“No Terrorist Has Successfully Executed an Attack on Our Homeland”
https://ihavethetruth.com/2016/12/0...uted-an-attack-on-our-homeland/#ixzz4S6q9CR2F
https://ihavethetruth.com/2016/12/0...uted-an-attack-on-our-homeland/#ixzz4S6q9CR2F
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Obama tells a whopper
- Thread starter Revmitchell
- Start date
Yep. #FakeNews direct from the White House.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
It is a false claim not fake news. The so called "fake news" is nothing but propaganda.
Yea the other whopper is that his admin has been scandal free
The headline to this thread is a misquote.
So the article cited is fake news.
What is true is that Obama put together a carefully crafted sentence that is true, but politically unwise. It affirms one good stat about the terror situation, but glosses over other important events. The White House tweet was especially unhelpful.
Two good rules of thumb:
(1) If the claim seems outlandish, be suspicious of the reporting. Go check it out for yourself.
(2) A website that has to make the claim in it's name that it is telling you the truth undermines it's own credibility.
So the article cited is fake news.
What is true is that Obama put together a carefully crafted sentence that is true, but politically unwise. It affirms one good stat about the terror situation, but glosses over other important events. The White House tweet was especially unhelpful.
Two good rules of thumb:
(1) If the claim seems outlandish, be suspicious of the reporting. Go check it out for yourself.
(2) A website that has to make the claim in it's name that it is telling you the truth undermines it's own credibility.
No such thing as fake news. such claims are propaganda and should have no place in reasonable discussions. Nothing but a far left attempt to shut down anyone who opposes them. Further it has not real clear definition. Intelligent conversation cannot include such claims.
There is no false claim made in the op. In fact the link in the op includes the video of his statements. It is all there for anyone to see. Let's not play word games in order to further propaganda.
There is no false claim made in the op. In fact the link in the op includes the video of his statements. It is all there for anyone to see. Let's not play word games in order to further propaganda.
FALSE: The headline itself is placed in quote marks.
(1) Quote marks indicate that the words of a person are being reproduced accurately. Did Obama say this EXACT thing? The answer is simply, no. Therefore the "quote" is false/fake. It doesn't matter if they reproduce the video.
(2) The headline should no mislead the potential reader. Of course, since these sites rely on advertising views, they have written a click-bait headline. The effect of it is that those who don't know how to think critically, or who are prejudiced against the person being negatively and improperly cited will induce others to see the same bit of propaganda, thereby increasing ad revenue.
(3) There shouldn't have to be a number 3.
What was put in quotes and what was said have little difference to the point of no real significance. However, what obama said was said with the intent of trying to portray his admin as having protected America from terrorist attacks successfully. It is a wopper of a lie.
Again both the original quote and the video are included in the link. That alone shows there is no attempt to decieve anyone. Obama's statement was deceitful and not truthful. Your protection of that is sad.
You are incredibly unpatriotic and should leave America if you don't like it!
Oh wait, did I not quote you correctly?
Well, that makes no difference since your original post is there for everyone to see.
You can't prove any intent to deceive. Any critique of my quote of you is just sad.
Why do you liberals always whine about people telling the truth?
Sorry your example here is not apples and oranges. And once again the original quote and video are in the link so that negates the idea anyone tried to mislead.
Let others pipe in. Is there a difference in these two statement?
"No foreign terrorist organization successfully attacked the homeland."
"No terrorist has successfully attacked the homeland."
Yes.
You don't get it. What was Obama's purpose in saying that?
Oh, I get it. He's trying to find a way to say that he's kept America safe from terrorism during his administration. He has to resort to parsing his words to do so.
Speaking of parsing words, maybe you can explain the difference you see between "fake news" and "propaganda".
Ok then my point stands strong.
If you had actually made that point, then I would have agreed with you. But you did not make that point.
In this post and another post (where you listed off terror attacks), you have attempted to claim Obama said something he did not by citing an article that blatantly misquoted the President in the headlight. When I called you out on it, you effectively gave a "What is truth?" excuse - which is all the rage in political circles nowadays - instead of simple acknowledging that your source article was false and dealing with the carefully parsed sentence (and entire speech) that Obama made.
I'm not too happy with Obama here, but that doesn't give anyone - especially Christians - the right to make things up or give cover to those who do.
By the way, I thought it was a simply a typo in the title, but you have continued to misspell the word - it's "whopper", not "wopper."
My source article is not false, I did not say "what is truth" sorry for your error, in fact I said nothing remotely close to that. Obama lied, he tried to present himself as having saved America from terrorism. He did not. I do not care about the caveate (carefully parsed words) with the play on words. One means the same as the other. It is exactly what Obama was trying to communicate. My point is right.
Oh just so we hold you to your own standard it was not a "headlight" it was a "headline"
I know what Obama was trying to say, and more to the point I know WHY he was trying to say it. So does any other reasonably minded person. As for the "why" it was to boast of his "good job" of protecting the country, which is a joke. As for the method he used to say it, one word, "weaseler"... The fact that Obama is getting called out on his claim should be expected after the way the leftist media has treated everything the right ever says. The fact that liberals are whining over the semantics of what he said and how it is being treated is laced in hypocrisy and that merely makes their response rather comical...