Fact check: Whoppers of 2013

Fact check: Whoppers of 2013

There are 2714 comments on the USA Today story from Dec 19, 2013, titled Fact check: Whoppers of 2013. In it, USA Today reports that:

It's that time of year again when FactCheck looks back - perhaps not so fondly - on the most noteworthy nonsense from the past 12 months.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at USA Today.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1030 Dec 27, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."--Miranda vs. Arizona, U.S. Supreme Court, 384 US 436, 491,(1966).
Heller came after, Sweet Pea.
1 post removed
fingiswold

Tifton, GA

#1032 Dec 27, 2013
wild child wrote:
<quoted text>she makes sense to everyone else, she has proof of facts, as we all do, oh not you.you keep reporting people, which is childish.are you crying.you tell people they are stupid racist, csnt spell cant think.what is up with you and your akas.
Um, no - I just told you she doesn't make sense to me, therefore your claim is obviously false.

I report people who violate the TOS here. Apparently violating the rules is OK with you and li'l Sandy girl. Not very law-abiding, are you?:)

Your last sentence was an unintentional comic gem, though....LOL
fingiswold

Tifton, GA

#1033 Dec 27, 2013
sandy1 wrote:
<quoted text>
This from a punk who failed kindergarten. I bet you still eat paste.
If you failed Kindergarten, as you seem to be saying, wouldn't YOU be the one most likely to be eating paste?

LOL

I never ate paste even in Kindergarten, hon...:)
fingiswold

Tifton, GA

#1034 Dec 27, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
That fallacy only exists in the minds of you treasonous demonrats. As the voting record of the demonrat party clearly shows.
Childish, stupid post worthy of a Right-wingnut and gun-nut. You're well short of 100 IQ points, I'd guess.
fingiswold

Tifton, GA

#1035 Dec 27, 2013
TheWrightWing wrote:
The big Whopper is not simply Obama and everything about him; his entire life.
It is true, he is practically a fictional character, but... It is leftism.
Leftism can only be sold by lies. The word "Affordable" comes to mind...
Not very good lies, either, that's why lockstep fascism is so important to leftism, to control thoughts and words.
Name some "fictional" things about Mr. Obama, if you would. Since his bio is out there for everyone to read, I'm guessing you're going to have trouble there.

He's not been a "leftist" in many years, either. More of a Clinton Democrat and centrist.

Fascism is a philsophy of the RIGHT, so now you're not even making sense.

But then isn't that what the modern-day Right is all about? Not making sense?:)

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#1036 Dec 27, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Heller came after, Sweet Pea.
Doesn't matter, LIEberal. As the Constitution IS the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND - regardless of what the supreme court 'opines'.

"When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the Constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and NO ONE is bound to obey it."--State v Sutton,[Source: 63 Minn 167, 65 NW 262, 30 LRA 630]
fingiswold

Tifton, GA

#1037 Dec 27, 2013
Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
This insurance debate started when one of these morons claimed that oslamacare was not the first mandated insurance and claimed that car insurance was mandatory
Not only are the so stupid that they don't understand that owning a car is not mandatory but that car insurance is not even mandatory
In fact you'll find that most states do, indeed require ALL drivers to carry at least liability insurance. Some permit you to post cash bonds instead of insurance, for the same purpose - protecting other motorists from an accident that's your fault.

Stupid? Look in the mirror.
fingiswold

Tifton, GA

#1038 Dec 27, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
Doesn't matter, LIEberal. As the Constitution IS the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND - regardless of what the supreme court 'opines'.
"When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the Constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and NO ONE is bound to obey it."--State v Sutton,[Source: 63 Minn 167, 65 NW 262, 30 LRA 630]
LOL...I think you'll find that the Court's interpretations of the Constitution are what really carry weight, genius. YOUR interpretations don't mean jack s--t, for example.

Ah, the arrogance of the Rightie...:)

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#1039 Dec 27, 2013
fingiswold wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL...I think you'll find that the Court's interpretations of the Constitution are what really carry weight, genius. YOUR interpretations don't mean jack s--t, for example.
Ah, the arrogance of the Rightie...:)
"Those then who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered, in court as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only law.

"This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written Constitutions ... It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence, with the same breath, which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.

"That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions--a written Constitution--would of itself be sufficient, in America, where written Constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the Constitution."

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void."--Chief Justice Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court, Marbury v. Madison, 5, U.S.(Cranch) 137, 174,176.]
2 posts removed
fingiswold

Tifton, GA

#1042 Dec 27, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
"Those then who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered, in court as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only law.
"This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written Constitutions ... It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence, with the same breath, which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.
"That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions--a written Constitution--would of itself be sufficient, in America, where written Constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the Constitution."
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void."--Chief Justice Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court, Marbury v. Madison, 5, U.S.(Cranch) 137, 174,176.]
Let us know what was the LAST law made "null and void" by Mr. Chief Justice Marshall's opinion, would'ja?

Oh, and maybe you could give us his Court's opinion on the Adams Administration's Alien and Sedition Law, while you're at it.:)
fingiswold

Tifton, GA

#1043 Dec 27, 2013
Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong again
My old company is still running more than 200 trucks and still not buying any insurance
I posted the link from DMV but morons can't read it
Then they're breaking the law. YOu should turn them in under the whstleblower laws, Mr. Public Citizen.

Or are they posting bonds or making a lump-sum payment, perhaps? Do tell.
fingiswold

Tifton, GA

#1044 Dec 27, 2013
Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
Just open his official birth certificate with Adobe product and look at the layers
No copy machine or scanning software can do that
OMFG, you're a Birfer too, aren't'cha?

LOL!

I knew your stupidity had no limits...:)

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#1045 Dec 27, 2013
fingiswold wrote:
<quoted text>
Let us know what was the LAST law made "null and void" by Mr. Chief Justice Marshall's opinion, would'ja?
Oh, and maybe you could give us his Court's opinion on the Adams Administration's Alien and Sedition Law, while you're at it.:)
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government ... The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms..."--Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers No. 28.

"No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid."--Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #78.

"It is a rule of law that, in order to ascertain the import of a contract, the evident intention of the parties, at the time of forming it, is principally to be regarded. Previous to the formation of this Constitution, there existed certain principles of the law of nature and nations, consecrated by time and experience, in conformity to which the Constitution was formed."-- Mr. Elliot, Debate in U.S. House of Representatives, Oct. 25, 1803 (The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution),[Elliot's Debates, Volume 4]

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#1046 Dec 27, 2013
fingiswold wrote:
<quoted text>
OMFG, you're a Birfer too, aren't'cha?
LOL!
I knew your stupidity had no limits...:)
The Kenyan born muslim citizen of Indonesia is a fraud. Just ask Barry Soetero. Oh wait, that's 'obama' too!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1047 Dec 27, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
-State v Sutton
2ndAmRight wrote:
Nov 20 1772.
Alexander Hamilton DEC 15, 1774
Oct 26 1774
June 19 1775
DEC 6 1775
January 16, 1776
Thomas Jefferson 1779
George Washington, Oct 23 1778
1789 letter
Thomas Paine 1791
George Tucker 1803
2ndAmRight wrote:
Nov. 4, 1812.
(1814)
2ndAmRight wrote:
Nov. 16, 1818.
2ndAmRight wrote:
Dec. 25 1822
Feb 4, 1833
2ndAmRight wrote:
Dec. 7, 1835.
Dec. 6, 1836.
1837
2ndAmRight wrote:
(1846)
1848
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1856)
Jan 21, 1870
(1875)
Cruikshank 1875
2ndAmRight wrote:
November 28, 1892
1896
Aug 1 1909
Not the remotest connection to the topic.

Help stamp out CenturySpamô!! Flag appropriately!
2ndAmRight wrote:
I'm not the one stuck in the 1800's troll, >you< are.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1048 Dec 27, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
Oct. 25, 1803
2ndAmRight wrote:
Nov 20 1772.
Alexander Hamilton DEC 15, 1774
Oct 26 1774
June 19 1775
DEC 6 1775
January 16, 1776
Thomas Jefferson 1779
George Washington, Oct 23 1778
1789 letter
Thomas Paine 1791
George Tucker 1803
2ndAmRight wrote:
Nov. 4, 1812.
(1814)
2ndAmRight wrote:
Nov. 16, 1818.
2ndAmRight wrote:
Dec. 25 1822
Feb 4, 1833
2ndAmRight wrote:
Dec. 7, 1835.
Dec. 6, 1836.
1837
2ndAmRight wrote:
(1846)
1848
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1856)
Jan 21, 1870
(1875)
Cruikshank 1875
2ndAmRight wrote:
November 28, 1892
1896
Aug 1 1909
Not the remotest connection to the topic.

Help stamp out CenturySpamô!! Flag appropriately!
2ndAmRight wrote:
I'm not the one stuck in the 1800's troll, >you< are.
2 posts removed

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1051 Dec 27, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
The Kenyan born muslim citizen
~stomp stomp stomp~

EVEN PALIN laughs at birthers!
1 post removed
fingiswold

Tifton, GA

#1053 Dec 27, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
"If the representatives of the people........State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution),[Elliot's Debates, Volume 4]
Thanks, spam-boy, knew you didn't have anything....LOL
fingiswold

Tifton, GA

#1054 Dec 27, 2013
Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
I have posted the facts here at least a dozen times but morons can't read it.....
Company stock was placed in a escrow account with DMV in 1987
As new trucks were added more stock was deposited
I posted the DMV web site for you morons..........ROTFLMAO
Which was my point, idiot. I've already noted that CERTAIN STATES PERMIT ALTERNATIVES TO BUYING INSURANCE.

You're just too f---ing stupid to read, that's all.

Buh-Bye

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#1055 Dec 27, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Not the remotest connection to the topic.
Help stamp out CenturySpamô!! Flag appropriately!
<quoted text>
"Guns Forum" = EVERYTHING to do with the topic.

"Barefoot2626" - NOTHING - EVER to do with the topic. Except for treasonous expletives that is.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 min Injudgement 1,508,090
News Oil business seen in strong position as Trump t... 2 min ardith 19
News Trump supporters cheer his combative stance wit... 7 min southern at heart 1,247
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 14 min Dr Guru 239,293
News Global backlash grows against Trump's immigrati... 36 min katrina 3,383
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 1 hr Just call me Abe 3 261,664
News News | Former State Police Col. O'Donnell Ran a... 2 hr Colonel Stone 1
News Comey: FBI probing links between Russia, Trump ... 2 hr Drumpf steam engine 239
News Young Americans: Most see Trump as illegitimate... 2 hr Drumpf steam engine 605
News Trump's repeated claim that he won a 'landslide... 5 hr jonjedi 7,357
More from around the web