Palin Derangement Syndrome.

[Balloon guy 158]

Here's a little poll for you:Which lie is an actual lie:Bachman: My husbands business does not get federal funds.Obama administration:

The senior administration official twice claimed that the Obama decision was within the range of options the military presented to Obama. “In terms of General Petraeus, I think that, consistent with our approach to this, General Petraeus presented the president with a range of options for pursuing this drawdown. There were certainly options that went beyond what the president settled on in terms of the length of time that it would take to recover the surge and the pace that troops would come out – so there were options that would have kept troops in Afghanistan longer at a higher number. That said, the president’s decision was fully within the range of options that were presented to him and he has the full support of his national security team.”

Before you decide, here is what General Allen was required to say because unlike Clinton, he understands that being under oath requires you to tell the truth:

In response to questioning from Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Allen testified that Obama’s decision on the pace and size of Afghanistan withdrawals was “a more aggressive option than that which was presented.”Graham pressed him. “My question is: Was that a option?”Allen: “It was not.”Allen's claim, which came under oath, contradicts the line the White House had been providing reporters over the past week—that Obama simply chose one option among several presented by General David Petraeus. In a conference call last Wednesday, June 22, a reporter asked senior Obama administration officials about those options. “Did General Petraeus specifically endorse this plan, or was it one of the options that General Petraeus gave to the president?”

Now before you answer the poll, understand that one of those 'lies' will never have any relevance to anything ever, the other one is a direct lie to the media and the American people about the actions of the government 'of the people, by the people, and cough for the people cough.

[colonel Feathers 5]

I didn't know brv wrote for the LA Times.But you are right to ignore the facts on this if you want to keep your irrational hatred of Palin alive.

Did you really think a lib would concede anything about Palin?

[mrdannyg 274]

Did you really think a lib would have a basic understanding of sentence structure and syntax, and use that knowledge to determine a speaker's obvious intent?

The answer is yes, yes they would.

[mrdannyg 274]

Here's a little poll for you:Which lie is an actual lie:Bachman: My husbands business does not get federal funds.Obama administration:Before you decide, here is what General Allen was required to say because unlike Clinton, he understands that being under oath requires you to tell the truth:Now before you answer the poll, understand that one of those 'lies' will never have any relevance to anything ever, the other one is a direct lie to the media and the American people about the actions of the government 'of the people, by the people, and cough for the people cough.

Looks like a lie, but Allen's testimony implies only one option was presented. That seems unlikely. If in fact multiple options were presented, then Allen's testimony only indicates that Obama's choice was more aggressive than the selected option, and not explicitly an option itself. In this case, the WH statement is not inaccurate. Though I would agree that it was probably a poor managerial decision to choose a compromise between multiple options, when the options were created by people with significantly more expertise.If only one option was presented, the WH statement is false, unless we accept that by presenting one option, the assumption would be that Obama would tweak it as he felt appropriate. That is definitely a stretch.Bachmann's is a lie no matter what. If she wasn't sure, she could have said so. The lie about receiving funds from the family farm is even more problematic and obvious. Of course, these lies aren't as harmful as the White House lying about the war process. Then again, a certain genius once told me that the public can't handle the truth about wars, and need to be fed lies so they can feel good about themselves and keep the blood off their hands. I guess General Allen must be awful at his job for committing the error of telling the truth about the war.

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

The lie about receiving funds from the family farm is even more problematic and obvious.

BACHMANN: "The farm is my father-in-law's farm. It's not my husband and my farm. It's my father-in-law's farm. And my husband and I have never gotten a penny of money from the farm." — On "Fox News Sunday."THE FACTS: In personal financial disclosure reports required annually from members of Congress, Bachmann reported that she holds an interest in a family farm in Independence, Wis., with her share worth between $100,000 and $250,000.The farm, which was owned by her father-in-law, produced income for Bachmann of at least $32,500 and as much as $105,000 from 2006 through 2009, according to the reports she filed for that period. The farm also received federal crop and disaster subsidies, according to a database maintained by the Environmental Working Group. From 1995 through 2010, the farm got $259,332 in federal payments.

I didn't see anywhere in there where it says she actually received money from the farm. The thing that I take away from this "lie" and the clinic one is that she doesn't really understand the business side of companies that she isn't personally involved in and probably shouldn't be talking about them. Then again, if she refused to answer these questions she would be criticized for withholding information.

[CaneBrain 95]

What about when she said Obama released the entire strategic oil reserve even though he actually released 4%

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

What about when she said Obama released the entire strategic oil reserve even though he actually released 4%

Are you talking to me?I've said before that she has said some dumb and incorrect things; I'm just defending her on the stuff that I don't think she should be attacked for.Now...if I were her PR rep, I would probably say that she meant "all that oil" instead of "all the oil," which would clear things up just like that.But I couldn't find any clarifications from her or her team on this statement, so...looks pretty dumb on her.

[colonel Feathers 5]

What about when she said Obama released the entire strategic oil reserve even though he actually released 4%

I guess in the spirit of meaningless attacks,Obama got his daughters ages wrong in a press conference.

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

I guess in the spirit of meaningless attacks,Obama got his daughters ages wrong in a press conference.

Yeah, that's comparable.

[vbnautilus 48]

I didn't see anywhere in there where it says she actually received money from the farm.

The farm, which was owned by her father-in-law, produced income for Bachmann of at least $32,500 and as much as $105,000 from 2006 through 2009

Am I misunderstanding something? Also: Wow an indent tag? Nice.

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

Am I misunderstanding something? Also: Wow an indent tag? Nice.

She's a partial owner of the farm. Basically, she only receives money from the farm if the farm pays dividends. So the fact that the farm is making money means it's probably a good investment for her, but it doesn't necessarily mean that she is receiving actual cash from it yet.This is what I mean when I say that she probably doesn't understand the business side of this farm because she would probably say it more clearly if she did. There's a difference between making money and getting money. The farm is apparently making a lot of money. Whether she is getting money from it hasn't been shown yet.

[vbnautilus 48]

She's a partial owner of the farm. Basically, she only receives money from the farm if the farm pays dividends. So the fact that the farm is making money means it's probably a good investment for her, but it doesn't necessarily mean that she is receiving actual cash from it yet.This is what I mean when I say that she probably doesn't understand the business side of this farm because she would probably say it more clearly if she did. There's a difference between making money and getting money. The farm is apparently making a lot of money. Whether she is getting money from it hasn't been shown yet.

I thought "produced income for her" meant she had received that money. I guess I don't understand how the farm could produce income for her without her receiving it? I see how the farm could be successful without her receiving money, but it specifically says that it produced income for her.

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

I thought "produced income for her" meant she had received that money. I guess I don't understand how the farm could produce income for her without her receiving it? I see how the farm could be successful without her receiving money, but it specifically says that it produced income for her.

Because whether or not you receive cash from the business, you still must report the income.¹ So personally she would be reporting income. They say produced for her because she's only a partial owner, so the farm's income of $100,000 would produce income for her of $100,000 x 20% (hypothetical numbers). ¹Honestly, if the farm is making that kind of money each year, it seems unlikely that it would never distribute any of that to the owners unless the owners could afford to pay taxes on $100,000 when they never receive any of that money. I don't know the Bachmann's personal financial situation obviously, so I don't know if this is the case or not.

[mrdannyg 274]

Am I misunderstanding something? Also: Wow an indent tag? Nice.

Yeah, that was nice work.

She's a partial owner of the farm. Basically, she only receives money from the farm if the farm pays dividends. So the fact that the farm is making money means it's probably a good investment for her, but it doesn't necessarily mean that she is receiving actual cash from it yet.This is what I mean when I say that she probably doesn't understand the business side of this farm because she would probably say it more clearly if she did. There's a difference between making money and getting money. The farm is apparently making a lot of money. Whether she is getting money from it hasn't been shown yet.

That...doesn't really make sense. If the farm paid her a dividend, she made money. I'm not even sure what you mean - I guess the dividend could have been declared and unpaid, but that would be a very odd and pointless thing for a family business to do.The fact that she owns a share is enough to make that a dishonest statement, even if it is just an ignorant one. Having her as a shareholder would be a common tax strategy, and not necessarily indicate an intent for her to access those funds. However, she would still be required to sign documents, etc. I very much doubt someone in her position could have a 6-figure share in a small business and not be aware of it.The fact the farm received funding is irrelevant of course.It's a pretty harmless lie - the farm receives what appears to be legit government funding, and she draws a reasonable share of the profits from that company. Not like she's using her position to redirect millions in slush funding. Then again, my position would be that anyone who is not even aware of their own financial situation and sources of income probably shouldn't be the leader of 300 million people's.edit - I see the above post. Would a farm of that size not be incorporated? It's only producing income that she isn't receiving if they are not incorporated*, which seems insane.*I am not an accountant.

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

edit - I see the above post. Would a farm of that size not be incorporated? It's only producing income that she isn't receiving if they are not incorporated*, which seems insane.

I don't know anything about farms.Even if it was incorporated, wouldn't she still only be receiving money through dividends?As far as whether it's dishonest to say it's not your farm, if you owned 10% of something, would you say, "That's my business"? Even if you didn't actually run it or have anything to do with operations? I would probably say something like, "I own a piece of that." I don't know how much of the farm she owns. Could be that it's a lot more than 10%. What % would it have to be to make it an outright lie? I don't know.

[El Guapo 8]

I own stock in google. I am a part owner in google. Google makes a profit, I don't see a dime because they don't pay dividends.I am a 10% part owner in a partnership. I do not work for the partnership. I receive no paycheck. The partnership profits $1,000,000 that is all retained and not distributed. I have income of 100,000 from the partnership, I have to pay taxes on that 100,00, but I never received a dime from it.

[mrdannyg 274]

I don't know anything about farms.Even if it was incorporated, wouldn't she still only be receiving money through dividends?As far as whether it's dishonest to say it's not your farm, if you owned 10% of something, would you say, "That's my business"? Even if you didn't actually run it or have anything to do with operations? I would probably say something like, "I own a piece of that." I don't know how much of the farm she owns. Could be that it's a lot more than 10%. What % would it have to be to make it an outright lie? I don't know.

Guapo covered the first part. If the farm is incorporated, she only 'receives income' if they pay a dividend, which would almost certainly be cash. Maybe to a holding company or something she doesn't actually see, but still in her name. If it's not incorporated, she would have to declare income whether or not she received it. Though farms are not always incorporated, it would be very odd for a farm of that size, and with outside shareholders, to not be incorporated.If I owned a piece of a business, I would say the same thing as you. In Bachmann's position, I would say "I am a shareholder" or "for tax reasons, I am a shareholder, but am not familiar with the operation". I would not say whatever she said that indicated absolutely no ownership or benefits.

[akoff 0]

reading the depth of knowledge about business, structure, profits and taxes on the last 2 pages is quite ammusing. in a sad kind of now i understand why some of you feel the way you do kind of way. but the world needs smart people without a clue as well...carry on.

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

If the farm is incorporated, she only 'receives income' if they pay a dividend.

Depends on the type of corporation.Regardless, we've strayed pretty far from the point.I was just trying to say that you have to make some assumptions to state that she's lying.

[El Guapo 8]

Depends on the type of corporation.Regardless, we've strayed pretty far from the point.I was just trying to say that you have to make some assumptions to state that she's lying.

In Mr. G's defense. They might not have S, C and LLC's in Canadia.

[Balloon guy 158]

In Mr. G's defense. They might not have S, C and LLC's in Canadia.

Can they tell the difference between lying and being wrong?Cause it don't look like it from what I've seen here lately.Yes, Bob, I am looking at you.

[vbnautilus 48]

reading the depth of knowledge about business, structure, profits and taxes on the last 2 pages is quite ammusing. in a sad kind of now i understand why some of you feel the way you do kind of way. but the world needs smart people without a clue as well...carry on.

Ahhh sorry, you just missed the cutoff for the Spring 2011 douchiest post award. We will keep this on file for the next round though, it is a fine piece of work. GL!

[mrdannyg 274]

Depends on the type of corporation.Regardless, we've strayed pretty far from the point.I was just trying to say that you have to make some assumptions to state that she's lying.

True, and I was arguing that the assumptions are almost certainly valid!

In Mr. G's defense. They might not have S, C and LLC's in Canadia.

We have some/most of those, but I'm no accountant. Prettay sure though that they'd rarely/never apply to a family farm.

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

True, and I was arguing that the assumptions are almost certainly valid!We have some/most of those, but I'm no accountant. Prettay sure though that they'd rarely/never apply to a family farm.

I feel like you're just talking out of your ass.It's an assumption, but almost certainly valid.

[colonel Feathers 5]

Can they tell the difference between lying and being wrong?Cause it don't look like it from what I've seen here lately.Yes, Bob, I am looking at you.

The Libs perspective, Republicans lie, Dems get it wrong, or better still, dems mispeak, or maybe even, they didnt get it wrong, you just cant grasp the nuance of their position.