- Posts: 26558
- Thank you received: 150
Personally? It doesn't bother me. I buy most of my guns off [url=http://www.gunbroker.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;]www.gunbroker.com[/url] and they are sent to my FFL where he administers a background check, I pay $30 for the transfer and take my gun home.The Dude wrote: Again if you have nothing to hide why do background checks bother you?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
If you actually read the blog, the Post admits that they have no facts to contradict the 40% number, only criticizing him for using the only available data. But then there would be no outrage.The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:
The Dude wrote: I want an honest answer as to why universal background checks are a bad thing. If you have nothing in your past to keep you from buying a gun then what does it really matter if you have to be checked?
Washington Post...
Obama’s continued use of the claim that 40 percent of gun sales lack background checks
We were away last week and have been catching up on the recent rhetoric. A number of readers asked us about this comment last week by President Obama, and his Twitter account (managed by his campaign spin-off Organizing for Action), given that we had looked closely at this statistic back in January, in two columns, and found it wanting. It ultimately earned a rating of Two Pinocchios. PolitiFact in January also concluded there were serious problems with this particular statistic, giving it a rating of “half true.”
Normally we would expect some adjustment of the language in response to a fact-checker consensus. Alas, it appears to be time for a refresher course — and a new rating.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... _blog.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/rw/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/fact-checker/StandingArt/pinocchio_3.jpg?uuid=uLasnkniEeCn1tWe_T6KGA
"Two months ago, we were willing to cut the White House some slack, given the paucity of recent data. But the president’s failure to acknowledge the significant questions about these old data, or his slippery phrasing, leaves us little choice but to downgrade this claim to Three Pinocchios."
Expect more of these outright lies today in Colorado (04-03-2013)... maybe the Washington Post will downgrade his lies to 4 pinocchios... when the liberal Washington Post slams you... you've got problems [/b]... Liberal Pretzel Logic....Imagine my surprise....
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Something the Dog Said wrote:
If you actually read the blog, the Post admits that they have no facts to contradict the 40% number, only criticizing him for using the only available data. But then there would be no outrage.The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:
The Dude wrote: I want an honest answer as to why universal background checks are a bad thing. If you have nothing in your past to keep you from buying a gun then what does it really matter if you have to be checked?
Washington Post...
Obama’s continued use of the claim that 40 percent of gun sales lack background checks
We were away last week and have been catching up on the recent rhetoric. A number of readers asked us about this comment last week by President Obama, and his Twitter account (managed by his campaign spin-off Organizing for Action), given that we had looked closely at this statistic back in January, in two columns, and found it wanting. It ultimately earned a rating of Two Pinocchios. PolitiFact in January also concluded there were serious problems with this particular statistic, giving it a rating of “half true.”
Normally we would expect some adjustment of the language in response to a fact-checker consensus. Alas, it appears to be time for a refresher course — and a new rating.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... _blog.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/rw/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/fact-checker/StandingArt/pinocchio_3.jpg?uuid=uLasnkniEeCn1tWe_T6KGA
"Two months ago, we were willing to cut the White House some slack, given the paucity of recent data. But the president’s failure to acknowledge the significant questions about these old data, or his slippery phrasing, leaves us little choice but to downgrade this claim to Three Pinocchios."
Expect more of these outright lies today in Colorado (04-03-2013)... maybe the Washington Post will downgrade his lies to 4 pinocchios... when the liberal Washington Post slams you... you've got problems [/b]... Liberal Pretzel Logic....Imagine my surprise....
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
The Dude wrote: I want an honest answer as to why universal background checks are a bad thing. If you have nothing in your past to keep you from buying a gun then what does it really matter if you have to be checked?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Something the Dog Said wrote: So since this alleged "boycott" of hunting in Colorado, there has been the following report:
Applications for Colorado big-game limited hunting licenses came in so fast Monday and Tuesday that the computer and credit-card processing systems crashed.
The deadline to apply for those licenses was Tuesday. Colorado Parks and Wildlife said high volume caused a link for online applications to crash for about three hours Monday night.
Read more: Procrastinating hunters crash Colorado application system at deadline - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ ... z2PPSzDe12
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse
Follow us: @Denverpost on Twitter | Denverpost on Facebook
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Something the Dog Said wrote:
If you actually read the blog, the Post admits that they have no facts to contradict the 40% number, only criticizing him for using the only available data. But then there would be no outrage.The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:
The Dude wrote: I want an honest answer as to why universal background checks are a bad thing. If you have nothing in your past to keep you from buying a gun then what does it really matter if you have to be checked?
Washington Post...
Obama’s continued use of the claim that 40 percent of gun sales lack background checks
We were away last week and have been catching up on the recent rhetoric. A number of readers asked us about this comment last week by President Obama, and his Twitter account (managed by his campaign spin-off Organizing for Action), given that we had looked closely at this statistic back in January, in two columns, and found it wanting. It ultimately earned a rating of Two Pinocchios. PolitiFact in January also concluded there were serious problems with this particular statistic, giving it a rating of “half true.”
Normally we would expect some adjustment of the language in response to a fact-checker consensus. Alas, it appears to be time for a refresher course — and a new rating.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... _blog.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/rw/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/fact-checker/StandingArt/pinocchio_3.jpg?uuid=uLasnkniEeCn1tWe_T6KGA
"Two months ago, we were willing to cut the White House some slack, given the paucity of recent data. But the president’s failure to acknowledge the significant questions about these old data, or his slippery phrasing, leaves us little choice but to downgrade this claim to Three Pinocchios."
Expect more of these outright lies today in Colorado (04-03-2013)... maybe the Washington Post will downgrade his lies to 4 pinocchios... when the liberal Washington Post slams you... you've got problems [/b]... Liberal Pretzel Logic....Imagine my surprise....
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:
Something the Dog Said wrote:
If you actually read the blog, the Post admits that they have no facts to contradict the 40% number, only criticizing him for using the only available data. But then there would be no outrage.The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:
The Dude wrote: I want an honest answer as to why universal background checks are a bad thing. If you have nothing in your past to keep you from buying a gun then what does it really matter if you have to be checked?
Washington Post...
Obama’s continued use of the claim that 40 percent of gun sales lack background checks
We were away last week and have been catching up on the recent rhetoric. A number of readers asked us about this comment last week by President Obama, and his Twitter account (managed by his campaign spin-off Organizing for Action), given that we had looked closely at this statistic back in January, in two columns, and found it wanting. It ultimately earned a rating of Two Pinocchios. PolitiFact in January also concluded there were serious problems with this particular statistic, giving it a rating of “half true.”
Normally we would expect some adjustment of the language in response to a fact-checker consensus. Alas, it appears to be time for a refresher course — and a new rating.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... _blog.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/rw/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/fact-checker/StandingArt/pinocchio_3.jpg?uuid=uLasnkniEeCn1tWe_T6KGA
"Two months ago, we were willing to cut the White House some slack, given the paucity of recent data. But the president’s failure to acknowledge the significant questions about these old data, or his slippery phrasing, leaves us little choice but to downgrade this claim to Three Pinocchios."
Expect more of these outright lies today in Colorado (04-03-2013)... maybe the Washington Post will downgrade his lies to 4 pinocchios... when the liberal Washington Post slams you... you've got problems [/b]... Liberal Pretzel Logic....Imagine my surprise....
If you read the article, they certainly have facts to question the statistics. It's called statistical analysis. But then you would have to deal with the truth.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.