On Face the Nation, Carson derided for saying vetting is

[awesome guy]

Like Obama the drug dealer?

Haha... And you think I lie?

You have a lot invested against the idea of people being masters of their own destiny.

Wtf are you taking about?

If you bothered to read anything about Obama then you would know about the Choom Gang.

It's pretty obvious what I'm talking about. You're outlandish mission to slander Carson is an extension of your bigotry against Christianity. And part of that is lying about the transformative nature of Jesus in Carson's life.

So you do have evidence that Obama was drug dealer? Can we all see it?

He doesn't need my help. He has done an excellent job slandering himself.

Do your own research. You may pierce your veil of ignorance in the process.

That's what I thought.

Keep ignorant

[absolutvt03]

Like Obama the drug dealer?

Haha... And you think I lie?

You have a lot invested against the idea of people being masters of their own destiny.

Wtf are you taking about?

If you bothered to read anything about Obama then you would know about the Choom Gang.

It's pretty obvious what I'm talking about. You're outlandish mission to slander Carson is an extension of your bigotry against Christianity. And part of that is lying about the transformative nature of Jesus in Carson's life.

So you do have evidence that Obama was drug dealer? Can we all see it?

He doesn't need my help. He has done an excellent job slandering himself.

Do your own research. You may pierce your veil of ignorance in the process.

You see... awesome guy expects you to support his points for him. He doesn't think he has to prove anything he says to be true... instead it's up to you to prove it to be false. That way he doesn't actually have to put any effort into his arguments and can just throw out whatever crap he wants.

[awesome guy]

Like Obama the drug dealer?

Haha... And you think I lie?

You have a lot invested against the idea of people being masters of their own destiny.

Wtf are you taking about?

If you bothered to read anything about Obama then you would know about the Choom Gang.

It's pretty obvious what I'm talking about. You're outlandish mission to slander Carson is an extension of your bigotry against Christianity. And part of that is lying about the transformative nature of Jesus in Carson's life.

So you do have evidence that Obama was drug dealer? Can we all see it?

He doesn't need my help. He has done an excellent job slandering himself.

Do your own research. You may pierce your veil of ignorance in the process.

You see... awesome guy expects you to support his points for him. He doesn't think he has to prove anything he says to be true... instead it's up to you to prove it to be false. That way he doesn't actually have to put any effort into his arguments and can just throw out whatever crap he wants.

I'm not doing tasks for you skackers. Do your own work, like I do when proving you imbeciles wrong. This is also yet another thread where you offer nothing. Just more whiney adolescence.

[absolutvt03]

I'm not doing tasks for you skackers. Do your own work, like I do when proving you imbeciles wrong. This is also yet another thread where you offer nothing. Just more whiney adolescence.

Pssttt.. that's not how this works. YOU make a claim then it's on YOU to back it up. Until you do so, your claim is completely baseless. It's not the person opposing your claim's "task" to prove your point. You're the one being a slacker here. If you have proof of what you say, post it.

Maybe this will help:

When two parties are in a discussion and one affirms a claim that the other disputes, the one who affirms has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim -i.e., X is good/true/beautiful, etc.[1] An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.[2][3] This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition, but is not valid reasoning.[4]

In this case you are affirming that Obama was a drug dealer. Therefore you have a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim. Instead you are trying to assume the claim is true because no one has proven it to be false. You are trying to shift the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition but that is not valid reasoning.

That was a far more civil and logical response than you deserved but there it is.

[awesome guy]

I'm not doing tasks for you skackers. Do your own work, like I do when proving you imbeciles wrong. This is also yet another thread where you offer nothing. Just more whiney adolescence.

Pssttt.. that's not how this works. YOU make a claim then it's on YOU to back it up. Until you do so, your claim is completely baseless. It's not the person opposing your claim's "task" to prove your point. You're the one being a slacker here. If you have proof of what you say, post it.

Maybe this will help:

When two parties are in a discussion and one affirms a claim that the other disputes, the one who affirms has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim -i.e., X is good/true/beautiful, etc.[1] An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.[2][3] This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition, but is not valid reasoning.[4]

In this case you are affirming that Obama was a drug dealer. Therefore you have a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim. Instead you are trying to assume the claim is true because no one has proven it to be false. You are trying to shift the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition but that is not valid reasoning.

That was a far more civil and logical response than you deserved but there it is.

It is how it works. You doubt it, you research it. Stop being such a lazy ass.

[absolutvt03]

I'm not doing tasks for you skackers. Do your own work, like I do when proving you imbeciles wrong. This is also yet another thread where you offer nothing. Just more whiney adolescence.

Pssttt.. that's not how this works. YOU make a claim then it's on YOU to back it up. Until you do so, your claim is completely baseless. It's not the person opposing your claim's "task" to prove your point. You're the one being a slacker here. If you have proof of what you say, post it.

Maybe this will help:

When two parties are in a discussion and one affirms a claim that the other disputes, the one who affirms has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim -i.e., X is good/true/beautiful, etc.[1] An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.[2][3] This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition, but is not valid reasoning.[4]

In this case you are affirming that Obama was a drug dealer. Therefore you have a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim. Instead you are trying to assume the claim is true because no one has proven it to be false. You are trying to shift the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition but that is not valid reasoning.

That was a far more civil and logical response than you deserved but there it is.

It is how it works. You doubt it, you research it. Stop being such a lazy ass.

Sorry, you're wrong (as I proved above). See how that works? I made a claim that the burden of proof is on you (and because it's MY claim, it's on ME to support it) then provided evidence to back up said claim. I didn't just say "you're wrong". I proved why you're wrong. You should try it instead of spending your time throwing out lame ridiculous insults. It would lead to better discourse and people on both sides might actually learn something (not a guarantee of course since you apparently didn't learn from my post above).

[awesome guy]

I'm not doing tasks for you skackers. Do your own work, like I do when proving you imbeciles wrong. This is also yet another thread where you offer nothing. Just more whiney adolescence.

Pssttt.. that's not how this works. YOU make a claim then it's on YOU to back it up. Until you do so, your claim is completely baseless. It's not the person opposing your claim's "task" to prove your point. You're the one being a slacker here. If you have proof of what you say, post it.

Maybe this will help:

When two parties are in a discussion and one affirms a claim that the other disputes, the one who affirms has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim -i.e., X is good/true/beautiful, etc.[1] An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.[2][3] This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition, but is not valid reasoning.[4]

In this case you are affirming that Obama was a drug dealer. Therefore you have a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim. Instead you are trying to assume the claim is true because no one has proven it to be false. You are trying to shift the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition but that is not valid reasoning.

That was a far more civil and logical response than you deserved but there it is.

It is how it works. You doubt it, you research it. Stop being such a lazy ass.

Sorry, you're wrong (as I proved above). See how that works? I made a claim that the burden of proof is on you (and because it's MY claim, it's on ME to support it) then provided evidence to back up said claim. I didn't just say "you're wrong". I proved why you're wrong. You should try it instead of spending your time throwing out lame ridiculous insults. It would lead to better discourse and people on both sides might actually learn something (not a guarantee of course since you apparently didn't learn from my post above).

Don't you ever tire of being so worthless? Like a baby bird waiting in the nest for mama bird to chew up the worn and spot in your mouth. Read for a change, better yourself instead of expecting everything be done for you.

And again, you're adding nothing but laziness and bullshit.

[absolutvt03]

Don't you ever tire of being so worthless? Like a baby bird waiting in the nest for mama bird to chew up the worn and spot in your mouth. Read for a change, better yourself instead of expecting everything be done for you.

And again, you're adding nothing but laziness and bullshit.

Read your posts, then read mine and tell me again who is adding nothing. I'm providing logical reasoning for my point. You're calling names and being insulting and disrespectful. So which one of us is "being so worthless"? In the time you've spent trying (and failing) to insult me, you could have easily provided some sort of evidence to support your assertion. Instead you're just wasting everyone's time. If you have proof of your claim, please post it as I'd love to read it (I actually read a lot and enjoy reading).

[awesome guy]

Don't you ever tire of being so worthless? Like a baby bird waiting in the nest for mama bird to chew up the worn and spot in your mouth. Read for a change, better yourself instead of expecting everything be done for you.

And again, you're adding nothing but laziness and bullshit.

Read your posts, then read mine and tell me again who is adding nothing. I'm providing logical reasoning for my point. You're calling names and being insulting and disrespectful. So which one of us is "being so worthless"? In the time you've spent trying (and failing) to insult me, you could have easily provided some sort of evidence to support your assertion. Instead you're just wasting everyone's time. If you have proof of your claim, please post it as I'd love to read it (I actually read a lot and enjoy reading).

You're not adding anything slacker.

[HokieJoe]

Is it a good thing a black man is considered an Uncle Tom if he doesn't have a tough time when growing up?

I'm sorry, has anyone questioned that Carson has a tough upbringing? That he lived in public housing, was fed by food stamps, and received his glasses through a state program? It couldn't have been easy.

Is it a good thing that Obama associates with drug dealers turned rappers?

Maybe if Obama would have attempted to kill a few people in his youth you would have respected him.

I guess it's all about the drive by sniping isn't it?

It certainly appears that you guys can't discuss anything without saying something to the order of "Obama did it first, Obama did it worse."
You can call it sniping if you'd like.

I'd be happy with a full FACTUAL accounting of his academic records. My guess is, it would leave most scratching their heads and wondering who 0bama blew to get into Columbia and Harvard Law...Because it damn sure wasn't for his whit's.

[HokieHam]

https://twitter.com/kevinmkruse/status/ ... 8388196353

Notice I said "press conference"....not written article ps trying to whitewash everything and claiming he disowned Wright.....lol.....after sitting in his church for 20 years......

Is Obama a devout follower of Reverend Wright's church, a Muslim, an atheist, or all of the above? You guys really need to make up your mind. But the truth is, Obama is whatever bogeyman is most convenient for you at the moment.

And to say his relationship with Wright was whitewashed is preposterous.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/st ... ntroversy/

I've never said he was a Muslim or atheist. Read the apologetic nature of some of the links in hoofs link. He swore off Wright but sat in his church 20 years without leaving.....

Politifact.....lol.

[RiverguyVT]

vetting Obama:
Remember when the media was going wall-to-wall 24/7 on this story?

http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines/fl ... e-accusers

http://thekansascitian.blogspot.com/sea ... Harassment

No? Me either.

[oaktonhokie]

I had not heard about that. At all.

I am embarrassed to say. Wow.

That explains a lot though. He wanted have sex with guys so when he was rebuffed, he married the closest thing to a guy he could find.

And um, he believed marriage was between a man and a woman. Of course he did.

If fat Hillary gets elected, we will have two in a row.

You know...

vetting Obama:
Remember when the media was going wall-to-wall 24/7 on this story?

http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines/fl ... e-accusers

http://thekansascitian.blogspot.com/sea ... Harassment

No? Me either.

[Uprising]

I had not heard about that. At all.

I am embarrassed to say. Wow.

That explains a lot though. He wanted have sex with guys so when he was rebuffed, he married the closest thing to a guy he could find.

And um, he believed marriage was between a man and a woman. Of course he did.

If fat Hillary gets elected, we will have two in a row.

You know...

vetting Obama:
Remember when the media was going wall-to-wall 24/7 on this story?

http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines/fl ... e-accusers

http://thekansascitian.blogspot.com/sea ... Harassment

No? Me either.

Hahaha........ Dots........... Are being connected......

[HokieFanDC]

I had not heard about that. At all.

I am embarrassed to say. Wow.

That explains a lot though. He wanted have sex with guys so when he was rebuffed, he married the closest thing to a guy he could find.

And um, he believed marriage was between a man and a woman. Of course he did.

If fat Hillary gets elected, we will have two in a row.

You know...

vetting Obama:
Remember when the media was going wall-to-wall 24/7 on this story?

http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines/fl ... e-accusers

http://thekansascitian.blogspot.com/sea ... Harassment

No? Me either.

You should be embarrassed...for being so easily duped and manipulated.

Here is the beginning of the story, according the "THE KANSAS CITIAN" (the stupid name and the fact that it is a blog should have been your first clue).

-------------------------------
"During Barack Obama’s tenure as the president of the Harvard Law Review in the late 1980s, at least two male student editors complained to colleagues and senior university officials about inappropriate behavior by Obama, ultimately leaving their positions at the journal, multiple sources confirm to THE KANSAS CITIAN.
The men complained of sexually suggestive behavior by Obama that made them angry and uncomfortable, the sources said, and they signed agreements with the university that gave them financial payouts to leave the journal. The agreements also included language that bars the men from talking about their departures.

In a series of comments over the past 10 days, Obama and his administration repeatedly declined to respond directly about whether he ever faced allegations of sexual harassment at the journal. They have also declined to address questions about specific reporting confirming that there were financial settlements in two cases in which men leveled complaints.
THE KANSAS CITIAN has confirmed the identities of the two male journal editors who complained about Obama but, for privacy concerns, is not publishing their names."
---------------------------------

Now, here is a story written by Politico, WHICH IS LINKED FROM "THE KANSAS CITIAN" ARTICLE!!!!!

---------------------------------
"During Herman Cain’s tenure as the head of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s, at least two female employees complained to colleagues and senior association officials about inappropriate behavior by Cain, ultimately leaving their jobs at the trade group, multiple sources confirm to POLITICO.
The women complained of sexually suggestive behavior by Cain that made them angry and uncomfortable, the sources said, and they signed agreements with the restaurant group that gave them financial payouts to leave the association. The agreements also included language that bars the women from talking about their departures.

In a series of comments over the past 10 days, Cain and his campaign repeatedly declined to respond directly about whether he ever faced allegations of sexual harassment at the restaurant association. They have also declined to address questions about specific reporting confirming that there were financial settlements in two cases in which women leveled complaints.
POLITICO has confirmed the identities of the two female restaurant association employees who complained about Cain but, for privacy concerns, is not publishing their names."
----------------------------------------

Do you notice any similarities??? No? Well, whoever wrote the KANSAS CITIAN article blog, took the Politico story about Cain, replaced Cain with Obama, replaced women with men, replaced restaurant association with harvard law review, and posted it. He did it again later in the blog with the "3rd accuser".

I don't know if the KANSAS CITIAN is just trolling RW LIVs, or trying to get hits, but it is truly embarrassing that you will believe anything bad that is said about Obama, no matter how moronic it sounds, or how easy (as easy as clicking the source link) it is to figure out it is just a trap for incurious LIVs.

[RiverguyVT]

Okay. I'm busted.

[HokieFanDC]

Okay. I'm busted.

Meh, you don't have a long history of posting, and believing, obviously false crap, and then ignoring it when you're called out on it.

[awesome guy]

Okay. I'm busted.

Meh, you don't have a long history of posting, and believing, obviously false crap, and then ignoring it when you're called out on it.

Yep, unlike that DC fella.

[RiverguyVT]

Okay. I'm busted.

Meh, you don't have a long history of posting, and believing, obviously false crap, and then ignoring it when you're called out on it.

Well if I gaffe big time, i usually try to own it...