Example of PolitiFact (and rdean) being wrong

[edthecynic]

That is one explanation. I would point out the fact that this post by Conservative 19 at 9:28 shows me saying Clinton/Bush, and your post was made at 9:36. Does it always take you that long to reply to a post?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4709029-post19.html

Obviously it can, my phone rang while I was answering your post. Excuse me for having a life. Are you DENYING that you ADDED Clinton when you edited your post rather than me editing Clinton out as you falsely claimed??

As soon as you admit that Politifact was wrong.

I still see no evidence that you did not edit the post.

YOU edited YOUR OWN post, that is undeniable. Then lying POS that your are, you accused me of editing your post. I didn't see that you had edited your own post until after you accused me of editing out Clinton, which I didn't do because Clinton was not in your post when I clicked on the quote button.

If Clinton was there when I clicked on the quote button, then how would I have figured out that you edited your own post by adding Clinton???

And you DID add Clinton when you edited your own post, didn't you!!!
Admit it!

 

[edthecynic]

That is one explanation. I would point out the fact that this post by Conservative 19 at 9:28 shows me saying Clinton/Bush, and your post was made at 9:36. Does it always take you that long to reply to a post?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4709029-post19.html

Obviously it can, my phone rang while I was answering your post. Excuse me for having a life. Are you DENYING that you ADDED Clinton when you edited your post rather than me editing Clinton out as you falsely claimed??

As soon as you admit that Politifact was wrong.

I still see no evidence that you did not edit the post.

Politifact was not wrong, Mittens was!!!!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Obviously it can, my phone rang while I was answering your post. Excuse me for having a life. Are you DENYING that you ADDED Clinton when you edited your post rather than me editing Clinton out as you falsely claimed??

As soon as you admit that Politifact was wrong.

I still see no evidence that you did not edit the post.

Politifact was not wrong, Mittens was!!!!

They are not mutually exclusive.

 

[westwall]

Obama is not building up anything. It takes years to build a destroyer, even at Bath. The ships were ordered in 2000.

excellent point, making the difference of 7 ships since 2007 even less important.

No, it's a meaningless point, the very fact that there were LESS ships under Bush means Mittens was LYING when he said that today we have the lowest number of ships since 1916. In 2007 BUSH had the lowest number of ships since 1916. Mittens is STILL a "pants on fire" liar.

The ships were ordered under CLINTON fool. The post made that very clear you silly person!

 

[westwall]

From the article:

"This is a great example of a politician using more or less accurate statistics to make a meaningless claim,"

Romney’s point falls flat as a political attack because he’s suggesting the administration should do what it already had planned to do.

I don't know which one to laugh at more. We have nearly a dozen nuclear powered aircraft carriers and almost 4,000 planes. That's just the Navy. Did the Navy in 1917 have "aircraft carriers"?

Here is what their planes looked like:

I'm sure if you counted up every dingy they had more in 1917, but come on people. GET REAL!

That was one of the best planes in the world at that time. Better by FAR than ANYTHING the US had. We had to get our planes from France and Britian. The best aircraft we could put in the air was the Curtiss Jenny, a great trainer but pretty useless in air combat.

 

[edthecynic]

excellent point, making the difference of 7 ships since 2007 even less important.

No, it's a meaningless point, the very fact that there were LESS ships under Bush means Mittens was LYING when he said that today we have the lowest number of ships since 1916. In 2007 BUSH had the lowest number of ships since 1916. Mittens is STILL a "pants on fire" liar.

The ships were ordered under CLINTON fool. The post made that very clear you silly person!

And Bush in 2007 had the lowest number of ships since 1916, not Obama. The facts make that clear you dishonest person!

 

[westwall]

No, it's a meaningless point, the very fact that there were LESS ships under Bush means Mittens was LYING when he said that today we have the lowest number of ships since 1916. In 2007 BUSH had the lowest number of ships since 1916. Mittens is STILL a "pants on fire" liar.

The ships were ordered under CLINTON fool. The post made that very clear you silly person!

And Bush in 2007 had the lowest number of ships since 1916, not Obama. The facts make that clear you dishonest person!

Ummmmm if the ships were ordered under Clinton, then we had a smaller navy...under Clinton. He had to order ships to get up to the level that Bush inherited. You're not too good at math are you.

 

[edthecynic]

The ships were ordered under CLINTON fool. The post made that very clear you silly person!

And Bush in 2007 had the lowest number of ships since 1916, not Obama. The facts make that clear you dishonest person!

Ummmmm if the ships were ordered under Clinton, then we had a smaller navy...under Clinton. He had to order ships to get up to the level that Bush inherited. You're not too good at math are you.

You are not too good at English or math are you.
If Bush had the lowest number of ships since 1916, then Bush had less ships than Clinton!!!
The fewest Ships Clinton had was 318 and the fewest ships Bush had was 278. The most ships Bush had was less than the least number of ships Clinton had.

 

[Conservative]

Hey genius, Bush wasn't even president in 2000, so if you can give Bush credit for ships ordered before he was ever in Washington, then Obama gets credit for being president when the ships came on line.

But no matter how you slice it, Mittens was STILL "pants on fire" lying!!!

The planning and initial order was under Clinton, the funding came under Bush, which is why I said Clinton/Bush. Thanks for editing my post to try and make me look stupid, even if you failed.

No, YOU edited your post and added Clinton AFTER I clicked on the quote button. But thank you for lying like a typical CON$ervative, accusing me of editing a post YOU edited. At the bottom of the post YOU edited, the software makes a note that YOU edited YOUR post. You lie like your fellow CON$ervative Mittens.

lie. Your post was at 12:36, while the last edit on his post was at 12:27... BEFORE you posted.

That makes you a

liar.

FAIL.

 

[edthecynic]

The planning and initial order was under Clinton, the funding came under Bush, which is why I said Clinton/Bush. Thanks for editing my post to try and make me look stupid, even if you failed.

No, YOU edited your post and added Clinton AFTER I clicked on the quote button. But thank you for lying like a typical CON$ervative, accusing me of editing a post YOU edited. At the bottom of the post YOU edited, the software makes a note that YOU edited YOUR post. You lie like your fellow CON$ervative Mittens.

lie. Your post was at 12:36, while the last edit on his post was at 12:27... BEFORE you posted.

That makes you a

liar.

FAIL.

Except, as I already pointed out, when I hit the quote button there was no Clinton there. I got a phone call as I was typing my reply and didn't hit the send button till after I finished the call. The time posted goes by when you hit the send button, not the quote button.

So I'll ask you the same thing I asked your fellow liar, how did I KNOW the lying POS added Clinton to his post if Clinton was there from the start????? If you notice the lying POS does not deny that HE added Clinton in his edit.

 

[Conservative]

No, YOU edited your post and added Clinton AFTER I clicked on the quote button. But thank you for lying like a typical CON$ervative, accusing me of editing a post YOU edited. At the bottom of the post YOU edited, the software makes a note that YOU edited YOUR post. You lie like your fellow CON$ervative Mittens.

lie. Your post was at 12:36, while the last edit on his post was at 12:27... BEFORE you posted.

That makes you a

liar.

FAIL.

Except, as I already pointed out, when I hit the quote button there was no Clinton there. I got a phone call as I was typing my reply and didn't hit the send button till after I finished the call. The time posted goes by when you hit the send button, not the quote button.

So I'll ask you the same thing I asked your fellow liar, how did I KNOW the lying POS added Clinton to his post if Clinton was there from the start????? If you notice the lying POS does not deny that HE added Clinton in his edit.

Point 1 above... I do not believe you, I believe you are lying... again.

Point 2 above... It was put there in the edit... BEFORE you responded. Even for a monumentally brain dead poster like you, that shouldn't be too difficult to comprehend.

 

[edthecynic]

lie. Your post was at 12:36, while the last edit on his post was at 12:27... BEFORE you posted.

That makes you a

liar.

FAIL.

Except, as I already pointed out, when I hit the quote button there was no Clinton there. I got a phone call as I was typing my reply and didn't hit the send button till after I finished the call. The time posted goes by when you hit the send button, not the quote button.

So I'll ask you the same thing I asked your fellow liar, how did I KNOW the lying POS added Clinton to his post if Clinton was there from the start????? If you notice the lying POS does not deny that HE added Clinton in his edit.

Point 1 above... I do not believe you, I believe you are lying... again.

Point 2 above... It was put there in the edit... BEFORE you responded. Even for a monumentally brain dead poster like you, that shouldn't be too difficult to comprehend.

Again you avoid the obvious question, If Clinton was put there in the edit before I hit the quote button, then how did I KNOW Clinton wasn't there BEFORE the edit that put Clinton there???????????

It is obvious I hit the quote button BEFORE the post was edited to add Clinton, and while I was typing and interrupted by the phone call, the edit was done before I hit the send button after the phone call ended and I finished my reply. But I understand how Lying CON$ have to defend each other in the face of the truth, so you can keep avoiding the obvious question.
Carry on.

 

[Conservative]

Except, as I already pointed out, when I hit the quote button there was no Clinton there. I got a phone call as I was typing my reply and didn't hit the send button till after I finished the call. The time posted goes by when you hit the send button, not the quote button.

So I'll ask you the same thing I asked your fellow liar, how did I KNOW the lying POS added Clinton to his post if Clinton was there from the start????? If you notice the lying POS does not deny that HE added Clinton in his edit.

Point 1 above... I do not believe you, I believe you are lying... again.

Point 2 above... It was put there in the edit... BEFORE you responded. Even for a monumentally brain dead poster like you, that shouldn't be too difficult to comprehend.

Again you avoid the obvious question, If Clinton was put there in the edit before I hit the quote button, then how did I KNOW Clinton wasn't there BEFORE the edit that put Clinton there???????????

It is obvious I hit the quote button BEFORE the post was edited to add Clinton, and while I was typing and interrupted by the phone call, the edit was done before I hit the send button after the phone call ended and I finished my reply. But I understand how Lying CON$ have to defend each other in the face of the truth, so you can keep avoiding the obvious question.
Carry on.

you didn't... you're lying.
Simple...

Just like you.

 

[CaughtInTheMid]

hang on. so we spend a zillion times more than any other country on the face of the planet and we're somehow short on ships????

we're really stupid.

 

[Full-Auto]

PolitiFact's art of interpretation - POLITICO.com


(regarding Mitt's claim that, "Our navy is smaller than it's been since 1917.")

The Navy was smaller under Bush than Obama, so Mittens is a liar.

You are an idiot.............

 

[daveman]

From the article:

"This is a great example of a politician using more or less accurate statistics to make a meaningless claim,"

Romney’s point falls flat as a political attack because he’s suggesting the administration should do what it already had planned to do.

I don't know which one to laugh at more. We have nearly a dozen nuclear powered aircraft carriers and almost 4,000 planes. That's just the Navy. Did the Navy in 1917 have "aircraft carriers"?

Here is what their planes looked like:

I'm sure if you counted up every dingy they had more in 1917, but come on people. GET REAL!

No, that is not what American Navy planes looked like. That's a German plane.

Albatros D.III - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Conservative]

From the article:

"This is a great example of a politician using more or less accurate statistics to make a meaningless claim,"

Romney’s point falls flat as a political attack because he’s suggesting the administration should do what it already had planned to do.

I don't know which one to laugh at more. We have nearly a dozen nuclear powered aircraft carriers and almost 4,000 planes. That's just the Navy. Did the Navy in 1917 have "aircraft carriers"?

Here is what their planes looked like:

I'm sure if you counted up every dingy they had more in 1917, but come on people. GET REAL!

No, that is not what American Navy planes looked like. That's a German plane.

Albatros D.III - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

typical Rdean... he can't even tell a German plane from an American plane

 

[edthecynic]

Point 1 above... I do not believe you, I believe you are lying... again.

Point 2 above... It was put there in the edit... BEFORE you responded. Even for a monumentally brain dead poster like you, that shouldn't be too difficult to comprehend.

Again you avoid the obvious question, If Clinton was put there in the edit before I hit the quote button, then how did I KNOW Clinton wasn't there BEFORE the edit that put Clinton there???????????

It is obvious I hit the quote button BEFORE the post was edited to add Clinton, and while I was typing and interrupted by the phone call, the edit was done before I hit the send button after the phone call ended and I finished my reply. But I understand how Lying CON$ have to defend each other in the face of the truth, so you can keep avoiding the obvious question.
Carry on.

you didn't... you're lying.
Simple...

Just like you.

Obviously I did know because the poster has not denied that he added Clinton in his edit! And he hasn't denied it probably because he suspects the Mods can confirm that he added Clinton in his edit.
So you are still SOL.

 

[Conservative]

Again you avoid the obvious question, If Clinton was put there in the edit before I hit the quote button, then how did I KNOW Clinton wasn't there BEFORE the edit that put Clinton there???????????

It is obvious I hit the quote button BEFORE the post was edited to add Clinton, and while I was typing and interrupted by the phone call, the edit was done before I hit the send button after the phone call ended and I finished my reply. But I understand how Lying CON$ have to defend each other in the face of the truth, so you can keep avoiding the obvious question.
Carry on.

you didn't... you're lying.
Simple...

Just like you.

Obviously I did know because the poster has not denied that he added Clinton in his edit! And he hasn't denied it probably because he suspects the Mods can confirm that he added Clinton in his edit.
So you are still SOL.

My God you are stupid.

 

[daveman]

From the article:

"This is a great example of a politician using more or less accurate statistics to make a meaningless claim,"

Romney’s point falls flat as a political attack because he’s suggesting the administration should do what it already had planned to do.

I don't know which one to laugh at more. We have nearly a dozen nuclear powered aircraft carriers and almost 4,000 planes. That's just the Navy. Did the Navy in 1917 have "aircraft carriers"?

Here is what their planes looked like:

I'm sure if you counted up every dingy they had more in 1917, but come on people. GET REAL!

No, that is not what American Navy planes looked like. That's a German plane.

Albatros D.III - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

typical Rdean... he can't even tell a German plane from an American plane

Rderp thinks it's okay to lie to smear Republicans.