How Disingenuous Can Obama Get?

[Chris]

Here's is part Obama's speech in Minneapolis, MN:


...But if there’s even one thing we can do, if there's just one life we can save, we've got an obligation to try.

That’s been the philosophy here in Minneapolis. A few years back, you suffered a spike in violent crime involving young people. So this city came together. You launched a series of youth initiatives that have reduced the number of young people injured by guns by 40 percent -- 40 percent. So when it comes to protecting our children from gun violence, you’ve shown that progress is possible. We've still got to deal with the 60 percent that remains, but that 40 percent means lives saved -- parents whose hearts aren't broken, communities that aren't terrorized and afraid.

We don’t have to agree on everything to agree it’s time to do something...

... A few weeks ago, I took action on my own to strengthen background checks, to help schools get more resource officers if they want them, and to direct the Centers for Disease Control to study the causes of violence. Because for a long time, even looking at the evidence was considered somehow tough politics. And so Congress had taken the approach that, we don't want to know. Well, that's never the answer to a problem -- is not wanting to know what is going on.

@ Remarks by the President on Preventing Gun Violence in Minneapolis, MN (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/04/remarks-president-preventing-gun-violence-minneapolis-mn).

But hold on a minute, what has background checks to do with the Minneapolis initiative?

It turns out, nothing at all.

@ A Review of Minneapolis’s Youth Violence Prevention Initiative (http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/Publications/e011027253-Minneapolis.pdf) summarizes that initiative:


After Dr. Prothrow-Stith’s presentation, several subsequent
meetings, and work in subcommittees, the steering committee
produced a comprehensive document called Blueprint for Action:
Preventing Youth Violence in Minneapolis. True to the public health
model, the Blueprint lays out primary, secondary, and tertiary
prevention goals:

1. Ensure that every young person in Minneapolis receives
support from at least one trusted adult in his or her family or
community. (primary prevention)

2. Intervene at the first sign that youth and families are at risk
for or involved in violence. (secondary prevention)

3. Do not give up on our kids; work to restore and get them back
on track. (tertiary prevention or intervention)

4. Recognize that violence is learned and can be unlearned by
reducing the impact of violent messages in our media, culture,
and entertainment. (primary prevention on a broader scale)

Nothing at all to do with gun control.

Obama is a sly one, isn't he.

[Mainecoons]

No, he's just a bald faced liar who gets away with it all the time because the media runs cover for him.

[Chris]

It took me 5 minutes to dig this up. It just didn't sound right. The media is bending over backwards not to address this.

[Cigar]

LAPIERRE - 1999: We think it's reasonable to provide mandatory instant criminal background checks for every sale at every gun show. No loopholes anywhere for anyone.

[birddog]

Except the libs go along with the AMA and Shrink societies who don't want mentally challenged people sought out. Loop holes should be properly addressed, not just the ones the libs want.

[Chris]

LAPIERRE - 1999: We think it's reasonable to provide mandatory instant criminal background checks for every sale at every gun show. No loopholes anywhere for anyone.

Unrelated to Obama's disingenuous speech.

[Cigar]

Unrelated to Obama's disingenuous speech.

Bull Shit ... 80% of America wants background checks ... so you're ignoring that also or are you going to called that unrelated?

[Chris]

Bull Shit ... 80% of America wants background checks ... so you're ignoring that also or are you going to called that unrelated?

Cigar, his speech connected his and Minnesota's efforts, but there's no connection, he was being disingenuous.

The topic is not about gun checks but whether or not you can trust Obama.

[JackRuby]

It took me 5 minutes to dig this up. It just didn't sound right. The media is bending over backwards not to address this.

Then why did I read it in the paper today? Many people in a lot of professions get background checks. Teachers do. Pre school workers and day care people do. Law enforcement people do. Many professions. Why should a person purchasing a deadly weapon be exempt?

Jack

[JackRuby]

Unrelated to Obama's disingenuous speech.

No it's not. Obama talks about these criminal background checks all the time as part of his proposal that he knows he doesn't have a snowball's chance in Texas of getting. He knows he's up against a billion dollar industry and the NRA's deep pocket lobby. My opinion, he has to talk about it to satisfy the public, but he knows nothing will happen.

Jack

[Mister D]

Then why did I read it in the paper today? Many people in a lot of professions get background checks. Teachers do. Pre school workers and day care people do. Law enforcement people do. Many professions. Why should a person purchasing a deadly weapon be exempt?

Jack

He's not. You know that right, partisan Jack?

[Mister D]

No it's not. Obama talks about these criminal background checks all the time as part of his proposal that he knows he doesn't have a snowball's chance in Texas of getting. He knows he's up against a billion dollar industry and the NRA's deep pocket lobby. My opinion, he has to talk about it to satisfy the public, but he knows nothing will happen.

Jack

No doubt Obama is all about symbolic gestures to satisfy segments of the public (i.e. likely Democrat voters).

[JackRuby]

He's not. You know that right, partisan Jack?

Then what's the process and what 's the process being proposed? Me, I have no worries, my WPP handlers refuse to let me carry anymore.

Jack

[Mister D]

Then what's the process and what 's the process being proposed? Me, I have no worries, my WPP handlers refuse to let me carry anymore.

Jack

You do realize backgrounds checks are typically required when you buy a firearm, right? Are liberal anti-gun loons really this ignorant?

[JackRuby]

You do realize backgrounds checks are typically required when you buy a firearm, right? Are liberal anti-gun loons really this ignorant?

So why are they calling for them? Sorry not a liberal and not an anti-gun loon. Your know it all skills are slipping.

Jack

[Mister D]

So why are they calling for them? Sorry not a liberal and not an anti-gun loon. Your know it all skills are slipping.

Jack

You're both, Jack. A partisan who masquerades as a "free thinker". :wink: Anyway, ask your Messiah. I think it's because symbolic gestures like this pacify the sheep.

[Chris]

Then why did I read it in the paper today? Many people in a lot of professions get background checks. Teachers do. Pre school workers and day care people do. Law enforcement people do. Many professions. Why should a person purchasing a deadly weapon be exempt?

Jack

Read what? That the Minneapolis initiative include background checks. I read their entire program, provided a link above, what line in the file?

[roadmaster]

Then why did I read it in the paper today? Many people in a lot of professions get background checks. Teachers do. Pre school workers and day care people do. Law enforcement people do. Many professions. Why should a person purchasing a deadly weapon be exempt?

Jack They usually only go back 5 years.

[Carygrant]

My reaction was as immediate .
I thought ; Here is somebody , again being selective and disingenuous .
Nowhere in the words he chose for the OP does it show that the President's words directly link his previous and separate work with Minneapolis specifically .
Rather , Obama reflects on the general work being done in a huge and complex area and reasonably hopes for a connection to further assist valuable Minneapolis achievements .
I think your posts should be transparent because those that are seen to continuously post misleading threads get a reputation as Fanatic , among several other labels .
I feel confident you do not want to be tarred with that brush !! The last thing we all need is a Fanatic Moderator -- one who is less than impartial .
I hope you will be able to put our minds at rest by proving your assertions directly and simply so that we do not have to waste considerable time checking out the full and correct details .

[Chris]

My reaction was as immediate .
I thought ; Here is somebody , again being selective and disingenuous .
Nowhere in the words he chose for the OP does it show that the President's words directly link his previous and separate work with Minneapolis specifically .
Rather , Obama reflects on the general work being done in a huge and complex area and reasonably hopes for a connection to further assist valuable Minneapolis achievements .
I think your posts should be transparent because those that are seen to continuously post misleading threads get a reputation as Fanatic , among several other labels .
I feel confident you do not want to be tarred with that brush !! The last thing we all need is a Fanatic Moderator -- one who is less than impartial .
I hope you will be able to put our minds at rest by proving your assertions directly and simply so that we do not have to waste considerable time checking out the full and correct details .

Uh, cary, I cited Obama's words that linked the two when in fact there is no link.

[Carygrant]

Uh, cary, I cited Obama's words that linked the two when in fact there is no link.


I beg to differ .
You are playing with words again, methinks .
Putting things next to each other does not give or provide a link .
You can stand next to me in a row , but that in itself does not imply we are linked .
Until you can reasonably and sensibly show otherwise , you have implied a link where none exists. And, worryingly , where nobody would dream of inventing a link other than from dubious motives .
R-K8 check .

[Chris]

I beg to differ .
You are playing with words again, methinks .
Putting things next to each other does not give or provide a link .
You can stand next to me in a row , but that in itself does not imply we are linked .
Until you can reasonably and sensibly show otherwise , you have implied a link where none exists. And, worryingly , where nobody would dream of inventing a link other than from dubious motives .
R-K8 check .

If you disagree, present an argument, don't just disagree--of course you can do just that, but it says little.

The two points, Minneapolis' program and background checks are linked rhetorically by "...But if there’s even one thing we can do, if there's just one life we can save, we've got an obligation to try" and "We don’t have to agree on everything to agree it’s time to do something..." Go back to the OP to see the citation.

What gets me is how a program with a proven track record of success is wholly ignored while a plan of action that can have no effect is taken up, simply with the false implication that the former was successful to the latter will be as well.

Not only disingenuous but shallow.

[Mister D]

No, Cary, Obama implied a link where none exists. :smiley:

[Pete7469]

I couldn't get through the first paragraph. It's like reading some of the stupid shit our local bed wetters post. Best to just ignore it.

[Carygrant]

If you disagree, present an argument, don't just disagree--of course you can do just that, but it says little.

The two points, Minneapolis' program and background checks are linked rhetorically by "...But if there’s even one thing we can do, if there's just one life we can save, we've got an obligation to try" and "We don’t have to agree on everything to agree it’s time to do something..." Go back to the OP to see the citation.What gets me is how a program with a proven track record of success is wholly ignored while a plan of action that can have no effect is taken up, simply with the false implication that the former was successful to the latter will be as well.Not only disingenuous but shallow.

Your usual selectivity .
Pretend a point has not been registered by simply ignoring it .
Increasingly your Posts look like Tea Party activist hand outs .

[Chris]

Your usual selectivity .
Pretend a point has not been registered by simply ignoring it .
Increasingly your Posts look like Tea Party activist hand outs .

It's your selective reading of O's speech , as demonstrated above .
No idea what you're talking about . Registered ? Is there a point registry somewhere ?
I do belong to the local tea party , thank you !

[JackRuby]

You're both, Jack. A partisan who masquerades as a "free thinker". :wink: Anyway, ask your Messiah. I think it's because symbolic gestures like this pacify the sheep.

Why so hateful? Free thinker? Where'd I say that? Sorry, you need liberals in your life but you got the wrong guy. But the more pressing question is why so hateful all the time?

Jack

[Mister D]

Why so hateful? Free thinker? Where'd I say that? Sorry, you need liberals in your life but you got the wrong guy. But the more pressing question is why so hateful all the time?

Jack

Hateful? Don't flatter yourself. :grin: You're a silly guy, Jack. A silly partisan.

[JackRuby]

Hateful? Don't flatter yourself. :grin: You're a silly guy, Jack. A silly partisan.

Yes, a true hater who NEEDS a liberal in their life to pound on all the time, even if you have to make them up. I've encountered your species before. They're on every forum.

Jack

[Chris]

Yes, a true hater who NEEDS a liberal in their life to pound on all the time, even if you have to make them up. I've encountered your species before. They're on every forum.

Jack

Slamming D for your obvious partisanship, ruby?

[Mister D]

Yes, a true hater who NEEDS a liberal in their life to pound on all the time, even if you have to make them up. I've encountered your species before. They're on every forum.

Jack

I'm watching too much Fox! :laugh: You're a silly guy, Jack. A silly partisan.

[patrickt]

Does anyone actually take anything President Obama says at face value? I don't think so.

[Chris]

Does anyone actually take anything President Obama says at face value? I don't think so.

Actually, no, it always seems like calculated doublespeak. Like his inaugural speech twisting the principles of the Declaration into their antonyms.

[JackRuby]

I'm watching too much Fox! :laugh: You're a silly guy, Jack. A silly partisan.

I 'm not a silly partisan because you gotta be a partisan first. Let the jury out on the silly part. You use the word partisan as a pejorative. So how to you explain your partisanship? Are you a conservative or a Republican?

Jack

[Chris]

I 'm not a silly partisan because you gotta be a partisan first. Let the jury out on the silly part. You use the word partisan as a pejorative. So how to you explain your partisanship? Are you a conservative or a Republican?

Jack

I agree, ruby, you're not silly, just a partisan.

[GrassrootsConservative]

I 'm not a silly partisan because you gotta be a partisan first. Let the jury out on the silly part. You use the word partisan as a pejorative. So how to you explain your partisanship? Are you a conservative or a Republican?

Jack

You're very partisan.

[Mister D]

I 'm not a silly partisan because you gotta be a partisan first. Let the jury out on the silly part. You use the word partisan as a pejorative. So how to you explain your partisanship? Are you a conservative or a Republican?

Jack

Jacky, you came here babbling about too much partisanship yet you are obviously a partisan. I'm not your therapist so work through your cognitive dissonance on your own.

I'm not a Republican or a conservative in the American sense at any rate.

[KC]

Jacky, you came here babbling about too much partisanship yet you are obviously a partisan. I'm not your therapist so work through your cognitive dissonance on your own.

I'm not a Republican or a conservative in the American sense at any rate.

Not to get too caught up on labels, they're only useful in a sort of vague way, but what would you consider your political ideology, in the American sense?

[JackRuby]

Jacky, you came here babbling about too much partisanship yet you are obviously a partisan. I'm not your therapist so work through your cognitive dissonance on your own.

I'm not a Republican or a conservative in the American sense at any rate.

I'll say this, when you get an obsession, you take it to the extreme degree. Never voted for Obama in fact. I voted Libertarian instead. I understand that narrow minds think when you pick on Republicans then the person MUST be a liberal. Like there's two choices only. I get it.

Too bad haters don't have their own party. You'd be the chairman.

Jack

[KC]

I'll say this, when you get an obsession, you take it to the extreme degree. Never voted for Obama in fact. I voted Libertarian instead. I understand that narrow minds think when you pick on Republicans then the person MUST be a liberal. Like there's two choices only. I get it.

Too bad haters don't have their own party. You'd be the chairman.

Jack

I didn't realize you voted Libertarian in the Presidential election. We have that much in common!

[Mister D]

Not to get too caught up on labels, they're only useful in a sort of vague way, but what would you consider your political ideology, in the American sense?

I guess paleo-conservative but the anti-liberal and anti-modern perspective I've developed are out of place in a quintessentially liberal society.

[Mister D]

I'll say this, when you get an obsession, you take it to the extreme degree. Never voted for Obama in fact. I voted Libertarian instead. I understand that narrow minds think when you pick on Republicans then the person MUST be a liberal. Like there's two choices only. I get it.

Too bad haters don't have their own party. You'd be the chairman.

Jack

Everyone is an extremist. Except you, Jacky.

[KC]

I guess paleo-conservative but the anti-liberal and anti-modern perspective I've developed are out of place in a quintessentially liberal society.

That's a good way to define it, although I've also heard that term applied to old school liberals (libertarians) like Barry Goldwater.

[Mister D]

That's a good way to define it, although I've also heard that term applied to old school liberals (libertarians) like Barry Goldwater.

Right. That's why I'm not sure it really applies. I agree with Micheal O'Meara that I can work with paleos.

http://www.arktos.com/michael-o-meara-new-culture-new-right-anti-liberalism-in-postmodern-europe.html

[Chris]

The Libertarian Party is antithetical to libertarian principles. It's like saying I'm a anarchist/minarchist and I'm going to run for office to prove it.

[KC]

The Libertarian Party is antithetical to libertarian principles. It's like saying I'm a anarchist/minarchist and I'm going to run for office to prove it.

Unfortunately it's impossible to reduce government without having some sort of influence in government to begin with, and therefore subjecting oneself to the same incentives that create the demand for more government in the first place.

[KC]

Right. That's why I'm not sure it really applies. I agree with Micheal O'Meara that I can work with paleos.

http://www.arktos.com/michael-o-meara-new-culture-new-right-anti-liberalism-in-postmodern-europe.html

Ooh, looks interesting. It's definitely something I need to learn more about.

[Chris]

Unfortunately it's impossible to reduce government without having some sort of influence in government to begin with, and therefore subjecting oneself to the same incentives that create the demand for more government in the first place.

I don't know. One reason why I like the tea parties and even OWS, inasmuch as they are grassroots, leaderless movements, is they, we, the people can thereby hold politicians accountable for less government, less corruptions, less crony capitalism, and so on. And it's not so important your politics, your partisanship, it is important that the people talk and argue on the street, at work, at church, on the Internet.

[KC]

I don't know. One reason why I like the tea parties and even OWS, inasmuch as they are grassroots, leaderless movements, is they, we, the people can thereby hold politicians accountable for less government, less corruptions, less crony capitalism, and so on. And it's not so important your politics, your partisanship, it is important that the people talk and argue on the street, at work, at church, on the Internet.

True, point taken. Ideas can be more powerful than parties at times, and there have been a few real gains from the movement. Ron Paul was able to change a lot of young minds, even if he never won the nomination for President. I think we'll be experiencing his influence for a long time, if in only small, incremental changes.

[Chris]

True, point taken. Ideas can be more powerful than parties at times, and there have been a few real gains from the movement. Ron Paul was able to change a lot of young minds, even if he never won the nomination for President. I think we'll be experiencing his influence for a long time, if in only small, incremental changes.

Indeed, Ron Paul did take his case to the people, and many will carry on his message. I wonder what he would have been like as President had he won.

[KC]

Indeed, Ron Paul did take his case to the people, and many will carry on his message. I wonder what he would have been like as President had he won.

Probably wouldn't have been very effective. I can't imagine it going well, although don't me wrong, I have a lot of confidence in the man. Presidents don't get to act alone though and sadly I don't have the same confidence in the rest of Washington.

[Chris]

So he may have been more effective in losing like Goldwater who it's often argued ushered in the Reagan Era.

[KC]

So he may have been more effective in losing like Goldwater who it's often argued ushered in the Reagan Era.

Yes, I think you could say that. Reagan was a better politician than Goldwater, which is why I like Goldwater much better.