Thanks John B for telling the truth. i enjoy your articles. and the sassy way you write. the opposite of the truth is well an example yesterday in the news:
Gop truncating obama talk 14 yrs ago...well the fact checker gave it a 4 pinnochio (a whopper) as the truncated part was the real point of the talk.
How can this be legal to slander and lie so blantanly.
if we did not have reporters and editors like you guys to tell us the truth. well we would be misled to vote Republican! i am shocked i used to vote for them, but how they twist the nice chistian people into thinking they are the christian protectors is criminal! they use people who are too lazy to check the facts and think they really care about the morals of christians. the true christian values are only to be trusted in your church. Don't mix politics with religion. vote for your medicare and jobs and social security for the middle class..vote Democratic this november.

Posted by: ladyLiberty

September 21, 2012 at 11:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

mycentworth--

RE "I'll bet Romney has contributed more to the needs of this country than Obama or the writer"
Given the facts that Mr. Romney has killed more American jobs and closed more businesses than either Mr. Brummett or Mr. Obama, and that he is part of the system of corporate welfare that is ruining this country, you are almost certainly right. Good guess.

However, we need leaders who increase the value of this country rather than the needs.

Posted by: AlphaCat

September 21, 2012 at 1:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

AlphaCat - If Romney was a democrat, you'd be defending him. It was all legal and just business. Some businesses just cannot survive - foolish to keep them open.

Posted by: mycentworth

September 21, 2012 at 3:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

mycentworth--

RE "If Romney was a democrat, you'd be defending him."
Not if he were running on the premise that his business experience is what the country needs. Bad guess.

Posted by: AlphaCat

September 21, 2012 at 3:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ladyliberty - You are the naive one if you think Christians vote for whom they are told. I am always reading and looking for info on the candidates. It is sad when there is so much lying and twisting and deceiving. Where is the integrity so we don't have to do so much 'fact checking'? Used to be you could trust a man's word - at least those running for the highest office in the land. Sad state we are in!!

Posted by: mycentworth

September 21, 2012 at 4:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

mycentworth,
you are indeed using your head and are not sticking your head in the sand. I would love to meet more christians like you. yes it is hard to find integrety today in politics which i remember used to be a noble and honorable career.

i hope arkansas can keep the discussions goiing in a dignified way like so many bloggers like alpha cat and coralie and John Brummett so that a future politician can emerge from the young. maybe a future Bill Clinton?! lets keep encouraging an honest discussion of the political issue without personal name calling if we can.
maybe even our congressmen will learn on the job some new ideas. like going back to work instead of just leaving on vacation when the job gets tough. like compromise and putting america before the party.

Posted by: ladyLiberty

September 22, 2012 at 8:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

"We beg forgiveness from the terrorists, but we dare not ask forgiveness from God" Obama and the democrats.
2008: democrats nominate a man over a woman. They then tear down their female opponent. Democrats don't want a women in charge but will say they are pro women. Wasn't it democrats that said women married to successful men need to stay in the shadows and support their man? Why yes, yes it was. Report the truth? Certainly, well, your version of it anyway.

Posted by: BCGuy

September 23, 2012 at 12:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Lady Liberty is just one example of liberal elitism. They would love to have the power to dictatate to the people that as long as the Constitution is in place keeps them from having that power. Bashing Christians is their favorite tactic and want to have a hand on the Muslim knife as they behead a Christian. Remember what you saw and the pain Daniel Pearle endured as his head was removed from his body. Brummitt hates Christians as do all liberal elitists.

Posted by: tevers1

September 23, 2012 at 3:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Fayfreethinker, you're wrong.
Actually, I was just trying to ruffle feathers. I was really bored. You won!!!
Oh, but Obama did apologize to murderers and took full responsibility for free speach when he did that. That makes the terrorists victims in his book.
No, not really. Not something you'd admit about your hero Hussein.

Posted by: BCGuy

September 23, 2012 at 9:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Poor BCGuy. He can't muster the courage to even stand behind his claims so instead he tries to hide behind the ruse that he doesn't mean them. But that doesn't wash because then he forgets what he just denied and reverts to trying a most feeble attempt at defending what he just said he didn't mean.

This notion that Obama has apologized for America in some way, or any way, is just another juvenile and idiotic talking point BCGuy heard on his Fox Box and is regurgitating without any knowledge or thought. Let's help him out with the facts. Three examples:

1) "Mitt Romney says Barack Obama "traveled around the globe to apologize for America.”

Pants on Fire lie. Details here: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-met...

2) [Mittens, in his book] Several times, Obama "has apologized for what he deems to be American arrogance, dismissiveness, and derision; for dictating solutions, for acting unilaterally ... ."

False. Details here: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-met...

3) Republican wingnut: "Ted Cruz says Obama made “a worldwide apology tour”

Pants on Fire Lie. Detailed here: http://www.politifact.com/texas/state...

Etc. It's all embarrassing, disgraceful rubbish unworthy of adult conversation. None of these claims hold up even slightly to examination.

BC: "Obama did apologize to murderers...">>

Of course he did not and anyone who could honestly believe that needs to have their head examined.

Oh wait, forgot. You're just "bored," "ruffling feathers." Sure you are. Here's a suggestion wingnut: try being honest. Try the truth. Perhaps you'll even like it.

D.
----------------
Joe Scarborough pointing out the truth on this matter:

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

September 23, 2012 at 10:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BC: Typical liberal... avoids the truth.">>

It has been quite easy to show who has been avoiding truth. Let's do it again:

BC: "Obama blames Bush for everything.">>

I don't think he blames him nearly enough. I wouldn't be such a nice guy about it. It's nice to see most people still know:

"Poll: Majority of Americans Still Blame Bush for the Economy"

"A majority of Americans are still placing blame on former President George W. Bush for the struggling economy, more than three years after he left office, according to a new Gallup poll released on Thursday."
http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-p...

That's June. Here's from Sept. 13:
"CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said, “Since President Barack Obama’s first year in office, a majority of Americans have said that former President Bush’s policies were more responsible for current economic problems than Obama’s policies were.” The current poll shows that 57% still hold that opinion."
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/09/...

Good to see most Americans still know who to blame.

BC: "He had two years of total control in congress...>>

Actually, they never had a filibuster majority. Until Al Franken was sworn in (July), the Demos in the Senate had 57. With Franken it was 58 plus two independents who caucused with them. At that time Ted Kennedy was on his death bed, housebound and not voting. Eleven weeks passed and then Scott Brown won the seat.

So rather than "two years of total control" as you falsely claim, at best 58 plus two independents... for about 14 weeks. Please make a note of it and don't pass along this whopper again.

BC: "HE killed Bin Laden,">>

He never claimed this. Feel free to stop making things up any time. Unlike your Bush, he did make it a priority, and with great success.

BC: "Bush had no part in it?">>

No one said that, let's consider the difference:

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority.... I am truly not that concerned about him."—3/13/02

"I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."—3/13/02

Contrast this with Obama:
"...shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda, even as we continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network."

Posted by: fayfreethinker

September 24, 2012 at 12:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Mycent: "I am very disgusted by Obama's lack of response to the embassies attacks...">>

What do you want him to do, invade and occupy a country?

Mycent: "Not to realize that something could happen on 9/11 is irresponsible.">>

Lots of things *could* happen. Where is your evidence that there was reason to believe, before the event, that this *would* happen?

Mycent: "9 days for WH to even admit to it being a terrorist attack.">>

Even if that were true, what does putting the event in the semantic category of "terrorist attack" (after 9 days of investigation) change?

Rightwing media and your Fox Box sources have been spreading the notion that an attack on these buildings is a new thing.

For instance:

"On Fox News, Charles Krauthammer suggested that "under other presidents, particularly Bush," there was "no storming of the U.S. embassy in Cairo." In fact, there were seven attacks on U.S. embassies and consulates during the Bush years, and numerous other such attacks have happened under recent presidents."
http://mediamatters.org/research/2012...

Mycent: "Where does his true alligience lie?">>

If Muslims freaking out and attacking embassies and consulates (the ambassador was in a consulate at the time which is much less protected than an embassy) suggests Obama's allegiance doesn't lie fully with the US, does your same ad hoc reasoning implicate Bush since these installations were attacked seven times during Bush's terms? Good grief, what a pile of nonsense.

D.
----------------
"I do believe in basic science. I believe in participating in space. I believe in analysis of new sources of energy. I believe in laboratories, looking at ways to conduct electricity with -- with cold fusion, if we can come up with it. It was the University of Utah that solved that. We somehow can’t figure out how to duplicate it." --Mittens, talking about science.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/transcr...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

September 24, 2012 at 9:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Mycent: "this ambassador was killed and tortured">>

No he wasn't. He died of smoke inhalation. The reports of torture, from lunatics like Rush Limbaugh and assorted rightwing know nothing nutbars, are entirely without basis. You may notice that no reputable news sources support your claim or are talking about it.

Mycent: "it could have been prevented.">>

Most things can be prevented, if you know about them in advance. But we didn't and that's why you ducked my question:

Where is your evidence that there was reason to believe, before the event, that this *would* happen? There is none.

Mycent: "What brought up the science quote?>>

After my comments I often provide an extra quote. This one was provided to reveal how clueless Williard is on matters of science. It's a very good example.

My: "Research progressed just fine without dumping/losing large amounts of taxpayers money...">>

You are completely, utterly, wrong. Nearly everything around you, from the internet you tap away on, to the medicines that allow you to live 35 years longer than someone a 100 years ago, came about because of research funded by taxpayer money.

My: "WE ARE BROKE.">>

We are not broke. We are not close to broke. Begin by being honest with language. The US, which has greatest collection of wealth on the entire planet, has about $170 trillion in equity. About 13x our yearly GDP. Here's what broke means:

broke –verb
4. without money; penniless.
5. bankrupt.

We're not broke and it's not honest to say we are. I cover this popular and entirely bogus "America is broke" canard here:

http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/vie...

D.
---------------
http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

September 25, 2012 at 10:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

mycentworth--

RE "You are broke when your income does not match your obligations, IMO."
Damned corporate welfare and tax cuts for the rich. If only Bush hadn't messed with Clinton's surplus. You are entitled to your opinion, but you really shouldn't present it as fact in front of people who know better.

RE "All China has to say is 'pay up' and we will know what true suffering is."
We owe China about $1.15 trillion-- about half of the cost of the second Iraq war. Where were you when that money was being borrowed? Of course, China is not going to say "pay up", because we're their best customer, and a demand for payment would wreck their own economy.

I have a feeling that, compared to much of the world neither you nor I will ever know what true suffering means, as it applies to day-to-day life.

______________________________

"Every man has a right to his opinion, but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts." --Bernard Baruch

Posted by: AlphaCat

September 25, 2012 at 11:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )