM

RevRaven: The link doesn't address any of the current claims, however. Plus, Snopes is disingenuous: example, on the page about "Did Al Gore say he invented the Interner" ( http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp ) they say it's false, yet in the same article they use the quote from CNN where Gore said "I took the initiative in creating the Internet". So according to Snopes, he never said he "invented" the Internet, yet he did try to claim credit for "creating" it, but that's two different things.

So yes, the link doesn't do anything to refute any current claims that a helicopter was used to escort the First Dog, only old stores that are several years old. Plus, given Snopes disingenuous nature, they might say that it was false because it wasn't a plane, it was a helicopter. Just like Gore never said he "invented" the Internet, just "created" it.


Did you actually read the whole damn thing?

If you take it in its context it makes sense.

Bad wording has plagued politicians since the dawn of time.
 
2013-08-13 07:32:25 AM
The Snopes is run by the Democratic Party.
 
2013-08-13 07:33:26 AM

cman: Did you actually read the whole damn thing?

If you take it in its context it makes sense.

Bad wording has plagued politicians since the dawn of time.


Yep, and I'm a Network Engineer, and I get what he was saying. However that doesn't change the fact that he was trying to claim credit for creating the Internet. Bad wording/stupid voters work both ways. To some of the less technically inclined people he was saying he created the Internet. He actually said that, hoping people would buy it.

But it doesn't change the fact that he said "I took the initiative in creating the Internet"
 
2013-08-13 07:35:24 AM
Boxing lessons? Krav mcgruff? Buying Jordans?
 
2013-08-13 07:40:48 AM

cman: Well, I guess we move the goalposts, then:

Obama is a terrible dog owner for not having his dog travel with his adopted Family the Obamas


The WND commenters have said exactly that.  Nice call cman.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-08-13 07:44:55 AM
Come to think of it the Benghazi thing was a lot like the claim that Roosevelt knew that the Japanese would attack Pearl Harbor but didn't do anything about to get the US into the war.

And maybe Obama needs to make his own Fala speech.
 
2013-08-13 07:48:27 AM

RevRaven: cman: Did you actually read the whole damn thing?

If you take it in its context it makes sense.

Bad wording has plagued politicians since the dawn of time.

Yep, and I'm a Network Engineer, and I get what he was saying. However that doesn't change the fact that he was trying to claim credit for creating the Internet. Bad wording/stupid voters work both ways. To some of the less technically inclined people he was saying he created the Internet. He actually said that, hoping people would buy it.

But it doesn't change the fact that he said "I took the initiative in creating the Internet"


I think Al Gore is a bad person and a charlatan; but, credit where it is due, the internet would not be where it is as fast as it got here without Al Gores direct participation in funding it.  That is a fact.
 
2013-08-13 07:49:42 AM

cman: CarnySaur: I heard that they put the original Bo to sleep because he knew too much, and replaced him with another dog.

I was told Bo was gonna release some damning whistleblowing evidence on Barack, so he had the NSA sacrifice Bo to honor our Reptilian overlords


No, Bo's alive and well.  He did blow the whistle on a lot of shady stuff, but nobody else could hear it...
 
2013-08-13 07:50:39 AM
This is worse than when Prezidook Hogtits Fartbanger introduced John to Yoko.
 
2013-08-13 07:50:39 AM

RevRaven: cman: Did you actually read the whole damn thing?

If you take it in its context it makes sense.

Bad wording has plagued politicians since the dawn of time.

Yep, and I'm a Network Engineer, and I get what he was saying. However that doesn't change the fact that he was trying to claim credit for creating the Internet.


Those two sentences are contradictory. The second shows you do not get what he was saying, else you'd agree with Snopes' assessment.
 
2013-08-13 07:52:56 AM

Muta: The Snopes is run by the Democratic Party George Soros.


Ooga booga.
 
2013-08-13 07:55:22 AM

RevRaven: The link doesn't address any of the current claims, however. Plus, Snopes is disingenuous: example, on the page about "Did Al Gore say he invented the Interner" ( http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp ) they say it's false, yet in the same article they use the quote from CNN where Gore said "I took the initiative in creating the Internet". So according to Snopes, he never said he "invented" the Internet, yet he did try to claim credit for "creating" it, but that's two different things.

So yes, the link doesn't do anything to refute any current claims that a helicopter was used to escort the First Dog, only old stores that are several years old. Plus, given Snopes disingenuous nature, they might say that it was false because it wasn't a plane, it was a helicopter. Just like Gore never said he "invented" the Internet, just "created" it.


So, when Gore was a Senator, he didn't create a bill to fund the beginnings of the internet or other policies and bills designed to move it forward? How is the Snopes article disingenuous?
 
2013-08-13 07:56:49 AM
Well this thread got stupid fast.
 
2013-08-13 07:58:12 AM

IlGreven: Those two sentences are contradictory. The second shows you do not get what he was saying, else you'd agree with Snopes' assessment.


Nope, I totally get it. He helped sponsor and pass funding that allowed the Internet to move from the hands of government to the private sector, which allowed for our modern Internet to come to be. However, that is quite different from "creating the Internet" as he said on CNN, wherein he was hoping to capitalize on people believing he helped create as in engineer the Internet. That part, the "creating the Internet" part, he did say. There's no way around it.
 
2013-08-13 07:58:20 AM

Doctor Funkenstein: Prezidook Hogtits Fartbanger


That's amazing.
 
2013-08-13 08:00:27 AM

RevRaven: Yep, and I'm a Network Engineer, and I get what he was saying


Well, there you have it!  I know of no better scholar of Congressional actions, such as the HPCA of 1991, that helped accelerate relatively obscure and specialized networks into the Internet and the applications we use to access it today.
 
2013-08-13 08:00:42 AM
Barack Obama.

Bo.


Cute, ain't it?  That $100,000 a year 'dog handler' sure thinks so!
 
2013-08-13 08:02:09 AM
RevRaven:wherein he was hoping to capitalize on people believing he helped create as in engineer the Internet.

And you are saying that snopes is disingenuous?  Dude, you are just seeing what you want to see.
 
2013-08-13 08:14:45 AM
Does this bullshiat story come up every time the family travels?
 
2013-08-13 08:16:08 AM

ManateeGag: Does this bullshiat story come up every time the family travels?



As long as the Obamas (and especially Moochelle) keep demanding 'sacrifice' from everyone, yes - yes it is.
 
2013-08-13 08:16:59 AM

unit63: Well this thread got stupid fast.


And here I was expecting reasoned discussion of dog/helicopter interactions...

// Does that crappy youtube guy have another video?
 
2013-08-13 08:17:29 AM
wait, I thought this was about the dog.  What does Al have to do with it all?

geez, the derp can't even stay on topic anymore.
 
2013-08-13 08:20:39 AM

ManateeGag: Does this bullshiat story come up every time the family travels?


Yes.  When the president takes nice vacations he's being uppity.
 
2013-08-13 08:23:08 AM
The real Bo got sent to that farm where they release the turkeys that are pardoned each Thanksgiving.

/study it out
 
2013-08-13 08:28:03 AM

Neighborhood Watch: ManateeGag: Does this bullshiat story come up every time the family travels?


As long as the Obamas (and especially Moochelle) keep demanding 'sacrifice' from everyone, yes - yes it is.


How spectacularly droll.
 
2013-08-13 08:38:52 AM

dr_blasto: How spectacularly droll.



No, what's 'droll' is Moochelle claiming 'Barack isn't going to let you live the way you used to live'.  And our precious little king saying that 'other countries aren't going to put up with us driving big cars and keeping our thermostats where we want them'.

It's the same hypocritical bullsh*t with all limousine liberals (especially Gore).  Remember Streisand lecturing Americans about hanging clotheslines instead of using electricity to dry clothes?  Do you see any clotheslines behind her beachfront mansion?

The Obamas are greedily scooping up all the 'reparations' they can grab between somber speeches about the need for personal sacrifice and how much 'ordinary' Americans are suffering.  That's why nobody listens to our 'royal family' anymore.
 
2013-08-13 08:38:53 AM

Satan's Bunny Slippers: wait, I thought this was about the dog.  What does Al have to do with it all?

geez, the derp can't even stay on topic anymore.


You don't understand. Al Gore didn't actually claim to invent the internet. Therefore, it stands to reason that Bo flies regularly on a chartered Sopwith Camel, dog-fighting the Red Baron in an attempt to show Obama as anti-communist. But see, we never SAID he was a communist! He's a socialist! And that's where it all falls apart!
 
2013-08-13 08:42:51 AM
If you ever want a real display of utter farking stupidity and insanity just open up any Obama thread on Fark.

/Yikes.
 
2013-08-13 08:43:19 AM

RevRaven: IlGreven: Those two sentences are contradictory. The second shows you do not get what he was saying, else you'd agree with Snopes' assessment.

Nope, I totally get it. He helped sponsor and pass funding that allowed the Internet to move from the hands of government to the private sector, which allowed for our modern Internet to come to be. However, that is quite different from "creating the Internet" as he said on CNN, wherein he was hoping to capitalize on people believing he helped create as in engineer the Internet. That part, the "creating the Internet" part, he did say. There's no way around it.


Nope, no way around it.
Unless you include the beginning of the sentence where he says "I took the initiative in" which changes the meaning.
 
2013-08-13 08:44:20 AM

Neighborhood Watch: ManateeGag: Does this bullshiat story come up every time the family travels?


As long as the Obamas (and especially Moochelle) keep demanding 'sacrifice' from everyone, yes - yes it is.


Hi George!
 
2013-08-13 08:47:04 AM

Neighborhood Watch: dr_blasto: How spectacularly droll.


No, what's 'droll' is Moochelle claiming 'Barack isn't going to let you live the way you used to live'.  And our precious little king saying that 'other countries aren't going to put up with us driving big cars and keeping our thermostats where we want them'.

It's the same hypocritical bullsh*t with all limousine liberals (especially Gore).  Remember Streisand lecturing Americans about hanging clotheslines instead of using electricity to dry clothes?  Do you see any clotheslines behind her beachfront mansion?

The Obamas are greedily scooping up all the 'reparations' they can grab between somber speeches about the need for personal sacrifice and how much 'ordinary' Americans are suffering.  That's why nobody listens to our 'royal family' anymore.


Holy moly. This is great. It has "Moochelle" and "...precious little king!" Shine on crazy pants!

One day, maybe, you'll reconnect with reality and will probably be better off for it. Until then, keep the hits coming; the entertainment from posts utterly devoid of substantive arguments and positively dripping with barely-masked hatred are thoroughly fun to read.
 
2013-08-13 08:48:23 AM

Neighborhood Watch: The Obamas are greedily scooping up all the 'reparations' they can grab between somber speeches about the need for personal sacrifice and how much 'ordinary' Americans are suffering.


I've never called anyone a racist in my life, giving to believe the word is somewhat overused.

You're a racist.
 
2013-08-13 08:53:33 AM
Demanding reparations... That's a good one.

Zing!
 
2013-08-13 08:56:35 AM

evilmrsock: Satan's Bunny Slippers: wait, I thought this was about the dog.  What does Al have to do with it all?

geez, the derp can't even stay on topic anymore.

You don't understand. Al Gore didn't actually claim to invent the internet. Therefore, it stands to reason that Bo flies regularly on a chartered Sopwith Camel, dog-fighting the Red Baron in an attempt to show Obama as anti-communist. But see, we never SAID he was a communist! He's a socialist! And that's where it all falls apart!



O.M.G.

How could I have been so blind?  You speak the truth that has torn the blinders from my eyes!

OMGOMGOMGOMG

everything that I thought I knew is all lies.  LIES!

I.......I have to go lie down now.
 
2013-08-13 08:58:53 AM

evilmrsock: Therefore, it stands to reason that Bo flies regularly on a chartered Sopwith Camel, dog-fighting the Red Baron in an attempt to show Obama as anti-communist.


I'd actually watch this cartoon.
 
2013-08-13 09:17:46 AM

RevRaven: IlGreven: Those two sentences are contradictory. The second shows you do not get what he was saying, else you'd agree with Snopes' assessment.

Nope, I totally get it. He helped sponsor and pass funding that allowed the Internet to move from the hands of government to the private sector, which allowed for our modern Internet to come to be. However, that is quite different from "creating the Internet" as he said on CNN, wherein he was hoping to capitalize on people believing he helped create as in engineer the Internet. That part, the "creating the Internet" part, he did say. There's no way around it.


So you admit that without Al Gore the internet would not exist as it does today - that he played some part in bringing it about.  However, you're taking issue with something he didn't actually say, something only you heard - that he was the only person going around the country running wires and setting up routers.

This seems to be a common theme with conservatives - arguing not about what someone actually said or did, but instead about something only you heard from the voices in your head.  That's how we get a debate over whether Obama called Benghazi terrorism or whether 'acts of terror' in a Benghazi speech meant only other incidents.  It's how we get Ron Paul debating a actor in blackface.  It's how Clint Eastwood gets standing ovations for debating a chair.

Can anyone give me the technical name for this habit?  Because it seems to be quite common with conservatives and I'd like a proper noun for it.
 
2013-08-13 09:19:16 AM

Karac: RevRaven: IlGreven: Those two sentences are contradictory. The second shows you do not get what he was saying, else you'd agree with Snopes' assessment.

Nope, I totally get it. He helped sponsor and pass funding that allowed the Internet to move from the hands of government to the private sector, which allowed for our modern Internet to come to be. However, that is quite different from "creating the Internet" as he said on CNN, wherein he was hoping to capitalize on people believing he helped create as in engineer the Internet. That part, the "creating the Internet" part, he did say. There's no way around it.

So you admit that without Al Gore the internet would not exist as it does today - that he played some part in bringing it about.  However, you're taking issue with something he didn't actually say, something only you heard - that he was the only person going around the country running wires and setting up routers.

This seems to be a common theme with conservatives - arguing not about what someone actually said or did, but instead about something only you heard from the voices in your head.  That's how we get a debate over whether Obama called Benghazi terrorism or whether 'acts of terror' in a Benghazi speech meant only other incidents.  It's how we get Ron Paul debating a actor in blackface.  It's how Clint Eastwood gets standing ovations for debating a chair.

Can anyone give me the technical name for this habit?  Because it seems to be quite common with conservatives and I'd like a proper noun for it.


Borderline retardation?
 
2013-08-13 09:20:01 AM

Neighborhood Watch: Moochelle


Your post would be much more convincing if you referred to the First Lady as "The M00ch".

/shut up and PASS THE bacon!
 
2013-08-13 09:40:02 AM

no_dice: Karac: RevRaven: IlGreven: Those two sentences are contradictory. The second shows you do not get what he was saying, else you'd agree with Snopes' assessment.

Nope, I totally get it. He helped sponsor and pass funding that allowed the Internet to move from the hands of government to the private sector, which allowed for our modern Internet to come to be. However, that is quite different from "creating the Internet" as he said on CNN, wherein he was hoping to capitalize on people believing he helped create as in engineer the Internet. That part, the "creating the Internet" part, he did say. There's no way around it.

So you admit that without Al Gore the internet would not exist as it does today - that he played some part in bringing it about.  However, you're taking issue with something he didn't actually say, something only you heard - that he was the only person going around the country running wires and setting up routers.

This seems to be a common theme with conservatives - arguing not about what someone actually said or did, but instead about something only you heard from the voices in your head.  That's how we get a debate over whether Obama called Benghazi terrorism or whether 'acts of terror' in a Benghazi speech meant only other incidents.  It's how we get Ron Paul debating a actor in blackface.  It's how Clint Eastwood gets standing ovations for debating a chair.

Can anyone give me the technical name for this habit?  Because it seems to be quite common with conservatives and I'd like a proper noun for it.

Borderline retardation?


Bachmannized.
 
2013-08-13 09:46:25 AM

notto: no_dice: Karac: RevRaven: IlGreven: Those two sentences are contradictory. The second shows you do not get what he was saying, else you'd agree with Snopes' assessment.

Nope, I totally get it. He helped sponsor and pass funding that allowed the Internet to move from the hands of government to the private sector, which allowed for our modern Internet to come to be. However, that is quite different from "creating the Internet" as he said on CNN, wherein he was hoping to capitalize on people believing he helped create as in engineer the Internet. That part, the "creating the Internet" part, he did say. There's no way around it.

So you admit that without Al Gore the internet would not exist as it does today - that he played some part in bringing it about.  However, you're taking issue with something he didn't actually say, something only you heard - that he was the only person going around the country running wires and setting up routers.

This seems to be a common theme with conservatives - arguing not about what someone actually said or did, but instead about something only you heard from the voices in your head.  That's how we get a debate over whether Obama called Benghazi terrorism or whether 'acts of terror' in a Benghazi speech meant only other incidents.  It's how we get Ron Paul debating a actor in blackface.  It's how Clint Eastwood gets standing ovations for debating a chair.

Can anyone give me the technical name for this habit?  Because it seems to be quite common with conservatives and I'd like a proper noun for it.

Borderline retardation?

Bachmannized.


Getting Triggy With It.
 
2013-08-13 09:48:05 AM

dumbobruni: notto: no_dice: Karac: RevRaven: IlGreven: Those two sentences are contradictory. The second shows you do not get what he was saying, else you'd agree with Snopes' assessment.

Nope, I totally get it. He helped sponsor and pass funding that allowed the Internet to move from the hands of government to the private sector, which allowed for our modern Internet to come to be. However, that is quite different from "creating the Internet" as he said on CNN, wherein he was hoping to capitalize on people believing he helped create as in engineer the Internet. That part, the "creating the Internet" part, he did say. There's no way around it.

So you admit that without Al Gore the internet would not exist as it does today - that he played some part in bringing it about.  However, you're taking issue with something he didn't actually say, something only you heard - that he was the only person going around the country running wires and setting up routers.

This seems to be a common theme with conservatives - arguing not about what someone actually said or did, but instead about something only you heard from the voices in your head.  That's how we get a debate over whether Obama called Benghazi terrorism or whether 'acts of terror' in a Benghazi speech meant only other incidents.  It's how we get Ron Paul debating a actor in blackface.  It's how Clint Eastwood gets standing ovations for debating a chair.

Can anyone give me the technical name for this habit?  Because it seems to be quite common with conservatives and I'd like a proper noun for it.

Borderline retardation?

Bachmannized.

Getting Triggy With It.


Palinology
 
2013-08-13 10:12:28 AM
I heard Zimmerman was changing his name to Ben Gazi, so the administration will quit talking about him.
 
2013-08-13 10:13:10 AM

Arkanaut: Neighborhood Watch: ManateeGag: Does this bullshiat story come up every time the family travels?


As long as the Obamas (and especially Moochelle) keep demanding 'sacrifice' from everyone, yes - yes it is.

Hi George!


Reads more like Lennie to me.

bks9.books.google.com
 
2013-08-13 10:21:27 AM

Satan's Bunny Slippers: dumbobruni: notto: no_dice: Karac: RevRaven: IlGreven: Those two sentences are contradictory. The second shows you do not get what he was saying, else you'd agree with Snopes' assessment.

Nope, I totally get it. He helped sponsor and pass funding that allowed the Internet to move from the hands of government to the private sector, which allowed for our modern Internet to come to be. However, that is quite different from "creating the Internet" as he said on CNN, wherein he was hoping to capitalize on people believing he helped create as in engineer the Internet. That part, the "creating the Internet" part, he did say. There's no way around it.

So you admit that without Al Gore the internet would not exist as it does today - that he played some part in bringing it about.  However, you're taking issue with something he didn't actually say, something only you heard - that he was the only person going around the country running wires and setting up routers.

This seems to be a common theme with conservatives - arguing not about what someone actually said or did, but instead about something only you heard from the voices in your head.  That's how we get a debate over whether Obama called Benghazi terrorism or whether 'acts of terror' in a Benghazi speech meant only other incidents.  It's how we get Ron Paul debating a actor in blackface.  It's how Clint Eastwood gets standing ovations for debating a chair.

Can anyone give me the technical name for this habit?  Because it seems to be quite common with conservatives and I'd like a proper noun for it.

Borderline retardation?

Bachmannized.

Getting Triggy With It.

Palinology


What's wrong with Republican?
 
2013-08-13 10:32:23 AM
Hey, AlGore - you didn't build that!
 
2013-08-13 10:33:24 AM
In September 2011, someone thought to tack the following preface onto the "Bo travels on his own plane" canard: IN THE MUSLIM RELIGION, DOGS ARE UNCLEAN AND NOT ALLOWED TO TRAVEL IN THE SAME VEHICLE AS THE MUSLIM.

You can have them in your house, but not your car. Sounds legit.
 
2013-08-13 10:40:18 AM
Lazy trolls can always phone it in with race-baiting. Having a blah president is a godsend for them.
 
2013-08-13 10:52:41 AM
Karac: Can anyone give me the technical name for this habit? Because it seems to be quite common with conservatives and I'd like a proper noun for it.

Delusion.
 
2013-08-13 11:02:13 AM
The smallest measure of time was recorded in this thread between 0 and derp.
 
2013-08-13 11:17:22 AM

vernonFL: I love that Republicans have been starting these types of rumors since 1944.


Hey, they had a hell of a year in 1928.
 
2013-08-13 11:21:26 AM
I never voted for Obama and disagree with his politics, but do we have to go into this shiat?  Is it really relevant?  Does him flying the dog there validate the principles of small-government conservatism?  I know I sound naïve as shiat, and being in government myself I should know better, but I really wish we could accept that someone who disagrees with you about the role of government in American society is not automatically evil and morally inferior.  They just have a different opinion.  Sometimes, a different subculture.  Why's that such a big deal?
 
2013-08-13 11:21:38 AM

Karac: RevRaven: IlGreven: Those two sentences are contradictory. The second shows you do not get what he was saying, else you'd agree with Snopes' assessment.

Nope, I totally get it. He helped sponsor and pass funding that allowed the Internet to move from the hands of government to the private sector, which allowed for our modern Internet to come to be. However, that is quite different from "creating the Internet" as he said on CNN, wherein he was hoping to capitalize on people believing he helped create as in engineer the Internet. That part, the "creating the Internet" part, he did say. There's no way around it.

So you admit that without Al Gore the internet would not exist as it does today - that he played some part in bringing it about.  However, you're taking issue with something he didn't actually say, something only you heard - that he was the only person going around the country running wires and setting up routers.

This seems to be a common theme with conservatives - arguing not about what someone actually said or did, but instead about something only you heard from the voices in your head.  That's how we get a debate over whether Obama called Benghazi terrorism or whether 'acts of terror' in a Benghazi speech meant only other incidents.  It's how we get Ron Paul debating a actor in blackface.  It's how Clint Eastwood gets standing ovations for debating a chair.

Can anyone give me the technical name for this habit?  Because it seems to be quite common with conservatives and I'd like a proper noun for it.


Cognitive Dissonance
Deliberately Obtuse
Stupid on Purpose

They all work.
 
2013-08-13 11:22:49 AM
 
2013-08-13 11:28:12 AM

trey101: yep, he just flies on helicopters.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/10236302/First -d og-Bo-is-airlifted-to-Obama-holiday-home.html

just in case it doesnt link it...   http://bit.ly/1cFyekj


according to your article it was once in one of the secret service ospreys (not a helicopter) that were coming anyways.

What a scandal!
 
2013-08-13 11:28:39 AM

FLMountainMan: I really wish we could accept that someone who disagrees with you about the role of government in American society is not automatically evil and morally inferior.



Do you interact with Fark LiberalsTM much?
 
2013-08-13 11:29:25 AM

FLMountainMan: I never voted for Obama and disagree with his politics, but do we have to go into this shiat?  Is it really relevant?  Does him flying the dog there validate the principles of small-government conservatism?  I know I sound naïve as shiat, and being in government myself I should know better, but I really wish we could accept that someone who disagrees with you about the role of government in American society is not automatically evil and morally inferior.  They just have a different opinion.  Sometimes, a different subculture.  Why's that such a big deal?


Florida, huh? You're going to be purged from the voter rolls for that comment.
 
2013-08-13 11:40:23 AM

Neighborhood Watch: FLMountainMan: I really wish we could accept that someone who disagrees with you about the role of government in American society is not automatically evil and morally inferior.


Do you interact with Fark LiberalsTM much?


Well if you spent your time making cogent points about the role of government in society instead of witticism like "moochelle," birtherism and "reparations" you would be engaged at the that level.  But since you don't people treat you like a clown, because you are, in fact, a clown.  Clowns are fun to laugh at.
 
2013-08-13 11:45:50 AM

amiable: Neighborhood Watch: FLMountainMan: I really wish we could accept that someone who disagrees with you about the role of government in American society is not automatically evil and morally inferior.


Do you interact with Fark LiberalsTM much?

Well if you spent your time making cogent points about the role of government in society instead of witticism like "moochelle," birtherism and "reparations" you would be engaged at the that level.  But since you don't people treat you like a clown, because you are, in fact, a clown.  Clowns are fun to laugh at.


Sure you want to use that analogy?  Most Farkers are terrified of clowns, in case you hadn't noticed....

/no one's terrified of NW
//or slashies
 
2013-08-13 11:49:26 AM

Satan's Bunny Slippers: dumbobruni: notto: no_dice: Karac: RevRaven: IlGreven: Those two sentences are contradictory. The second shows you do not get what he was saying, else you'd agree with Snopes' assessment.

Nope, I totally get it. He helped sponsor and pass funding that allowed the Internet to move from the hands of government to the private sector, which allowed for our modern Internet to come to be. However, that is quite different from "creating the Internet" as he said on CNN, wherein he was hoping to capitalize on people believing he helped create as in engineer the Internet. That part, the "creating the Internet" part, he did say. There's no way around it.

So you admit that without Al Gore the internet would not exist as it does today - that he played some part in bringing it about.  However, you're taking issue with something he didn't actually say, something only you heard - that he was the only person going around the country running wires and setting up routers.

This seems to be a common theme with conservatives - arguing not about what someone actually said or did, but instead about something only you heard from the voices in your head.  That's how we get a debate over whether Obama called Benghazi terrorism or whether 'acts of terror' in a Benghazi speech meant only other incidents.  It's how we get Ron Paul debating a actor in blackface.  It's how Clint Eastwood gets standing ovations for debating a chair.

Can anyone give me the technical name for this habit?  Because it seems to be quite common with conservatives and I'd like a proper noun for it.

Borderline retardation?

Bachmannized.

Getting Triggy With It.

Palinology


"Watching the Neighborhood"
 
2013-08-13 11:49:29 AM

RevRaven: However, that is quite different from "creating the Internet" as he said on CNN, wherein he was hoping to capitalize on people believing he helped create as in engineer the Internet. That part, the "creating the Internet" part, he did say. There's no way around it.


So basically your argument is this: you understand perfectly what he meant, and you agree that what he meant is completely valid. However, your amazing telepathic abilities allow you to determine that his secret intent was to have people less smart than you misunderstand him and infer something entirely different? And furthermore, the astounding reach of your telepathy allows you to discover that many people, none of whom you have ever met or discussed this, did indeed fall for his clever misdirection?

Seriously, that's your position? Because I have to tell you, it's not making you sound very smart.
 
2013-08-13 12:08:05 PM

notto: Satan's Bunny Slippers: dumbobruni: notto: no_dice: Karac: RevRaven: IlGreven: Those two sentences are contradictory. The second shows you do not get what he was saying, else you'd agree with Snopes' assessment.

Nope, I totally get it. He helped sponsor and pass funding that allowed the Internet to move from the hands of government to the private sector, which allowed for our modern Internet to come to be. However, that is quite different from "creating the Internet" as he said on CNN, wherein he was hoping to capitalize on people believing he helped create as in engineer the Internet. That part, the "creating the Internet" part, he did say. There's no way around it.

So you admit that without Al Gore the internet would not exist as it does today - that he played some part in bringing it about.  However, you're taking issue with something he didn't actually say, something only you heard - that he was the only person going around the country running wires and setting up routers.

This seems to be a common theme with conservatives - arguing not about what someone actually said or did, but instead about something only you heard from the voices in your head.  That's how we get a debate over whether Obama called Benghazi terrorism or whether 'acts of terror' in a Benghazi speech meant only other incidents.  It's how we get Ron Paul debating a actor in blackface.  It's how Clint Eastwood gets standing ovations for debating a chair.

Can anyone give me the technical name for this habit?  Because it seems to be quite common with conservatives and I'd like a proper noun for it.

Borderline retardation?

Bachmannized.

Getting Triggy With It.

Palinology

"Watching the Neighborhood"


Manufacturing Poutrage.
 
2013-08-13 12:09:48 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: notto: Satan's Bunny Slippers: dumbobruni: notto: no_dice: Karac: RevRaven: IlGreven: Those two sentences are contradictory. The second shows you do not get what he was saying, else you'd agree with Snopes' assessment.

Nope, I totally get it. He helped sponsor and pass funding that allowed the Internet to move from the hands of government to the private sector, which allowed for our modern Internet to come to be. However, that is quite different from "creating the Internet" as he said on CNN, wherein he was hoping to capitalize on people believing he helped create as in engineer the Internet. That part, the "creating the Internet" part, he did say. There's no way around it.

So you admit that without Al Gore the internet would not exist as it does today - that he played some part in bringing it about.  However, you're taking issue with something he didn't actually say, something only you heard - that he was the only person going around the country running wires and setting up routers.

This seems to be a common theme with conservatives - arguing not about what someone actually said or did, but instead about something only you heard from the voices in your head.  That's how we get a debate over whether Obama called Benghazi terrorism or whether 'acts of terror' in a Benghazi speech meant only other incidents.  It's how we get Ron Paul debating a actor in blackface.  It's how Clint Eastwood gets standing ovations for debating a chair.

Can anyone give me the technical name for this habit?  Because it seems to be quite common with conservatives and I'd like a proper noun for it.

Borderline retardation?

Bachmannized.

Getting Triggy With It.

Palinology

"Watching the Neighborhood"

Manufacturing Poutrage.


Puttin' the Gravy in the Giblets
 
2013-08-13 12:10:32 PM

czetie: RevRaven: However, that is quite different from "creating the Internet" as he said on CNN, wherein he was hoping to capitalize on people believing he helped create as in engineer the Internet. That part, the "creating the Internet" part, he did say. There's no way around it.

So basically your argument is this: you understand perfectly what he meant, and you agree that what he meant is completely valid. However, your amazing telepathic abilities allow you to determine that his secret intent was to have people less smart than you misunderstand him and infer something entirely different? And furthermore, the astounding reach of your telepathy allows you to discover that many people, none of whom you have ever met or discussed this, did indeed fall for his clever misdirection?

Seriously, that's your position? Because I have to tell you, it's not making you sound very smart.


These are the replies that keeps me coming back to Fark.
 
2013-08-13 12:44:48 PM
I hear Romney's dog is jealous.  He got transported on the top of a station wagon during a family vacation.

www.momscleanairforce.org
 
2013-08-13 12:44:57 PM

Rev. Skarekroe: RevRaven: IlGreven: Those two sentences are contradictory. The second shows you do not get what he was saying, else you'd agree with Snopes' assessment.

Nope, I totally get it. He helped sponsor and pass funding that allowed the Internet to move from the hands of government to the private sector, which allowed for our modern Internet to come to be. However, that is quite different from "creating the Internet" as he said on CNN, wherein he was hoping to capitalize on people believing he helped create as in engineer the Internet. That part, the "creating the Internet" part, he did say. There's no way around it.

Nope, no way around it.
Unless you include the beginning of the sentence where he says "I took the initiative in" which changes the meaning.


Is this like J4T loonies saying that Zimmerman disobeyed the police dispatcher who said "we don't need you to do that" by leaving out the part where he said "ok" and then stopped running?
 
2013-08-13 12:47:30 PM
Zimmerman?  The right wing assured us that he would be hunted down and murdered by lefty terrorists by now.
 
2013-08-13 12:57:54 PM

SamWaters: I hear Romney's dog is jealous.  He got transported on the top of a station wagon during a family vacation.



Yeah, but they weren't rich (they didn't have Airforce One or a $100,0000 a year 'dog handler', either) and the dog liked it.

But they didn't eat him.  So there's that.


/btw, does the $100,000 a year 'dog handler' get to party on these royal vacations as well, or is the dog not 'handled' during this time period?
 
2013-08-13 12:59:00 PM

frepnog: J4T loonies


What does this mean?
 
2013-08-13 01:02:43 PM

JusticeandIndependence: frepnog: J4T loonies

What does this mean?


people that ignore the reality of the situation and claim that an innocent child was stalked and murdered.  Add in a token "stand your ground" reference and we have it.
 
2013-08-13 01:19:52 PM

lilbjorn: Zimmerman?  The right wing assured us that he would be hunted down and murdered by lefty terrorists by now.


They're still bummed about the lack of race riots.
 
2013-08-13 01:22:51 PM

frepnog: Is this like J4T loonies saying that Zimmerman disobeyed the police dispatcher who said "we don't need you to do that" by leaving out the part where he said "ok" and then stopped running?


No, it's like folks thinking that watching and reading everything about a murder trial where one of only two participants is unable to participate because, you know, they're dead makes those same folks magically omniscient, capable of speaking with exact authority as to why poor old George Zimmerman was just defending himself from an angry, giant, drug-dealing maniac of a teenager.
 
2013-08-13 01:23:37 PM

frepnog: JusticeandIndependence: frepnog: J4T loonies

What does this mean?

people that ignore the reality of the situation and claim that an innocent child was stalked and murdered.  Add in a token "stand your ground" reference and we have it.


An innocent child was standing his ground when Zimmerman shot him.
 
2013-08-13 01:30:40 PM

Neighborhood Watch: SamWaters: I hear Romney's dog is jealous.  He got transported on the top of a station wagon during a family vacation.


Yeah, but they weren't rich (they didn't have Airforce One or a $100,0000 a year 'dog handler', either) and the dog liked it.

But they didn't eat him.  So there's that.


/btw, does the $100,000 a year 'dog handler' get to party on these royal vacations as well, or is the dog not 'handled' during this time period?


I honestly feel kind of bad for you:  http://wafflesatnoon.com/2013/02/26/does-obama-pay-dog-trainer-102000 - at-tax-payer-expense/

"As evidence of sloppy research, Gray at one point in his book refers to the White House paying $102,000 to a man who walks Obama's dog, saying that one point the "handler" was flown to Maine with the dog. (This anecdote also ended up in the Daily Caller article.)

This appears to refer to Reggie Love, then the president's personal assistant, who was once spotted taking the dog off an airplane. But the local Maine newspaper initially misreported that Love and the dog were flown on their own airplane. The article was corrected,  but not before the blogosphere looked up Love's salary and went wild with the tale of the $102,000-a-year dog handler. "
 
2013-08-13 01:32:12 PM

frepnog: J4T loonies


Seriously, what the heck is this now?
 
2013-08-13 01:43:41 PM
Fart_Machine:   They're MSNBC is still bummed about the lack of race riots.


FIFY
 
2013-08-13 01:51:51 PM

someonelse: frepnog: J4T loonies

Seriously, what the heck is this now?


That's a term used by that special subset of people who think that it's perfectly OK to stalk a teenager in your pickup truck; get out and chase said teenager on foot when he understandably runs away from you; get into a fight with the kid more than two minutes after you're told that cops are on the way and to stop chasing the kid; shoot him dead when he's, understandably, attempting to kick your confrontational stalker ass; and get away with it.
 
2013-08-13 02:17:34 PM

someonelse: frepnog: J4T loonies

Seriously, what the heck is this now?


All threads involving black people have to be Trayvon Martin threads now.
 
2013-08-13 02:32:35 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: someonelse: frepnog: J4T loonies

Seriously, what the heck is this now?

That's a term used by that special subset of people who think that it's perfectly OK to stalk a teenager in your pickup truck; get out and chase said teenager on foot when he understandably runs away from you; get into a fight with the kid more than two minutes after you're told that cops are on the way and to stop chasing the kid; shoot him dead when he's, understandably, attempting to kick your confrontational stalker ass; and get away with it.


haha.  there is one of those people now that remain willfully ignorant of what transpired.

The youth in question left the area, went to his home, and returned and attacked a man who then was forced to shoot the youth in self defense.  Which is why the man in question was acquitted of the crime of which he was charged.

geologistsinthemovies.com

Obtuse.  Don't be that.
 
2013-08-13 02:32:40 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: someonelse: frepnog: J4T loonies

Seriously, what the heck is this now?

That's a term used by that special subset of people who think that it's perfectly OK to stalk a teenager in your pickup truck; get out and chase said teenager on foot when he understandably runs away from you; get into a fight with the kid more than two minutes after you're told that cops are on the way and to stop chasing the kid; shoot him dead when he's, understandably, attempting to kick your confrontational stalker ass; and get away with it.


Sadly, in Florida, it is perfectly ok, legal even.
 
2013-08-13 02:34:27 PM

21-37-42: Sadly, in Florida, it is perfectly ok, legal even.


it is neither legal or ok to stalk and shoot someone, even in Florida.  It is however ok and legal to shoot someone that is attacking you and has you on the ground continuing their assault as you scream for help.

The law.  Funny how it works.
 
2013-08-13 02:53:34 PM

Muta: The Snopes is run by the Democratic Party.


I have Facebook friends who argue in all seriousness that snopes has a liberal bias, and I have to point out that it was founded and is run by two former GOP operatives who describe themselves as "registered republicans."

But then, these people still believe in the $8 billion Planned Parenthood Abortionplex.  Cognitive bias, how does it work?
 
2013-08-13 03:02:12 PM

Neighborhood Watch: /btw, does the $100,000 a year 'dog handler' get to party on these royal vacations as well, or is the dog not 'handled' during this time period?


You're trying to insinuate that Obama pays someone $100K to take care of his dog.  This is a lie.

From the link, the person who runs the obedience school that Bo briefly attended makes $102K per year off the entire business, not just the Obamas.

You know, you might learn something if you get your head out of that outrage echo chamber once in a while.  Life can be tough when reality is always subservient to the horrible things that you merely WISH were true.
 
2013-08-13 03:10:51 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: someonelse: frepnog: J4T loonies

Seriously, what the heck is this now?

That's a term used by that special subset of people who think that it's perfectly OK to stalk a teenager in your pickup truck; get out and chase said teenager on foot when he understandably runs away from you; get into a fight with the kid more than two minutes after you're told that cops are on the way and to stop chasing the kid; shoot him dead when he's, understandably, attempting to kick your confrontational stalker ass; and get away with it.


Meh I just call them what they are, Hispanic.
 
2013-08-13 03:21:24 PM

Neighborhood Watch: ManateeGag: Does this bullshiat story come up every time the family travels?


As long as the Obamas (and especially Moochelle) keep demanding 'sacrifice' from everyone, yes - yes it is.


By the Sequester? The same Sequester that cut budgets across the board, except for the families of Congressman and their families, but still impacted the President and his family? The same Sequester that could have been avoided if Congress pulled their heads out of their asses and actually paid off debts that Congress itself promised to pay off?
 
2013-08-13 03:23:31 PM

dinch: Demanding reparations... That's a good one.

Zing!


Meh, Dave Chappelle did it better
 
2013-08-13 03:51:00 PM

frepnog: The youth in question left the area, went to his home, and returned and attacked a man who then was forced to shoot the youth in self defense.  Which is why the man in question was acquitted of the crime of which he was charged.

Obtuse.  Don't be that.


I've never once heard this version of events.  Where does this theory come from?
 
2013-08-13 04:06:16 PM

Johnny_Whistle: frepnog: The youth in question left the area, went to his home, and returned and attacked a man who then was forced to shoot the youth in self defense.  Which is why the man in question was acquitted of the crime of which he was charged.

Obtuse.  Don't be that.

I've never once heard this version of events.  Where does this theory come from?


from the testimony and evidence presented at the trial.  seriously, where the fark you been?
 
2013-08-13 04:36:14 PM

frepnog: Johnny_Whistle: frepnog: The youth in question left the area, went to his home, and returned and attacked a man who then was forced to shoot the youth in self defense.  Which is why the man in question was acquitted of the crime of which he was charged.

Obtuse.  Don't be that.

I've never once heard this version of events.  Where does this theory come from?

from the testimony and evidence presented at the trial.  seriously, where the fark you been?


Can you provide a link to the testimony showing that Trayvon Martin went home and then came back?  I've seriously never heard this account anywhere.
 
2013-08-13 04:36:45 PM

frepnog: J4T loonies


Now that I realize what this means: Let it go, man. Just let it go. Go home. It's over.

www.filmbuffonline.com
 
2013-08-13 05:00:41 PM

frepnog: haha.  there is one of those people now that remain willfully ignorant of what transpired.

The youth in question left the area, went to his home, and returned and attacked a man who then was forced to shoot the youth in self defense.  Which is why the man in question was acquitted of the crime of which he was charged.

Obtuse.  Don't be that.


Poor George.
Just minding his own business.
Inexplicably and viciously "attacked" more thantwo minutes into the twenty second walk back to his pickup.
(He'd totally stopped trying to  stalk  follow the teenager.
Is "forced" to shoot the unarmed teenager he'd been stalking dead.
And I'm supposed to call that self-defense?

And I'm sure that you'll be perfectly fine with some random stranger strapping on a firearm and stalking your unarmed teenager at night. Should your kid stop running and confront that stranger, you are perfectly fine with that stranger shooting your kid dead.
Right?
 
2013-08-13 05:33:40 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: frepnog: haha.  there is one of those people now that remain willfully ignorant of what transpired.

The youth in question left the area, went to his home, and returned and attacked a man who then was forced to shoot the youth in self defense.  Which is why the man in question was acquitted of the crime of which he was charged.

Obtuse.  Don't be that.

Poor George.
Just minding his own business.
Inexplicably and viciously "attacked" more thantwo minutes into the twenty second walk back to his pickup.
(He'd totally stopped trying to  stalk  follow the teenager.
Is "forced" to shoot the unarmed teenager he'd been stalking dead.
And I'm supposed to call that self-defense?

And I'm sure that you'll be perfectly fine with some random stranger strapping on a firearm and stalking your unarmed teenager at night. Should your kid stop running and confront that stranger, you are perfectly fine with that stranger shooting your kid dead.
Right?


Dude. You don't attack people. Period. If you do, you just might get shot. You can spew that garbage all day, but trayvon is dead because he attacked a man and continued that attack until his victim feared for his life. Trayvon went home and then came back to kick zimmerman's ass. His own friend admitted it. So i am sorry but your outlook on the situation is wrong. Do your research, put emotion aside and face the truth - that if you go around attacking people you might end up farking dead.
 
2013-08-13 06:10:49 PM

frepnog: demaL-demaL-yeH: frepnog: haha.  there is one of those people now that remain willfully ignorant of what transpired.

The youth in question left the area, went to his home, and returned and attacked a man who then was forced to shoot the youth in self defense.  Which is why the man in question was acquitted of the crime of which he was charged.

Obtuse.  Don't be that.

Poor George.
Just minding his own business.
Inexplicably and viciously "attacked" more thantwo minutes into the twenty second walk back to his pickup.
(He'd totally stopped trying to  stalk  follow the teenager.
Is "forced" to shoot the unarmed teenager he'd been stalking dead.
And I'm supposed to call that self-defense?

And I'm sure that you'll be perfectly fine with some random stranger strapping on a firearm and stalking your unarmed teenager at night. Should your kid stop running and confront that stranger, you are perfectly fine with that stranger shooting your kid dead.
Right?

Dude. You don't attack people. Period. If you do, you just might get shot. You can spew that garbage all day, but trayvon is dead because he attacked a man and continued that attack until his victim feared for his life. Trayvon went home and then came back to kick zimmerman's ass. His own friend admitted it. So i am sorry but your outlook on the situation is wrong. Do your research, put emotion aside and face the truth - that if you go around attacking people you might end up farking dead.


That there is a big assertion. And the only evidence we have of that assertion is that of the man who shot an unarmed teenager dead.

/A teenager who, had he survived and Zimmerman died, had an ironclad self-defense case: He was chasing me and he had a gun.
//It's even on the 911 tapes.
 
2013-08-13 06:26:32 PM
Fark needs a new ignore feature to hide posts that have anything whatsoever to do with the Zimmerman case.

Seriously people, let it go and stop thread-jacking. Yes, subby shares the blame with the sarcastic jab at some people's obsession with the story in the headline, but he isn't forcing you to be the type of idiots he was mocking.You are doing that yourselves.
 
2013-08-13 07:28:23 PM

frepnog: demaL-demaL-yeH: frepnog: haha.  there is one of those people now that remain willfully ignorant of what transpired.

The youth in question left the area, went to his home, and returned and attacked a man who then was forced to shoot the youth in self defense.  Which is why the man in question was acquitted of the crime of which he was charged.

Obtuse.  Don't be that.

Poor George.
Just minding his own business.
Inexplicably and viciously "attacked" more thantwo minutes into the twenty second walk back to his pickup.
(He'd totally stopped trying to  stalk  follow the teenager.
Is "forced" to shoot the unarmed teenager he'd been stalking dead.
And I'm supposed to call that self-defense?

And I'm sure that you'll be perfectly fine with some random stranger strapping on a firearm and stalking your unarmed teenager at night. Should your kid stop running and confront that stranger, you are perfectly fine with that stranger shooting your kid dead.
Right?

Dude. You don't attack people. Period. If you do, you just might get shot. You can spew that garbage all day, but trayvon is dead because he attacked a man and continued that attack until his victim feared for his life. Trayvon went home and then came back to kick zimmerman's ass. His own friend admitted it. So i am sorry but your outlook on the situation is wrong. Do your research, put emotion aside and face the truth - that if you go around attacking people you might end up farking dead.


No, Trayvon did not go home.  Quite simply never happened.
 
2013-08-13 07:42:16 PM

no_dice: frepnog: demaL-demaL-yeH: frepnog: haha.  there is one of those people now that remain willfully ignorant of what transpired.

The youth in question left the area, went to his home, and returned and attacked a man who then was forced to shoot the youth in self defense.  Which is why the man in question was acquitted of the crime of which he was charged.

Obtuse.  Don't be that.

Poor George.
Just minding his own business.
Inexplicably and viciously "attacked" more thantwo minutes into the twenty second walk back to his pickup.
(He'd totally stopped trying to  stalk  follow the teenager.
Is "forced" to shoot the unarmed teenager he'd been stalking dead.
And I'm supposed to call that self-defense?

And I'm sure that you'll be perfectly fine with some random stranger strapping on a firearm and stalking your unarmed teenager at night. Should your kid stop running and confront that stranger, you are perfectly fine with that stranger shooting your kid dead.
Right?

Dude. You don't attack people. Period. If you do, you just might get shot. You can spew that garbage all day, but trayvon is dead because he attacked a man and continued that attack until his victim feared for his life. Trayvon went home and then came back to kick zimmerman's ass. His own friend admitted it. So i am sorry but your outlook on the situation is wrong. Do your research, put emotion aside and face the truth - that if you go around attacking people you might end up farking dead.

No, Trayvon did not go home.  Quite simply never happened.


Sorry you think so. However his friend rachel admitted it. And admitted that trayvon went to whoop cracka ass, in her words. But you are entitled to your opinion, even if reality doesn't agree.

/agrees. No more zimm. fark that dude.
 
2013-08-13 07:49:18 PM

frepnog: no_dice: frepnog: demaL-demaL-yeH: frepnog: haha.  there is one of those people now that remain willfully ignorant of what transpired.

The youth in question left the area, went to his home, and returned and attacked a man who then was forced to shoot the youth in self defense.  Which is why the man in question was acquitted of the crime of which he was charged.

Obtuse.  Don't be that.

Poor George.
Just minding his own business.
Inexplicably and viciously "attacked" more thantwo minutes into the twenty second walk back to his pickup.
(He'd totally stopped trying to  stalk  follow the teenager.
Is "forced" to shoot the unarmed teenager he'd been stalking dead.
And I'm supposed to call that self-defense?

And I'm sure that you'll be perfectly fine with some random stranger strapping on a firearm and stalking your unarmed teenager at night. Should your kid stop running and confront that stranger, you are perfectly fine with that stranger shooting your kid dead.
Right?

Dude. You don't attack people. Period. If you do, you just might get shot. You can spew that garbage all day, but trayvon is dead because he attacked a man and continued that attack until his victim feared for his life. Trayvon went home and then came back to kick zimmerman's ass. His own friend admitted it. So i am sorry but your outlook on the situation is wrong. Do your research, put emotion aside and face the truth - that if you go around attacking people you might end up farking dead.

No, Trayvon did not go home.  Quite simply never happened.

Sorry you think so. However his friend rachel admitted it. And admitted that trayvon went to whoop cracka ass, in her words. But you are entitled to your opinion, even if reality doesn't agree.

/agrees. No more zimm. fark that dude.


His friend admitted that he turned around and asked Zimmerman why he was following him.  At no point did Trayvon even reach his property that night, let alone his home.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2349794/George-Zimmerman-tri al -Rachel-Jeantel-Trayvon-Martin-prosecutions-star-witness-dragged-coals -defense.html

There's an article regarding her testimony.  Feel free to point out where she said he went home and then went back out to find Zimmerman.
 
2013-08-13 08:10:41 PM

frepnog: No, Trayvon did not go home.  Quite simply never happened.

Sorry you think so. However his friend rachel admitted it. And admitted that trayvon went to whoop cracka ass, in her words*. But you are entitled to your opinion, even if reality doesn't agree.

/agrees. No more zimm. fark that dude.


*Not intended to bear any resemblance to her actual testimony in court.
Her actual words? Glad you asked. Under cross examination in court Rachel Jeantel replied,
'That's retarded sir,' when asked if Trayvon Martin attacked George Zimmerman.

If you have to lie like a hound dog to make your case and the public record is easily checked, Mr. Revisionist Historian, you'll only make your case with Fox viewers.
 
2013-08-13 08:25:38 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: frepnog: No, Trayvon did not go home.  Quite simply never happened.

Sorry you think so. However his friend rachel admitted it. And admitted that trayvon went to whoop cracka ass, in her words*. But you are entitled to your opinion, even if reality doesn't agree.

/agrees. No more zimm. fark that dude.

*Not intended to bear any resemblance to her actual testimony in court.
Her actual words? Glad you asked. Under cross examination in court Rachel Jeantel replied,
'That's retarded sir,' when asked if Trayvon Martin attacked George Zimmerman.

If you have to lie like a hound dog to make your case and the public record is easily checked, Mr. Revisionist Historian, you'll only make your case with Fox viewers.


Sigh.
 
2013-08-13 08:37:53 PM

frepnog: demaL-demaL-yeH: frepnog: No, Trayvon did not go home.  Quite simply never happened.

Sorry you think so. However his friend rachel admitted it. And admitted that trayvon went to whoop cracka ass, in her words*. But you are entitled to your opinion, even if reality doesn't agree.

/agrees. No more zimm. fark that dude.

*Not intended to bear any resemblance to her actual testimony in court.
Her actual words? Glad you asked. Under cross examination in court Rachel Jeantel replied,
'That's retarded sir,' when asked if Trayvon Martin attacked George Zimmerman.

If you have to lie like a hound dog to make your case and the public record is easily checked, Mr. Revisionist Historian, you'll only make your case with Fox viewers.

Sigh.


Sigh all you want.  Both his friend and the evidence say that Trayvon never went home.  The "cracker" comment you're referring to was Trayvon saying some "Creepy ass cracker" was following him.

"West pressed her on what he indicated were inconsistencies between the letter and Jeantel's subsequent depositions and testimony - in particular her recent revelation that Martin told her he was being followed by a 'creepy-a** cracker.'"

But by all means, feel free to provide sources to back up your claims that Trayvon made it home and went back out and also where he said that he was going to "whoop cracka ass".
 
2013-08-13 08:41:38 PM

SordidEuphemism: demaL-demaL-yeH: notto: Satan's Bunny Slippers: dumbobruni: notto: no_dice: Karac: RevRaven: IlGreven: Those two sentences are contradictory. The second shows you do not get what he was saying, else you'd agree with Snopes' assessment.

Nope, I totally get it. He helped sponsor and pass funding that allowed the Internet to move from the hands of government to the private sector, which allowed for our modern Internet to come to be. However, that is quite different from "creating the Internet" as he said on CNN, wherein he was hoping to capitalize on people believing he helped create as in engineer the Internet. That part, the "creating the Internet" part, he did say. There's no way around it.

So you admit that without Al Gore the internet would not exist as it does today - that he played some part in bringing it about.  However, you're taking issue with something he didn't actually say, something only you heard - that he was the only person going around the country running wires and setting up routers.

This seems to be a common theme with conservatives - arguing not about what someone actually said or did, but instead about something only you heard from the voices in your head.  That's how we get a debate over whether Obama called Benghazi terrorism or whether 'acts of terror' in a Benghazi speech meant only other incidents.  It's how we get Ron Paul debating a actor in blackface.  It's how Clint Eastwood gets standing ovations for debating a chair.

Can anyone give me the technical name for this habit?  Because it seems to be quite common with conservatives and I'd like a proper noun for it.

Borderline retardation?

Bachmannized.

Getting Triggy With It.

Palinology

"Watching the Neighborhood"

Manufacturing Poutrage.

Puttin' the Gravy in the Giblets


Pounding the cheese? (ten times?)
 
Displayed 111 of 111 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report