doublegunshop.com - home Forums NY Times admits Iraq had WMD'S after all !

Kind of tough call. Most of the times, libs just flat out will not admit that the other side has a point or facts to back up a position. The spin can easily be ridiculed in many cases because the minutia is substituted for fact and used to make the case by tugging on emotions.

Every now and then, someone will let slip that there is no possible way to keep all lawful citizens safe from criminals or jihadists on a rampage, at all times. If that scenario can be spun to call for the need for more gun control because we are unsafe, then why not miss fire.

National pride could have a bit to do with it also. There is often a laundry list of short comings that are referenced and are supposed to be accepted as fact before even getting to an unrelated point. There are comparisons to glorified perceptions in banana republics. It's very common to say, it works for us thus it's a shortcoming that the US doesn't follow suit.

Do I want the tactics and spin to stop, no way! But, maybe it's on the spinners to make their case and gain converts. This is not just play, many issue are very real.

There's a lesson in James's message. He uses the conditional "may" in referencing my truthfulness. He's cautious with "spin" and prejudicial in applying it only to politicians. All of us spin. He's right on my expression of the punk's game: politics as it has always been practised, little difference between parties. Let's consider that notion with Steyn's changing parties makes no difference and James's the left owns my child. They're three opinions, not entirely accurate but none is lying. They're spin. Here's Wikipedia on spin:

"In public relations, spin is a form of propaganda, achieved through providing an interpretation of an event or campaign to persuade public opinion in favor or against a certain organization or public figure. While traditional public relations may also rely on creative presentation of the facts, "spin" often implies disingenuous, deceptive and/or highly manipulative tactics."

When we write we should be familiar with meanings of words. Jim seems to use "prevarication" interchangeably with lying. Calling a member a prevaricator in the Oxford English meaning, so what? Lying, of course, is a serious allegation. Here's prevarication from the English and American:

Oxford English first: "The verbs prevaricate and procrastinate have similar but not identical meanings. Prevaricate means �act or speak in an evasive way� . . . Procrastinate, on the other hand, means �put off doing something�."

American meaning: "verb (used without object), prevaricated, prevaricating.
1. to speak falsely or misleadingly; deliberately misstate or create an incorrect impression; lie." (Note deliberately misstate--KLB)

Propaganda until recently had a department in the Vatican. From Wikipedia: "Propaganda Fide: It is the Department (Congregation) of the Holy See founded in 1622 by Pope Gregory XV with the double aim of spreading Christianity in the areas where the Christian message had still not arrived and of defending the patrimony of faith in those places where heresy had caused the genuineness of the faith to be questioned." Spin.

How each frames opinions is, in effect, spin. Changing parties makes some difference. The left does not own James's son. Politics is not a punk's game. They're words to make a point. Dave is not lying when he says Obama will be impeached. Knowing the meanings and distinctions of words will make Misfires a better place. I don't know that as a fact but it's a valid opinion, not lying.

I like your post, Craig. I hope the above helps. I was thinking of a reply to your post when I wrote it.

From a Fellow at the Hoover institute L

http://www.examiner.com/article/fellow-a...cid=db_articles

Hanson pointed out a missed and not widely reported New York Times 2003 article that said, �The director of a top American spy agency said Tuesday that he believed that material from Iraq�s illicit weapons program had been transported into Syria and perhaps other countries as part of an effort by the Iraqis to disperse and destroy evidence immediately before the recent war. The official, James R. Clapper Jr., a retired lieutenant general,


�I think people below the Saddam Hussein-and-his-sons level saw what was coming and decided the best thing to do was to destroy and disperse,� General Clapper, who leads the National Imagery .


�So worried was Barack Obama about the likelihood of Syrian WMD that he almost started a preemptive war against Bashar Assad, but without authorization of Congress and with no attempt to go to the U.N., as Bush had done.�

�So we live in an era of lies about everything from Benghazi and Obamacare to the alphabet soup of scandal and incompetence at the IRS, ICE, VA, USSS (Secret Service), NSA, GSA, and even the CDC, �said Hanson. �But before we can correct the present lies, we should first address the greatest untruth in this collection: �Bush lied, thousands died� was an abject lie.�

I don't personally care whether King labels himself a liar or a prevaricator. Either term is suitable and fits him aptly.

I can honestly say that at this time I do not give a shit if SH had WMDs or not. I suspect most out there feel the same way.

I understand your position, Jim. People when they lose find notions that validate themselves i.e. the birthers.

Of course supporters of Obama and the Democrats now dismiss the WMD issue. It's part of the Denial, Dismissal, and Demonization statist doctrine. Hillary's "What does it matter?" quote is an excellent example. It enables the statist moral position that rationalizes pathological lying as being "Righteous and Good". Since there is no distinction between statist religion and politics, lying is not immoral, but justified.

The "Birther" concept is interesting, since so many incongruities have been uncovered about Obama. The lack of an actual Birth Certificate, as well as having a SSN that does not correspond to Hawaii should raise questions from everyone. As I understand it, a "Certificate of Live Birth" is not a "Birth Certificate".

Since I have some experience with the issue, having adopted two children from overseas, there are some obvious issues. I'm fairly certain that IF Obama was born overseas, his mother never completed the naturalization process that would have enabled him to receive a valid SSN. This required the filing of a N-600 naturalization document, resulting in the awarding of a Certificate of Citizenship which would then be used to receive a SSN. Since his mother was a US citizen, this would have been no problem. This would also explain why he was able to attend college as a foreign student. There are simply too many questions to be answered. The Democrats have only superficially scrubbed his past, leaving many obvious issues.

Here's a story illustrating what I'm talking about. I'm not saying that it's valid, but it should raise question with anyone who's intellectually objective.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/exclusi...bama-continues/

The Republican Party accepted it. Why, if it's problematic? No one takes prisoners in US politics.

It's interesting that the Hillary Clinton campaign started the whole "Birther" issue. I suspect that the Clinton administration may have aided the "scrubbing" of Obama's past, back when he was an "up and coming" Illinois politician. I think that they greatly underestimated the potential threat that he would pose to Hillary in 2008, thinking he would be considered as a presidential candidate after Hillary had served her terms. They couldn't make it a huge issue, as they would have been culpable for the "scrubbing" that occurred of Obama's past. They also underestimated the fervor of the statist, religious, fundamentalist, sociopathic wing of the Democrat party.