Beavis, or rather The Great Cornholio to be more specific, but yeah it does read well like that.
Sorry, beyond minor nitpick, I know.
It is good for the Boards to have resident experts on a variety of subjects. You may expect to be consulted on Beavis/Butthead issues whenever they arise.
I aim to please. Also, who the hell are you?
It seems a non-issue. But it should be easy for O to clear up any confusion. Why not do it?
…btw it may disappoint some of you who missed it the first time, but I am not a staunch Republican. I am, however, a conservative.
Bull-fucking-shit. You’re a lying liar who lies. You’re also a ditto-head Limbot.
I mean, for Christ’s sake…
You mean like this?
How about you crawl back under your bridge and let the grownups talk, huh?
He already has, for anyone inclined to believe what he, the Republican governor of Hawaii, the director of Hawaii’s Health Department, and the registrar of vital statistics say. Snopes, for what it’s worth.
Whatever. It would be a trifle for him and a gaggle of forensic experts of my choosing to fly to my house in a helicopter and personally deliver multiple videos (from different angles) of his birth on American soil as demonstrated by panning to shots of the Hawaii night sky along with a video of that child’s DNA being harvested from a cheek swab which the experts will then test in my presence to confirm that said child is indeed Obama after reviewing the aforementioned videos. I mean, anything less and I’d say he’s hiding something.
Usually I don’t take the bashing against you very seriously.
But after this…I am convinced…
You are a total fucking idiot. Obama’s answer shows that he clearly knows the history quite well. Sean Hannity is a dishonest scumbag and shouldn’t be regarded as ‘the press’. Obama doesn’t do interviews for the National Enquirer, why should he do interviews for a cable news channel that has even lower standards of journalistic integrity?
With Fox News it’s not about the Republican, it’s about the Lies.
I seem to be hearing that a lot lately. 
Uh…okay.
So what did I do?
The point is that Barack Obama from the full length video shows that he clearly knows what he’s talking about, he gave credit to American politicians where credit was due, and the only point of contention with Hannity that he has is that he thinks that Eastern European politicians deserve more credit than most Americans like to give them. Hannity misrepresented that on his show.
If you are going to defend an obvious and shameless misrepresentation of what Obama said, then you are as responsible for the dishonesty as Hannity is. On this forum we are mostly in agreement that Hannity is a lying sack of shit, we like to think better of you so we assume that you are just an honest idiot.
There is no need to defend the scumbags of the world just because you might share a partisan opinion or two with them. Look at how many times people rant at me about how nasty conservatives are or how much they hate Christians when I cannot rightly be said to belong to either group, that is because I am willing to call people out on any side for what I see as underhanded nastiness.
Part of what has destroyed honest conservatism in this country is that people like you jerk their knees and defend dishonest lying hypocrites like Sean Hannity when you see the liberals pile on. Sometimes those liberals are 100% correct, as in this case. Other times they are being a bunch of morons mired in group think like you are when you defend what Hannity did here.
I didn’t defend Hannity. I’ve said in this very thread that I don’t even like Hannity.
But things are what they are, and virtually nothing that the OP claims happened as he or she said. That was my point. Hannity didn’t lie. (An omission isn’t a lie, no matter how you or anyone else would like it to be. I would agree that if done with dishonest intent then the omission would be tantamount to a lie, but we don’t know that for a fact. As I and at least one other person said, the omitted part was so inconsequential that it may well have been omitted for nothing more than time constraints.); Obama did not answer the question well (a lame comment about Democratic and Republican presidents ‘lifting the iron-curtin’ does not qualify as a good answer in my opinion, sorry. He’d have been much better served, IMO, by acting as if Garrett’s question was stupid and by pointing out that such an egregious error in diplomacy would be unthinkable. Or something more statesmanlike along that line. It’s late and I’m tired. :); Hannity’s comment about Obama’s knowledge of history was reasonable given the context of Walesa’s statement (and it doesn’t matter if the statement was made at Reagan’s funeral; world leaders do not lie about events in their country, made in front of an international audience, just because someone died); and there was absolutely no evidence given to support the OP’s accusation that Hannity cast aspersions to the effect that Obama “HATES AMERICA”, as he put it.
Would you have me either remain silent while these misrepresentations are made simply because of political considerations? I didn’t defend Hannity; I poked holes in the OP’s erroneous claims. If the OP had presented his critique in a more honest way I’d have said nothing.
He edited it so that Obama appears to have said something that is actually directly opposite to what he actually said.
If you’ll excuse me I have angels on a pin to count.
Then while you’re at it, remove a few for your apparent inclination to allow the OP’s misrepresentations to stand if they suit your purpose.
Oh please! You are also missing the conditionals the OP put regarding the “hate America” part, and clearly the OP only mentioned that the lie was “about Obama not knowing history.”
**mswas **is correct.
Patterning your verbal attacks on Al Franken? Witty. :rolleyes:
“Grownups” who yell “troll! troll!” whenever a new voice appears who doesn’t fall into lock-step. Mature.
It should be accepted graciously; the accusation of trolling is often a “benefit of the doubt” first assessment, offered in lieu of the more tragic alternative. Much as the earnest schoolteacher might admonish her most troublesome charge with “I don’t think you *are *stupid, you’re just *acting *stupid,” or a parent might explain to their child that the drunken, urine-soaked vagrant lying amid a clutter of collected cans and his own filth is just “having a bad day.”
Again with the long-winded accusation of stupidity?
Most people who post on a message board such as this one have above-average intelligence. The bad news is that the vast majority are only slightly above average.
It’s often these people who toss around the “stupid” insult most frequently.
Do you also believe that the numerous other instances of Hannity selectively editing Obama’s remarks to make it appear he said something he didn’t were also due to “time constraints”? Were these edits just to remove some extraneous verbiage?
Or will you now accept that Sean Hannity, as asserted, is indeed a lying douchebag who has a history of deliberate misrepresentation of the statements of Obama and others?
How mature is it that you simply accept the word of your Lord and Master on Obama’s citizenship rather than, you know, actually research the issue yourself (or, even easier, get your news from somewhere other than FreeRepublic or His Holiness Lord Limbaugh).
Or is that you do already know all of this and pretend not to just to get the reaction?
So, this segment edited out for “time constraints” was, what, maybe five seconds long? For a show that runs for roughly an hour? Say forty minutes, given commercials. So this segment represents, then, a reduction of one one hundred forty eighth part. And Hannity’s show is so tightly wired, someone went around saying “Hey, we’re too long, got to find five seconds to cut”. Right, got it. And the five seconds they cut just happened to be Barry O’s response to Major Major’s question.
So, it was chosen at random, then? And no one noticed that that cut completely altered the context of Barry’s answer? In the entire menagerie of Fox News maroons, no one noticed!? Not one of their professional staff, including Pumpkin Head, noticed. All an innocent mistake.
Sure.
Oh, come now, 'luc – such curmudgeonly cynicism ill becomes you. How can you doubt the simpleminded – ah, I mean singleminded devotion to the wellbeing of this great nation of such selfless patriots and good citizens as Mr. Hannity and his merry band of brothers? Why, the very idea of such good and honest – nay, fair and balanced almost beyond human ken – illuminators of the truth ever stooping so low as to misrepresent in the slightest degree the words of another (even when that other is clearly bent upon the destruction of all that is good and holy in our beleaguered country) must beggar belief.
Why must you be such a poopyhead?