Conquer Club

thegreekdog wrote:

SultanOfSurreal wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

SultanOfSurreal wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:In all seriousness, Obama did say he had visited all 57 states; not sure what the red mark is doing there.

maybe you should read the fucking article? http://snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp

Why? The article has nothing to do with whether he said it or not.

The data point is "Obama said there were 57 states." It's true. Move on.

it's not just about that. it's about a specific popular email forward which claims "obama said he visited 57 states [true] and this is a SECRET NOD TO HIS SINISTER PLAN TO ENMUSLIMATE AMERICA [false]"

therefore the article gets the "partially true and partially false" designation

what is so hard to understand about this

What's hard to understand is that a specific popular email chain claim is something that should interest anyone in the least. In other words, if you're gullible and stupid enough to believe that Obama visited 57 states because of some terroristic plot cooked up by Satan and Khaleid Sheik Mohammad to destroy America, a website called snopes ain't going to help you.

As I said, the blurb says, "Obama said 57 states." He did say it. There's no falsity to that statement. HE... SAID... FIFTY... SEVEN... STATES. Now, if the blurb had said, "Obama visited 57 states because he is part of a plot generated by Cobra Commander and Sauron to take over the world," I think "false" is a good designation for that particular statement. So, I ask you, what's so hard to understand about that?

thegreekdog wrote:No, I just dug myself into this hole and I'm trying to justify the continuous digging. I should have given up when I said I did.

jonesthecurl wrote:Hey, watch who you're accusing there.

jonesthecurl wrote:Hmm....trick question?

Army of GOD wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:Hmm....trick question?

Sir, we should e-mail Snopes to see if those are our real choices...sir.

jonesthecurl wrote:Hmm....trick question?

jonesthecurl wrote:

As I said, the blurb says, "Obama said 57 states." He did say it. There's no falsity to that statement. HE... SAID... FIFTY... SEVEN... STATES. .

thegreekdog wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:Hmm....trick question?

Sir, we should e-mail Snopes to see if those are our real choices...sir.

Did you lose a bet or something? What's with all the "sirs?"

Woodruff wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:Hmm....trick question?

Sir, we should e-mail Snopes to see if those are our real choices...sir.

Did you lose a bet or something? What's with all the "sirs?"

He did. Army of GOD is required to use the sir-sandwich until PLAYER becomes a Republican. I fear we're in for a long road.

john9blue wrote:What is concerning is that it might have been a Freudian slip referring to Islamic states.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:

As I said, the blurb says, "Obama said 57 states." He did say it. There's no falsity to that statement. HE... SAID... FIFTY... SEVEN... STATES. .

As much as it is fun to pick out such errors from politicians, I think most of us make similar types of snafus every day. I mean, how many of us with multiple kids (or even without them ) start with "Johnny... er .. Joey.. er Caroline.. er BOB!" and other such. Given that politicians are under a LOT of pressure, often read speeches and so forth... its a wonder they don't make more such errors.

The problem is if they are not just "slips of the tongue", but actually misunderstandings of facts. Bush came under fire for making a lot of "slip of tongue" errors, true, and mostly it meant nothing except fodder for pundits. However, he also made a good many "just plain don't understand this" errors as well. Those, often did matter.

thegreekdog wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:Hmm....trick question?

Sir, we should e-mail Snopes to see if those are our real choices...sir.

Did you lose a bet or something? What's with all the "sirs?"

jonesthecurl wrote:Snopes.com is just a rumour.

Snorri1234 wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:Snopes.com is just a rumour.

urban legend.

b.k. barunt wrote:

Symmetry wrote:
Sigh, this is pretty tiring, but seeing as every post of yours I see has several palpable falsities, Let's just start with the obvious mistake: It's not just a husband and wife team:

Here

They employ other fact checkers.

Sigh, you're right - pretty tiring. <snigger> So if you preface a weak (some might say misleading) assertion with a condescending tone people will just assume you know your stuff and not even bother to check the link you cite, amirite?

According to you, it's not just a husband and wife team but they employ other "fact checkers". According to the article you cited, the bulk of email has lately become such that the husband and wife had to employ a couple people to help read the email. More than likely a couple of students working below minimum wage and helping sort through a plethora of spam - "fact checkers"?? - hell, why don't you just go for broke and call them "certified fact assessors"?

How about them palpable falsies?

Honibaz

GabonX wrote:What difference does the number of people Snopes employs matter?

GabonX wrote:It seems like your ignoring the important part of the argument..

Symmetry wrote:

GabonX wrote:It seems like your ignoring the important part of the argument..

Enlighten me

Also "You're"

GabonX wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

GabonX wrote:It seems like your ignoring the important part of the argument..

Enlighten me

Also "You're"

I think I would much rather thank you for pointing out my carelessness..

A smart guy like you shouldn't need my help.