General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNeed help, arguing with an idiot romney supporter. He claimed
Obama lied. When I asked what Obama lied about and this was the link he provided...
http://obamalies.net/list-of-lies
I have never heard anything by this guy. Anyone know anything about it? Thanks in advance!
Aviation Pro
(12,187 posts)...that his arguments are moot since the President is going to win. There is no need to validate a fuckturds web site.
Then tell him to go ahead and throw away his vote on that fucking toad.
Then tell him to fuck off. You won't change his mind and you won't need to waste anymore time on this fucking oxygen thief.
bbinacan
(7,047 posts)Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)of campaign ironic statements or sarcasm...not intended to be taken literally. Etc. Not lies at all.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)The quicker you admit that, the faster the healing can begin.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)Some are jokes, like the one that says, "Under Romney's definition, Donald Trump is a small business!" Said during one of the debates, I think. A joke that made the point that Romney's referring to small business isn't what he wants the audience to believe it is....what Romney is talking about are companies/people who employ not many people but make tons of money.
NMDemDist2
(49,313 posts)Zax2me
(2,515 posts)That's the best advice I have.
rightsideout
(978 posts)What's even more fun is Jefferson quote debating.
You could ask them to be more specific rather then using a crutch or cheat sheet (of lists) to make their point.
librechik
(30,676 posts)Obama can't keep up with that. Nobody could.
BTW, Steve Benen the guy who documented Romney's 533 lies in 30 weeks is a university professor, not a moron like your friend. You can tell them I said that, madmom!
Ilsa
(61,698 posts)After next Tuesday. 150,000 DUers are turning him in for tax fraud and evasion.
Festivito
(13,452 posts)Most of these point to Politifact. That's a Right-wing sponsored attack website.
1st look for the real news sites.
2nd look to see if the article subject is really something important or not.
3rd look at the article.
4th did the person actually say that
5th was it really untrue
For example, ABC (good), says Obama says Fast and Furious begins in Bush admin.
ABC says FandF began 9 months after Obama took office. (good info)
ABC says other gun running programs began in the Bush admin. (good info)
ABC says, same bad stuff but they weren't called FandF. (Back to Obama's statement)
ABC says Obama says: Fast and Furious program. (okay)
So, how does one say that FandF was just another in a long line of such programs that started under Bush and were just renamed several times and not brought up to the new head of the department without sounding like an encyclopedia, because you still have to bring up the context of the story that brings this whole thing up.
6th ask if the story is really as clear as the headline suggests
People don't read critically anymore.
It's easy to lie about lying these days.