Do You Think Obama Is Honest???

[Article 15]

You're free to start your own sucky poll at any time.

I'm not a big poll starter.

You're not too big on the truth ether are you?

Again, says the guy who cites Conservapedia as a source.....

 

[Cuyo]

You're free to start your own sucky poll at any time.

I'm not a big poll starter.

You're not too big on the truth ether are you?

This poll, like 90% of em, really doesn't tell us anything except the makeup of the board.

But seriously. You can get through a couple sentences on 'conservapedia' and not realize it's crap? Seriously?

 

[mudwhistle]

Would you accept a site called "Progressapedia" or "Liberalapedia" as a reliable source?

So the name not the actual content is what bugs you?

Well when the name fits the content ....

Do you think Conservapedia is meant to give an unbiased view of things?

So you've jumped to conclusions because of a name without even knowing any facts.

I think that's why the left thinks names matter so much. It's why they call 70 year old Tea Party members terrorists and not actual suicide bombers.

 

[Cuyo]

So the name not the actual content is what bugs you?

Well when the name fits the content ....

Do you think Conservapedia is meant to give an unbiased view of things?

So you've jumped to conclusions because of a name without even knowing any facts.

I think that's why the left thinks names matter so much. It's why they call 70 year old Tea Party members terrorists and not actual suicide bombers.

So you have read and used the site, and don't realize it's crap, is that an accurate statement?

 

[Article 15]

So the name not the actual content is what bugs you?

Well when the name fits the content ....

Do you think Conservapedia is meant to give an unbiased view of things?

So you've jumped to conclusions because of a name without even knowing any facts.

I think that's why the left things names matter so much. It's why they call 70 year old Tea Party members terrorists and not actual suicide bombers.

No, that's you assuming that I am jumping to conclusions.

I've been to the site plenty of times.

Care to swing again?

Oh don't forget to answer this:

Do you think Conservapedia is meant to give an unbiased view of things?

 

[Ernie S.]

Three idiots voted two said they think he's honest and one said they don't know. Who in Gods names doesn't know when someone is lying?

obama is the biggest lying sack of sit that has ever lived in the white hous.

The bigger problem with the vote results is the one who took the time to vote "I don't know" Why the fuck would anyone vote to confirm they lack the ability to form an opinion?

 

[mudwhistle]

I'm not a big poll starter.

You're not too big on the truth ether are you?

This poll, like 90% of em, really doesn't tell us anything except the makeup of the board.

But seriously. You can get through a couple sentences on 'conservapedia' and not realize it's crap? Seriously?

The poll told me something....and the results were a bit surprising.

A 3rd of us here actually think Obama is honest or they're just trying to make the poll look more favorable toward him by lying about their true feelings.

 

[mudwhistle]

Three idiots voted two said they think he's honest and one said they don't know. Who in Gods names doesn't know when someone is lying?

obama is the biggest lying sack of sit that has ever lived in the white hous.

The bigger problem with the vote results is the one who took the time to vote "I don't know" Why the fuck would anyone vote to confirm they lack the ability to form an opinion?

I think a "I don't know" answer can be taken a couple of ways.

Ether the person who said that couldn't commit themselves one way or another or they didn't want to be honest. They didn't want to support or condemn Obama.

 

[Ernie S.]

I do, but Republicans will point out that he is black. That means he MUST be dishonest.

Again the leftist assholes are the first to bring race to the discussion.

 

[mudwhistle]

Well when the name fits the content ....

Do you think Conservapedia is meant to give an unbiased view of things?

So you've jumped to conclusions because of a name without even knowing any facts.

I think that's why the left things names matter so much. It's why they call 70 year old Tea Party members terrorists and not actual suicide bombers.

No, that's you assuming that I am jumping to conclusions.

I've been to the site plenty of times.

Care to swing again?

Oh don't forget to answer this:

Do you think Conservapedia is meant to give an unbiased view of things?

What I think doesn't matter because I only went to the site once and haven't seen anything that says they are dishonest.

You assume that they are simply because of the name.

I think once you discover a source is unreliable then you can discount it. Just doing so because of a name is childish.

 

[Cuyo]

So you've jumped to conclusions because of a name without even knowing any facts.

I think that's why the left things names matter so much. It's why they call 70 year old Tea Party members terrorists and not actual suicide bombers.

No, that's you assuming that I am jumping to conclusions.

I've been to the site plenty of times.

Care to swing again?

Oh don't forget to answer this:

Do you think Conservapedia is meant to give an unbiased view of things?

What I think doesn't matter because I only went to the site once and haven't seen anything that says they are dishonest.

You assume that they are simply because of the name.

I think once you discover a source is unreliable then you can discount it. Just doing so because of a name is childish.

Which article did you read that didn't indicate to you that they were dishonest?

 

[editec]

Compared to whom?

Top ten lies men tell:

1. Nothing's wrong, I'm fine
2. This will be my last pint
3. No, your bum doesn't look big in that
4. I had no signal
5. My battery died
6. Sorry, I missed your call
7. I didn't have that much to drink
8. I'm on my way
9. It wasn't that expensive
10. I'm stuck in traffic

Top ten lies women tell:

1. Nothing's wrong, I'm fine
2. Oh, this isn't new, I've had it ages
3. It wasn't that expensive
4. It was in the sale
5. I'm on my way
6. I don't know where it is, I haven't touched it
7. I didn't have that much to drink
8. I've got a headache
9. No, I didn't throw it away
10. Sorry, I missed your call


Read more: Men lie six times a day and twice as much as women, study finds | Mail Online

 

[Article 15]

So you've jumped to conclusions because of a name without even knowing any facts.

I think that's why the left things names matter so much. It's why they call 70 year old Tea Party members terrorists and not actual suicide bombers.

No, that's you assuming that I am jumping to conclusions.

I've been to the site plenty of times.

Care to swing again?

Oh don't forget to answer this:

Do you think Conservapedia is meant to give an unbiased view of things?

What I think doesn't matter because I only went to the site once and haven't seen anything that says they are dishonest.

You assume that they are simply because of the name.

I think once you discover a source is unreliable then you can discount it. Just doing so because of a name is childish.

Again, I haven't done so because of the name. It appears as though you have no clue about the site you sourced.

I'll ask one last time:

Do you think Conservapedia is meant to give an unbiased view of things?

 

[Cuyo]

No, that's you assuming that I am jumping to conclusions.

I've been to the site plenty of times.

Care to swing again?

Oh don't forget to answer this:

Do you think Conservapedia is meant to give an unbiased view of things?

What I think doesn't matter because I only went to the site once and haven't seen anything that says they are dishonest.

You assume that they are simply because of the name.

I think once you discover a source is unreliable then you can discount it. Just doing so because of a name is childish.

Again, I haven't done so because of the name. It appears as though you have no clue about the site you sourced.

I'll ask one last time:

Do you think Conservapedia is meant to give an unbiased view of things?

And when your done with his question answer mine.

You ain't ducking out of this one. I want to know which article you read and were unable to determine that it was crap.

 

[mudwhistle]

No, that's you assuming that I am jumping to conclusions.

I've been to the site plenty of times.

Care to swing again?

Oh don't forget to answer this:

Do you think Conservapedia is meant to give an unbiased view of things?

What I think doesn't matter because I only went to the site once and haven't seen anything that says they are dishonest.

You assume that they are simply because of the name.

I think once you discover a source is unreliable then you can discount it. Just doing so because of a name is childish.

Again, I haven't done so because of the name. It appears as though you have no clue about the site you sourced.

I'll ask one last time:

Do you think Conservapedia is meant to give an unbiased view of things?

I don't think it's a Daily Kos....if that's what you mean....or a World Socialist Web Page.

I accessed one article and cross-checked the information and found it was honest.

Still, I think you're prejudice against it for the name alone.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Not any more or less than any other President...in other words - unremarkable.

During his campaign I would say he was considerably dishonest, but what politician isn't?
During his Presidency I think a lot of people confuse dishonesty with a man saying something and just doesn't know any better. Folks say he has lied...but in reality...he doesn't dig any further than what someone tells him.

 

[mudwhistle]

What I think doesn't matter because I only went to the site once and haven't seen anything that says they are dishonest.

You assume that they are simply because of the name.

I think once you discover a source is unreliable then you can discount it. Just doing so because of a name is childish.

Again, I haven't done so because of the name. It appears as though you have no clue about the site you sourced.

I'll ask one last time:

Do you think Conservapedia is meant to give an unbiased view of things?

And when your done with his question answer mine.

You ain't ducking out of this one. I want to know which article you read and were unable to determine that it was crap.

That's a loaded question that assumes that all of the articles on that site are crap.

It's a dishonest question that doesn't deserve a response.

 

[Article 15]

What I think doesn't matter because I only went to the site once and haven't seen anything that says they are dishonest.

You assume that they are simply because of the name.

I think once you discover a source is unreliable then you can discount it. Just doing so because of a name is childish.

Again, I haven't done so because of the name. It appears as though you have no clue about the site you sourced.

I'll ask one last time:

Do you think Conservapedia is meant to give an unbiased view of things?

I don't think it's a Daily Kos....if that's what you mean....or a World Socialist Web Page.

I accessed one article and cross-checked the information and found it was honest.

Still, I think you're prejudice against it for the name alone.

Which article did you read and cross check?

Link?

 

[Article 15]

Yeah but how do you feel about him overall? Will you vote for him in 2012?

He's an empty suit with no subsatnce

Will you vote for him in 2012

I would shot myself before that thought ever gave birth to an action of stupidity.

who would you vote for if the choice was obama or hitler?

Whar is bigderp?

Whar?

 

[mudwhistle]

Not any more or less than any other President...in other words - unremarkable.

During his campaign I would say he was considerably dishonest, but what politician isn't?
During his Presidency I think a lot of people confuse dishonesty with a man saying something and just doesn't know any better. Folks say he has lied...but in reality...he doesn't dig any further than what someone tells him.

I think that's possibly closer to the truth then most answers here.

He spends a lot of time reading off of a teleprompter. I don't think he takes the time to proofread what's on it a lot of the time. This explains why he'll sometimes say one thing then say something totally different later that day when he's off teleprompter. I think he's more honest when he's not reading off the thing....but I also think he's prone to exaggeration when he doesn't need to.

He's a campaigner that has lost or never had the ability to tell the difference between campaigns and governing. You can't mix the two.