I was wrong once last year. (Does that surprise you?)
How do you understand the statement? If you are a liberal, you think I said I was wrong ONLY once last year. That is not what I said. I was wrong more than 50 times last year, but “50” includes one. So I WAS wrong once last. Not ONLY once, but I was wrong once.
Liberals treat words that way. They hide behind “secret” meanings and half-truths. Remember, a half-truth is a complete lie.
Kathleen Sibelius told Congress that there was no data to support the idea that business has been adversely affected by ObamaCare. She did not say that businesses were NOT adversely affected, only that there is no data to support the idea. THAT does not mean businesses were not affected adversely by ObamaCare, only that the government either does not have or has suppressed data about the issue.
Because they already know the answer, and it would make them look worse, the government is not likely to start releasing data about businesses adversely affected by ObamaCare. Or, if they do, they will either not release the data or will deliberately skew it for their benefit.
Sibelius is the one who testified to Congress under oath that they did not know how many had enrolled in ObamaCare via the famously defective website. She said she would not have the figures until the middle of November. She said it over and over again.
(At the risk of embarrassing myself, I know how many people view and/or comment on my blog site every single day!)
Then someone leaked the documents. Surprise! We discover that she knew all along. In fact, we know that she deliberately lied to Congress. (It won’t mean anything, though, because she is immune to Congress.) What we found out is that on the first day a mad rush to the website resulted in 6 people being registered. I wouldn’t have admitted that either, if I were Sibelius.
Liberals play games with other words, too. If they don’t like a particular social tradition, they just change the descriptive words. For 81/2 billion years, “marriage” meant the legal and spiritual union of a man and a woman. Liberals did not like that tradition, so they just changed the meaning of the word so it now includes gays, transvestites and sand fleas.
Y’all think this post is about ObamaCare and marriage, but it’s not. It’s about how liberals think (or rather don’t think). Evasiveness, distraction, misdirection, deflection and half-truths are their favorite methods of discussion (as well as testifying before Congress).
|
Monday, November 4, 2013
Clever with Words
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
44 comments:
"Because they already know the answer, and it would make them look worse, the government is not likely to start releasing data about businesses adversely affected by ObamaCare."
----------
What about The Business Roundtable, The Club for Growth, A.L.E.C. or any of the Koch Bros. fronts?
Thus says the LORD God of Israel: "I anointed you king over Israel, and I
delivered you from the hand of Saul. I gave you your master's house and your master's wives into your keeping, and gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if that had been too little, I also would have given you much more!"
--- Samuel II 12:7-8
-------
Glenn must have an explanation.
This is liberals' favorite and most successful form of deception. They can take "freedom of speech" and turn it into "freedom of expression," and the next thing you know, it is a constitutional right to walk down the streets of San Francisco naked.
The totally gloss over the phrase, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," and suddenly a student can be suspended for dressing as Jesus at a school Halloween party.
And because liberal's life-long crusade is to dumb down the American voters, they can distort the Constitution with impunity.
Let's not forget who ruled that money is speech.
Jesus is an awesome costume. Especially for a pagan holiday. I read the NY Daily News article. This quote from the kid's mom appears, without irony, “He nailed it,” proud mom Angenetta Frison told The News. How good is that?
And because liberal's life-long crusade is to dumb down the American voters.
That's your excuse?
Ducky: "What about The Business Roundtable, The Club for Growth, A.L.E.C. or any of the Koch Bros. fronts?"
Standard liberal deflection.
"Glenn must have an explanation."
So what if he did. You would not learn anything. You are beyond learning.
LR: They have no hesitation about changing words' meanings or ignoring rules they don't like.
Craig: "Let's not forget who ruled that money is speech."
That doesn't make it speech.
@Joe --
Standard liberal deflection.
----
Does that mean you think those organizations are not going to be broadcasting every negative story they can find about ACA?
I'd say you demonstrated that the news is weighted toward the negative with the biased reporting of people "losing" low coverage policies.
Hard to hear anything over the negative noise machine.
@Joe --- They have no hesitation about changing words' meanings or ignoring rules they don't like.
---
Meanings never change over time?
God instituted marriage as between one man and one woman. Mankind sinned and began taking multiple wives, so that by the time the Nation of Israel was a theocracy, they practiced polygamy. God didn't approve of it (as he demonstrated by Deut 17:17.
(you might also like my article on the subject:
http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2009/07/gods-view-of-polygamy.html
However, God also allowed a lot of things like that to go on, as man was allowed to suffer the consequences of his choices. You will notice that every polygamist the Bible mentions had continual troubles with his marriages.
Funny thing about polygamy - it is STILL one marriage between a man and a woman, albeit a sequence of marriages, in that he doesn't marry more than one at a time. And notice the definition of marriage being between a man and a woman doesn't change - no male/male or female/female unions.
Of course Ducky and his ilk aren't interested in learning the truth as long as they have an agenda to push on society to destroy it.
I do have to make a point about polygamy in the Bible.
Not many people practiced it - i.e., it wasn't routine. Guess why - one had to be rich to be able to afford it!
So polygamy was common but marriage has always been a union between one man and one woman, is that how it goes, Glenn?
Ah Ducky, you totally misrepresented what I have previously said (since I didn't say what you just said I said, or anything like it, on this string).
I have always said the marriage has ALWAYS been between members of the opposite sex. I never said it didn't include polygamy. However, polygamy IS between members of the opposite sex.
Are you really as stupid as you act?
How stupid can you conservatives be?
Don't bother to answer, I see it here
Ducky - G.E.C., in his unbelievable ignorance, was making the point that since each individual instance of polygamous marriage was between one man and one woman, that the cumulative effect of one man married to many women still somehow fit his ridiculously distorted world view.
I'm sure he supports all of these forms of Biblical Marriage as well.
http://bobcargill.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/biblical-marriage.jpg
Ducky,
X.O. In his unbelievable stupidity and ignorance doesn't understand that polygamy is still male to female, and prattles typically liberal memes without understanding context, but still are male to female.
I guess he can't find male/male or female/female in the Bible.
Glenn, you have to understand that many, many people do not accept the Bible as authoritative on social matters.
Ducky,
You brought the Bible into discussion with your second comment. You said that you expected I would have an explanation, so I gave the explanation at 11:08 AM and 2:20 PM.
YOU then, at 6:22 PM asked a question in reference to my comments.
Then X.O. had to make his own ignorant comments about Biblical marriage.
And then you post the red herring about people not accepting the Bible in social matters.
Try to stay on topic. I know that is difficult for you to do, but if you pose a question and it gets responded to - don't take the answer to some level it was not responding to.
Illinois approves gay marriage. Tough break, Glenn.
Come to think of it, gay is an example of a word whose meaning has changed.
Ducky - G.E.C. and Jo Joe are choking on the dust of progress.
They are being left as far in the past as the militant Muslims they hate so much.
It's kind of sad to see people so far out of touch with reality that they would be happier living 100 or 1000 years ago.
But that's OK. The future doesn't need them and they wouldn't like it there.
It's best that they stay behind.
I wonder if they know Cuccinelli lost in Virginia?
Tough day for Glenn,
Ducky - Yeah, turns out forced, mandatory, vaginal ultrasounds really aren't that popular with female voters.
Every day is a tough day for Glenn.
Obama is a lair and a hypocrite. Just like Hillary is.
Just like many on the far Left are, that is why they can identify with him.
Do you have trouble making decisions?
obama is a lying scumbag. period.
No other qualifiers need be added
So it is "progress" to vote corruptive and perverse behavior for society?!?!
You people are demented.
Christie is another Romney, except with a biger, and nastier, mouth. His kind of crap no longer fools the voting base.
I think Clinton, if she decides to run, she would beat him badly.
G.E.C. - It is progress to recognize that we are NOT a bunch of illiterate, bronze age, goat herders cowering in fear of the unknown and being governed by fairy tales.
Joe, the cleverness of words is interesting.
Like when the Toronto mayor said he does not use cocaine when a video surfaced of him smoking it.
Technically he was correct... simply smoking every once in a while is not using... it is trying, or smoking, or whatever, every once in a while.
It is stuff that lawyers seize on.
Think President Clinton... was he lying when he said he did not have sex with Monica? Not at all, at least in my view. Was he sexual with her? Yes he was. Inappropriate? Of course. But did he have sex, as most people would understand it, with no qualifiers? Nope.
And Ducky and XO, yes it was a bad night for Tea Party folks...
I've been hearing for the last several months that all the GOP needs to do is get better messengers, that somehow people just aren't hearing correctly what they are saying.
What happens if people are hearing the message, which is much like Glenn's message, and they, including their own party are choosing to reject it?
Is the GOP able to consider that?
It is progress to recognize that we are NOT a bunch of illiterate, bronze age, goat herders cowering in fear of the unknown and being governed by fairy tales.
Gee, I don't know anyone how fits that description. Although most liberals are governed by the fairy tale called evolution, and most liberals seem to be illiterate, and just like children they make up their own definitions for words.
@GEC --- Although most liberals are governed by the fairy tale called evolution
-----
Q.E.D.
Glenn, stop digging!
Glenn, really? Most liberals are illiterate? Meaning they have trouble reading and writing?
Or are you interpreting that word to mean that they do not agree with you?
Statistical evidence shows that the left tends to have a higher level of schooling than the right. Whether they can interpret data, or form conclusions can rightly be called into question, just like it can with people on the right.
It would be illogical however, to define the left as illiterate.
Glenn, isn't the definition of every word made up by man, and as such, subject to change?
Yes Dave really? Most liberals are illiterate! You should know that!
By the way, did you get lost on your way here?
Dave,
Higher level of schooling does't mean more intelligent - one can go through 4 or 6 years of college and still be a brainwashed liberal. Statistics just show that the longer you stay in school the more brainwashed you get and the more you decided that you are entitled to everything from the government.
Liberals are illiterate in that they don't seem to understand what they read. Things like the Constitution, the Bible, etc - you know, laws and morals that they don't like so if they are literate, then they intentionally misread so as to force their secular, immoral, socialist agenda on the rest of society.
WIth some words which define an institution, like "marriage," simply changing the definition to something that suits one's perversion doesn't really change it. You can say "circle" really means a square and yet it will never be a square not matter how many laws you make to the contrary.
Glenn, like Joes example of clever words, you missed what I was saying...
I did not say anyone, or someone is unintelligent if they lack a formal education...
I said their statistical higher education level is proof of an ability to read and write, the main understanding of being literate for years...
You made a sweeping generalization that I do not think you can factually support.
Why?
Dave,
My point about their being illiterate was in the manner in which they are illiterate. Sort of selective capability.
And what sweeping generalization might you be referring to?
Dave Miller - G.E.C. thinks that some supernatural "God", as defined by a bunch of illiterate, Bronze Age, goat herders, created and defined "marriage" for us ignorant, secular humans for all eternity and that we puny, modern humans don't have the power or authority to create and define our own institutions.
Glenn, most liberals... That sounds pretty sweeping... I'm sure you do not like being lumped into a group and then being mocked...
XO: The problem is, you adopt your own philosophy and condemn and ridicule anyone who disagrees with you while not allowing them the same right to ridicule and condemn you.
You retain the "right" to be as nasty as you want to be toward others and deny them the same toward you.
To the liberal mind, that seems intellectually fair.
It is hypocritical, at best. Liberty only applies to you.
Dave,
"most liberals"
Every liberal I've ever met and every liberal I've ever read about has the problem. I've yet to meet a liberal who doesn't have that problem.
What problem is that, Glenn, knowing that the historic record denies the Exodus myth and completely refutes the Jericho myth?
In other words, not blindly accepting so called revealed truth and trying to keep an open mind.
You may have chosen to run with the American Taliban but try to understand those who choose not to.
Ducky, you are so very, very ignorant about anything to do with the Bible and the Christian faith. And you demonstrate your foolishness every time you attempt to speak about them.
No historic record denies either the Exodus story or anything about Jericho.
The Bible IS historic evidence. While nothing archaeological has been discovered to confirm some things in the BIble, nothing has been found to contradict it.
Speculations about things don't count. Arguing from lack of evidence doesn't count.
Ducky: Dame Kathleen Kenyon, a famous archaeologist excavated Jericho. She concluded Jericho had been destroyed in about 1550 BC, at least 150 years before Joshua. And so the matter rested until recently. Then, in the March-April 1990 issue of the Biblical Archaeology Review, we find that Jericho really was destroyed during Joshua’s life time.
Toss the Jericho argument aside. You'll have to find some other example.
What about Moses as the author of the Pentateuch? Everybody knew there was no such thing as writing when he was alive. Believers were scoffed at for thinking so. Then archaeologists discovered writing that predated Moses. Surprise!
Joe & G.E.C. - SERIOUSLY?? You want to pursue the history argument?
That is your absolute weakest link! Why would you even go there???
The biggest stars of the Bible are Adam & Eve, Noah, Moses and Jesus.
Adam & Eve we can dismiss out of hand. Total and complete nonsense.
DNA analysis and genome mapping put a lie to that fairy tale.
Noah and the Ark and the flooding of the entire planet???
Absolute nonsense! There is no geological evidence in the world wide sediment layers of the flood itself, nor is there any genetic evidence of a mass extinction of humans and animals that occurred anytime since humans have existed.
Moses. A Jewish baby found floating in a reed basket down one of the most famous rivers in the world, adopted and raised by the royal family of the most powerful empire in the world, who betrayed his adoptive family, called down a series of inexplicable supernatural plagues, freed the Jewish slaves, led the Egyptian Army of the Pharaoh on a wild chase that resulted in their complete destruction when a sea was first miraculously parted and then collapsed to drown and destroy them, and there is ABSOLUTELY NO, NOT ONE SINGLE MENTION, of ANY of these events in ANY Egyptian records, hieroglyphs or monuments.
Not. One.
Does that not strike you as strange?
One would think some Egyptian somewhere would put ink to papyrus to say "Oh, and this happened..."
Jesus.
The Romans were METICULOUS record keepers! They documented every minutia of Roman government proceedings.
Yet there is absolutely no mention whatsoever of the trial, torment and crucifixion of Jesus Christ, the most important and trans-formative figure of the last 2000+ years.
Nothing!
There is no historic, genetic or geologic evidence that anything in the Bible ever actually happened!
None! That's why you have to accept it all as a matter of faith!
Which you are perfectly free to do thanks to our Constitution.
What you are NOT free to do is pass laws shoving that nonsense down the throats of rational human beings with more than 32 brain cells who point at you and laugh.
Sorry, Joe ... from Wiki. he matter doesn't seem to be going your way.
"In 1995, Kenyon's result was corroborated by radiocarbon tests which dated test samples taken from the site to 1562 BC (plus/minus 38 years) with a certainty of 95%.[6] The specific charcoal sample Wood referenced in his proposition was found to be in error and corrected to 1590 or 1527 +/- 110 BC"
XO: "DNA analysis and genome mapping put a lie to that fairy tale."
Actually, the opposite is true.
"Noah and the Ark and the flooding of the entire planet???"
Have you really never wondered why so many fossils of sea creatures are found in the middle of continents? Like in Nebraska, South Dakota, Tennessee and other places, not to mention in hundreds of place in Africa, South America and even Antarctica?
No, I suppose not.
"Yet there is absolutely no mention whatsoever of the trial, torment and crucifixion of Jesus Christ, the most important and trans-formative figure of the last 2000+ years."
You've never read the historian, Josephus, have you?
Still, I will give you that the faith of the believer does not rest upon the shovel of the archaeologist.
Ducky: Oh Good! Quote from proven falsified documents. That makes your case stronger! Just like the global warming of three years ago.
Joe - "XO: "DNA analysis and genome mapping put a lie to that fairy tale."
Actually, the opposite is true."
Please tell me you aren't trying to make the case that the genetic Mitochondrial Eve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve) in ANY WAY gives any credence to your Biblical fairy tales. Because you would be embarrassing yourself. You don't want to go there.
"Have you really never wondered why so many fossils of sea creatures are found in the middle of continents? Like in Nebraska, South Dakota, Tennessee and other places, not to mention in hundreds of place in Africa, South America and even Antarctica?
No, I suppose not."
Once again you demonstrate your ignorance.
Apparently you never learned about plate tectonics, continental drift, glaciation and the rise and fall of oceans and land masses.
These things occurred over hundreds of millions of years, not "40 days and 40 nights" while some dude rode out the "storm" in a ship designed by a supernatural being which contained the entire the entire genetic library of Planet Earth.
"You've never read the historian, Josephus, have you?"
Of course I have. One historian, born after your "Jesus" was long dead, makes 2 passing references to something which may or may not have ever occurred.
But the Romans, who ruled the area and kept meticulous legal and historical records make no reference, not one, ever, to what your Bible contends was the most important historical event of the last 2000 years!
I mean, the arrest, trial, torment and crucifixion of a notorious Jewish terrorist should have been reason enough to document the events for posterity.
But the stories of him healing the sick, raising the dead, walking on water, turning water to wine, feeding multitudes with a handful of bread and fish, being the result of a virgin birth and ultimately rising from the dead???
One would think that these things would have had such an incredible effect on people that they would have been widely reported and documented!
But, no. Not one word, anywhere. Nada. Zip. Zilch.
No contemporary historical references whatsoever.
It's as though...wait for it...he never existed at all!
Believe what you like. Take it on faith (because that is all you have). But stop trying to pass laws forcing rational people to accept your fantasies as fact.
X.O. and Ducky have only assertions of assertions, with no evidence.
Then they ignore the evidence staring the in their faces.
""The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be know about God is plain to them."
Post a Comment