Sandy Hook School Shooting

The Latest 'Fact-Check' Foolishness: NBC Goes After Critics of Obama's Executive Orders on Guns

|

In my February-issue editor's note, I lamented that "the fact-checking press gives the president a pass," in part by providing checks not "on the exercise of power," but rather "on the exercise of rhetoric."

As if to illustrate my point, NBCnews.com's First Read had a breaking fact-check earlier today not on the comments that President Barack Obama has made regarding gun policy, particular in regards to his 23 executive orders on the topic, but rather the "sound and fury" of the president's critics.

Conservative opponents of President Obama have called him a "dictator," a "tyrant," "imperial," for proposing executive actions he believes would help prevent gun violence.

"President Obama is again abusing his power by imposing his policies via executive fiat instead of allowing them to be debated in Congress," charged Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who is widely believed to be eyeing a 2016 White House run, in response to the president's announcement Wednesday.

But the 23 executive actions the president signed today do not seem to go very far, as his critics suggest. In fact, most are administrative – publishing letters, writing memos, and appointing administrators.

Remember when people gave a shit about this?

It's true: President Barack Obama is not a "dictator." It's also true that NBC's Domenico Montanaro did not actually identify or link to anyone calling him one. The one contestable Rubio claim is whether the president's 23 gun-related executive orders are examples of him "abusing his power," a judgment which strikes me as entirely within the eye of the beholder. For example, prior to Obama's inauguration, there were many people–chief among them a politician named Barack Obama–who believed that George W. Bush's extensive use of executive orders and signing statements in and of itself constituted an abuse of power.

Providing an accurate fact-check on such a subjective judgment is much more of a fool's errand than, say, insisting that a single baseball statistic definitively determines who was the most "valuable" player in the American League last year. After all, we measure baseball one hell of a lot more precisely than we do the exercise of presidential power.

But we totally know who deserved it, amirite?

Instead we are left with the weasel-worded and subjective retort that "the 23 executive actions the president signed today do not seem to go very far." And worse, this sentence is offered as supporting evidence:

There is even one [order] the National Rifle Association would seemingly embrace—No. 18 "Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers."

So NBC is now outsourcing its fact-checking judgment to the NRA?

When you direct fact-checking at the exercise of power rather than at the deployment of hyperbolic rhetoric in opposition to it, you end up with a completely different category of question. A fine example of which came this morning from our own Jacob Sullum:

[I]t's fair to judge President Obama's gun control agenda, which he is unveiling today, by the extent to which his proposals can realistically be expected to prevent mass shootings like last month's attack at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. Why? Because that is how he himself described his goal: "to make sure that the kinds of violence we saw at Newtown doesn't happen again" and to "make sure that somebody like the individual in Newtown can't walk into a school and gun down a bunch of children in a shockingly rapid fashion." 

Reason on Sandy Hook and the subsequent fallout here.

NEXT: Russian Crime Boss Gunned Down in Moscow

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It just isn’t about principles or policy to a lot of people.

    There’s one issue that overrides everything for them, and it’s Obama. Guns aren’t the issue; Obama is.

    How dare anybody question what Obama wants to do?

    Why can’t you see that he’s Obama? Why can’t you see that’s more important than any issue?

    1. The media treats Obama the way old fat ladies treat their lapdog. The thing could take a wet shit in her mouth, and they’d wonder what they did to upset wittle precious…

  2. A fine example of which came this morning from our own Jacob Sullum…

    Would it be fair to say that Sullum is the most pro-2nd Amendment reason contributor? I’m not saying everyone else is a cosmatarian or whatever the eff term is being tossed around, but the most forceful articles against the current push for gun control seem to come from Mr. Sullum.

    1. Sullum is extremely principled.

      On every issue, he seems to be extremely principled.

      Every libertarian cares about some issues more than others, but Sullum seems to be equally principled on every issue.

      Drug war, limitations of presidential power, Second Amendment, you name it.

      1. Too bad he’s so intent on running down Bill O’Reilly’s kids in the street.

        1. Not to be mean but that would definately improve the gene pool.

        2. What’s the bad part again?

          That’s just another thing in the ‘plus’ column for Jacob Sullum.

    2. Sullum’s also incredibly knowledgeable on gun issues. I’ve been very impressed with his gun rights articles.

    3. I always liked Sullum’s strong drug war stance and informative articles, and under this gun-grabbing atmosphere his staunch pro-2nd stance and articles has heightened my respect for him.

      1. Yes, he is my go to on this issue.

    4. “… I’m not saying everyone else is a cosmatarian or whatever “….

      oh?? PLEASE!@!?? ITS SO MUCH FUN

      that guy who really thinks America’s problem is Not Enough White People or something is close, but the people who shit yellow in anger whenever Nick fails to express equal froth and righteous anger over the 2A are pure entertainment

      I admit – being a NYr, I’m not really a ‘gun guy’ (HOW COULD I BE!! SOB… DAMN YOU CUOMO)… but I am completely and utterly disgusted with Obamas exploitation of events to simply push through his favorite Rights Revoking policies… I mean seriously. I was sick of the guy before, but recent events have produced a non-stop stream of anger-vomit

      Especially shit like what this post is about – the media bullshit that has gone along with it. I haven’t been this disgusted since Benghazi. I prey he gets the Reagan Iran-Contra treatment, but have low expectations with the current GOP

      1. The idiots who whine about “cosmotarians” are KULTUR WAR morons whose very act of whining about “cosmos” alerts you to the fact that you can ignore them with impunity.

        There’s no way Obama gets Iran-Contra’ed. Much of the media is so fucking in the tank for him that they’ll help quash anything…just like Benghazi.

        I can’t think of what he could do at this point that would actually get him in real trouble.

        1. When I see someone use the term “cosmotarian”, I think, “Jesus, you’ve stooped to the lame insults of former house nazi ‘slap the enlightened’.” It’s a term totally devoid of thought.

          The question then is: Is SIV slappy?

          1. Probably.

          2. Oh come now, SIV is just prickly.

          3. When the paleo/cosmo talk came out of nowhere about four years ago, it looked incredibly fucking retarded. Then this shit faded out, as fads go. Now it appears to be back and all is fucking retarded again.

            1. Retardation appears to have a boom/bust cycle.

          4. It also doesn’t even make sense. Many of the people that term has been applied to aren’t exactly hob-nobbing with elites at cocktail parties anyway. Saying the term is “devoid of thought” is accurate.

        2. I know exactly how he’ll fall. He’ll piss off Oprah.

          What, you people thought he wasn’t an Oprah Winfrey product, like Rachael Ray, Dr. Oz. Dr. Phil, and Sasha Grey?

          1. Sasha Grey is an Oprah product? WTF?

            1. You’re not part of Oprah’s pr0n club?

              1. Shut up, Hugh! The first rule of Oprah’s pr0n club is that you do not talk about Oprah’s pr0n club. Especially to nicole.

            2. Well, her mainstream notoriety is from the soccer mom daytime talk circuit.

              Guys don’t tend to talk publicly about their favorite porn actresses for some reason, so it’s hard for them to gain widespread notoriety through the ordinary means.

              1. widespread notoriety

                What you did there…

              2. I always thought her mainstream notoriety was from being on soft porn American Apparel ads on every bus for a couple years. Crazy.

                1. Who, Oprah? She’s too fat for that sort of thing. That’s why she works through proxies.

                2. Being Vince’s girlfriend on Entourage for a season or so probably helped.

                3. Also can I just air a Sasha Grey complaint? A few years ago before The Original of Laura was published, Playboy put out an excerpt, and as a huge Nabokov fan I was contractually obligated to hunt down a copy (which was surprisingly hard, but then it turned out fancy bookstores were carrying that edition because of the excerpt). And they had this additional feature thingy with Sasha Grey “playing” “Lolita,” and it was TERRIBLE. Just completely stupid and not Lolita-like at all.

                  1. I always make it through Sasha’s scenes, which in the porn world is a bad thing. I don’t think I’ve ever watched an entire Faye Reagan scene.

                    1. Faye Reagan… one of the reasons I’m against marriage is out of principle: I don’t think marriage improves a relationship.

                      The other is because I can’t marry Faye Reagan.

                4. But there are a lot of those models and few of them become famous.

            3. It’s possible I made that up. It’s also possible that it’s absolutely true.

            4. Some people I have been around have mentioned their favorite pornography figures, while I have never acknowledged that they have names that should matter to me at all.

              But I casually browse free porn, not seek out specific figures.

              1. A couple of years ago I had a student with a name very similar to one of my favorite porn stars. When I was passing back exams and got to hers, I said the porn star’s name instead of hers just because it was more ingrained in my mind. Oops.

                I corrected myself immediately, and as far as I know no one noticed.

              2. I think that’s probably the best approach, DRaS.

                If you get too attached to one chick, you’re just setting yourself up for disappointment when she retires after 6 months in the biz.

                I didn’t eat, shower, or even leave my bedroom for an entire MONTH after I found out Kylee Strutt had retired. 🙁

                1. If you get too attached to one chick, you’re just setting yourself up for disappointment when she retires after 6 months in the biz.

                  Or gets a boob job.

                  Why Rebeca Linares, why?

                  1. Aw fuck, the Linares controversy again?

                    You and Epi / Warty don’t seem to agree on much, but those guys denounced me when I dared suggest that Becky’s boobjob improved her appearance.

                    I guess I’m way in the minority on that issue around here. Now I know how you feel as a Romney voter.

                    1. Romney may be faker than a $50 boob job, but at least he still looks good naked.

        3. Just what you’d expect a cosmotarian to say.

          Whoever is spelling it “cosmatarian” isn’t Slappy.Using easily searchable misspellings is lonewacko’s modus operandi.No links to A3P either.

          1. You mean EasilySearchableMispellings.

            1. Whoever it is the misspelling is intentional.

        4. I dunno, they have a point sometimes. Gillespie has so far avoided any affirmative support for gun rights, choosing instead to nitpick the claims of the opponents. He also said he couldn’t choose between Janet Napolitano and Jesse Ventura. Look, Ventura is clearly off his rocker sometimes, but that shouldn’t even be a contest. I think there is a strong desire to appear “serious” to the Beltway crowd with some of the high-ups here

        5. Trouble is, Nick G was a limp dick in his defense of gun rights. He needs to be called out on it. It’s not just rockwellians who notice this about him, Groove Max called him an opportunist last week, and I’m starting to see what he means.

          1. Not to mention he made no attempt to rebut the stupid “muskets!” line or the fact that he thought the fact that the Nazis only supported gun control for the groups they wanted to kill is some sort of rebuttal.

        6. He probably could have set those kids in front of him this morning on fire and the media would STILL cover his ass.

      2. but the people who shit yellow in anger whenever Nick fails to express equal froth and righteous anger over the 2A are pure entertainment

        Did you read his article yesterday telling us all how silly it was to expect that an armed populace could fight an army backing its tyrant? It was shit and Nick deserved to get called on it.

        1. He was right, dude. Armed rebellion against a modern military is a fantasy.

          1. It’s more of a nightmare than a fantasy. It wouldn’t be easy, but it’s definitely possible. Do you have any idea how many people own guns in this country?

            If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom ? go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!
            Samuel Adams

            1. Samuel Adams was (a) an asshole, and (b) not talking about the kind of fight we’d have on our hands today. The asymmetry of force between the British regulars and the Continentals was much smaller.

              From what I can tell there are quite a few people who fantasize about either Mad Max life or armed resistance to tyranny. I don’t think they’ve thought either through. Probably ennui.

              1. What you’re overlooking is that rebels needn’t compete with the military. There is no need to win any battles. All one needs to do is to continuously fight.

                See Stan, Afghani; Vietnam; et al.

                Militaries don’t win wars anymore. You don’t beat the opposition in to attrition, you pester them in to it.

          2. What, with the new professionalism in all public sector occupations today, resistance is a thing of the past that the modern state has completely and for all time eliminated.

            Hmmm, who benefits from spreading these myths? The public sector who can’t find its ass in either Detroit or Kabul, maybe?

          3. He was right, dude. Armed rebellion against a modern military is a fantasy.

            That’s quite the decade long fantasy they have going on in Afghanistan, innit?

            1. If we weren’t held back by moral and geopolitical concerns in AFG we could crush the rebellion in a week. And take out the Pakistanis, for that matter.

              If a future US govt has gotten so tyrannical that rebellion is justified, it’s unlikely they’d share those concerns.

              1. If a future US govt has gotten so tyrannical that rebellion is justified, it’s unlikely they’d share those concerns.

                Until they have the guns, they still have to pretend. Thus the moral considerations would still be in effect. And probably a whole lot moreso than across the ocean.

          4. Tulpa (LAOL-PA)| 1.16.13 @ 6:50PM |#

            He was right, dude. Armed rebellion against a modern military is a fantasy.

            i’ll tell you whats NOT a fucking ‘fantasy’= a government and its agents of enforcement treating the population with some at least minor deference and respect, knowing that they are fucking armed, have a good lawyer, and a sign on their property saying “fuck off and send a letter unless you’re here to pay me cash. Checks = send a letter”

            it is my firm belief an armed population is a bulwark against trivial excesses of power. which we already have plenty of. and it is this, far more than liberal crocodile tears over dead kiddies, which i believe is the primary driver by liberal statists for disarmament. They HATE not having ‘total control’

          5. Agreed. After all, a bunch of paramilitaries who’ve joined with veterans and national guardsmen, all of them armed with semi-auto rifles, could never use them to procure other weapons stored in rural arsenals throughout the United States.

            I mean, you might as well just line up single file in front of the gunship and get it over with.

        2. Did you read his article yesterday telling us all how silly it was to expect that an armed populace could fight an army backing its tyrant?

          actually, no – and since making that comment i have been shared a more thorough set of examples of a high degree of squishiness by some people who claim to speak for “libertarians” (e.g. shermer) and i think i get it now…the frothy anti-cosmotarian rage, that is. I would never use the ‘cosmo’ term myself (too gay), but im equally opposed to/irritated by the weak-ass ‘defense’ of the 2A by some. i think any watering down results in eventual repeal/neutralization..and the best defense is FULL FRONTAL ASSAULT WITH AUTO-BAZOOKAS

          so…comment amended

          1. Yeah, I agree that certain people can be too soft in defense of some rights like the 2nd Amendment, I understand where the concern comes from. But I also think many of the people railing against that I see here have a distinct tendency to jump at shadows and see what they expect to see, reading into things what isn’t there.

            What’s the big argument in this thread that Gillespie is insufficiently worried about the 2nd Amendment? He doesn’t write the kind of article they want him to write…. Like there’s some rule that every aspect of an issue has to be commented on by the guy or else he’s suspect.

      3. I am so sick of these sleazy assholes using the bodies of dead kids as step stools to climb aboard their favorite hobby horse

    5. I’ve always been impressed with Sullum’s beard. You can tell a lot from a man by the cut of his beard, and Sullum’s got an old-fashioned, rugged, American man’s beard.

      Cosmotarians like Baily and Welch can’t grow a beard for shit.

      1. I’ve heard that Jacob shuns cocktail parties and refuses to even consider taking any mass transit that is orange in any way.

        1. Dallas is waaaaaay outside the Beltway.

          1. Sullum’s in Dallas? No shit.

            Oh and I think we’re adding an orange line to our light rail system. Duh. Duh. Duh.

    6. Sullum is definitely cosmo, but he is intellectually honest. While they can be annoyingly third-partisan at times, the rest of the old guard, Welch, Gillespie, and Walker are mostly forgiveable cosmos.

      It’s the new batch of contributors who sympathize with the left.

      1. Walker is an anarchist. Sullum is a libertarian. Doherty too but I think he is dyslexic or something. KM-W is a rightwing libertarian.I’m not sure about Welch but I wouldn’t call him a cosmo.

        1. I forgot about Doherty and KMW. Isn’t BD an an-cap?

        2. We may be using different definitions. In my view if you support open boarders you’re a cosmo.

          1. What does it feel like to have no credibility, Tulpa?

            1. I think you already know.

              1. Aaah. Limp and kind of itchy.

        3. I…I’m kinda curious as to where I land on SIV’s Disposition Matrix of Paleotarian Purity.

          1. Just to the right of your mom?

            1. You know Epi, I put a lot of thought into that post and the best response you can come up with is ‘your mom’? I deserve better than that.

              We’re through.

              1. Uh, Hugh, it had five more words than “your mom”. See how much effort I put in?

                1. You can’t take away mom insults from Episiarch. I mean, that’s like half his oeuvre.

                  1. Only half?!?

                    1. Well, I was figuring towels, Khan, and plaintive Alison Brie cries as half.

          2. I divided everyone up based on the cockfighting issue back in early 2008. I don’t remember how you scored. Canadians get extra cosmo points regardless of ideology. Unless you are self-employed in the fur harvesting industry.

          3. Fuck that. I agree with no one but me. If you agree with me, I will change my position.

  3. You want to know what is the act of a dictator? Obama’s 16th executive order on gun control.

    “16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.”

    The language in the ACA is incredibly vague on that issue and says that patients don’t have to DISCLOSE if they own a gun. But if a doctor asks you, and you don’t know about the ACA, you’ll probably answer truthfully. So should we have some sort of physician Miranda Rights where they say ‘Now, according to law, you don’t have to answer this…’

    Regardless, clarifying language in a law should be done by congress, not by an executive order. The president can’t ‘clarify language’ in a law passed by congress. He’s basically legislating by executive order in this situation, which is dictatorial.

    1. “which is dictatorial.”

      IOWs, SOP.

    2. Wait what, why do they need to clarify something that should fall under patient-doctor confidentiality? Are doctors going to round up “unstable” people for the government? Besides, abortion has been legal precisely because of this issue.

      1. Sort of – as an example, if you’ve a condition that can make driving hazardous, in many states your doctor is required to notify your DMV. And some of those “condition” are illegal drug use.

        A similar sort of requirement can be shoe-horned in for gun possession.

        1. if you’ve a condition that can make driving hazardous, in many states your doctor is required to notify your DMV. And some of those “condition” are illegal drug use.

          All of this are correct, and some RX courses of TX can also revoke or modify driving privileges. Other conditions are Tourette’s and other extrapyrimidal conditions, Parkinson’s, narcolepsy, seizure disorders, to name a few.

          A similar sort of requirement can be shoe-horned in for gun possession.

          Independent of HHS, as per RC Dean, this is true.

    3. That’s one of the glaring problems with mixing up mental health with gun rights. This little thing called HIPAA (which Clinton advocated and signed into law) prevents the disclosure of any indentifiable health information for any reason unless it’s to treat the patient.

      So, how can the federal government obtain said protected health info about someone being off-balance and report said info to authorities in order to deny gun ownership?

      Hoisted with our own petard are we?

      1. Aren’t psychiatrists permitted to tell authorities about specific threats one of their patients made?

        They may be relying on that loophole.

        1. I’m not sure if they can but they don’t.
          It goes way back. Charles Whitman talked to one psych for 3 hours about wanting to shoot people from the tower. We know this because the psych released his notes years later. UoT still has all records of Whitman’s many visits to the student health center under lock and key.

        2. No, the patient is protected by physician-patient confidentiality, just like a layer and his client. That privilege is supposed to be held inviolate.

          1. ORLY?

            Threats of Self-harm. If a patient threatens harm against him or herself, there can be ethical and legal justification for disclosing that information to a third party if that disclosure will help prevent that harm. For example, a physician of a 24-year old suicidal patient might advise the patient’s mother–with whom he lives–that her son is in imminent danger of committing suicide, provided the mother is somehow situated to help prevent that harm. If a relative (a distant cousin or aged uncle) had no identifiable relationship with the patient, and indeed lived on the other side of the country, and the physician had no reason to believe that this disclosure would help prevent the harm, there would be correspondingly far less justification for this breach of confidentiality.

            1. Endangered Third Parties. Much discussed in the literature ? perhaps out of proportion to its likelihood ? is the question of physician responsibility to advise third parties about dangers posed by their by patients. Such dangers include threatened violence or infectious disease. It is the consensus of that law that if a physician has reason to believe that a patient in his or her care is highly likely to harm a specifically identified individual, that physician has a duty to make reasonable efforts to warn that individual.

              The 1976 case, Tarasoff v. Board of Regents of the University of California, was decisive in establishing this legal duty to warn. In this case, a physician failed to warn a woman that a man whom she had previously dated had declared his intentions to kill her. When he did kill her, her parents successfully sued the physician and university who employed him for failure to warn of the danger. The court held that the physician had a duty to disclose a specific threat to a specific individual.

              1. All correct, Tulpa. Though the doctor/patient relationship I do believe is sacrosanct, there are some legal imperatives that can override this.

                Another area is when child/spousal/elder abuse is suspected, and most of these deferments also apply to nurses and other licensed medpros as well.

                Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your POV) there are legal limits to the relationship.

    4. “So should we have some sort of physician Miranda Rights where they say ‘Now, according to law, you don’t have to answer this…”

      I don’t see why this is necessary – you have no *legal* or moral obligation to answer *any* question your doctor asks you, or to answer truthfully if you choose to respond.

      1. None of your fucking business sounds like the proper reply to me.

        1. None of your fucking business sounds like the proper reply to me.

          With a new doc, i get that out of the way quickly. They’ve never even gotten to the gun question.

          1. With a new doc, i get that out of the way quickly.

            Unless an ER situation (falling under the purview of EMTALA), I will refer you to another dr. The doctor/patient relationship is a collaborative one, should not be an adversarial one, and is of course a dynamic one. Same goes for nurses.

            They’ve never even gotten to the gun question.

            Barring a situation where I am excising bullet fragments out of your body, I will never ask, as I don’t believe it is a legitimate health question.

            1. Unless an ER situation (falling under the purview of EMTALA), I will refer you to another dr. The doctor/patient relationship is a collaborative one, should not be an adversarial one, and is of course a dynamic one. Same goes for nurses.

              I am not telling any doctor what drugs I use recreationally when it is all going into a federal database. That will be one of the first groups to lose 2nd amendment rights.

              1. Then if I perform surgery on you Coeus, I will drug screen you then. I nearly lost a patient on the table for this very thing. I never forgot it.

                I agree to TX you, I have a right to know. My liability (and my efficacy as a physician) depends on this.

                1. Then if I perform surgery on you Coeus, I will drug screen you then. I nearly lost a patient on the table for this very thing. I never forgot it.

                  Do I really seem dumb enough to not abstain from the illegal drugs that I won’t tell my anesthesiologist about before surgery? Those can’t be the only options. Never get surgery again or lose my 2nd amendment rights? Have we gone this far this fast?

                  1. You personally, no, I don’t. But I still do it for every patient (the aformentioned patient was not someone who one might expect to have a little “something” on the side recreationally. It was also brought into the hospital unbeknownst to staff and myself). I do believe that there are frequent posters here that would do so out of sheer obstinacy.

                    I don’t do it to be a cop statist asshole, and I take my duty and liability very seriously.

                    1. I don’t do it to be a cop statist asshole, and I take my duty and liability very seriously.

                      Yet the fact remains, if I have to get surgery with less than a month of foreknowledge, they’re gonna take my guns because of a fucking inert metabolite which would have no bearing on the anesthesia. If you ever come back to the states, you’re gonna have to do some soul searching.

                    2. Potentially have no bearing. The only reason I am coming back to The States is to vacay, see family, and meet any professional obligations WRT licensure.

                      Not every surgeon is meticulous as I am, and may opt not to do UA/tox screen on every patient. I expect patients to be truthful with me and they deserve the same in spades. This is why I have railed so hard against ObamneyCare: everything can be tied to “health concerns” in some fashion.

                      Why do you think Obama was willing to lose a battle to win the war?

                    3. This is why I have railed so hard against ObamneyCare: everything can be tied to “health concerns” in some fashion.

                      Why do you think Obama was willing to lose a battle to win the war?

                      Oh, I know. The fucking proggies have been jacking off to the thought of how much power fedgov control of healthcare will give them.

        2. Don’t come crying to me when you get a thermometer broken in half in your rectum.

          1. Good morning, Tulpa, and thanks for the pre-morning tea laugh.-) Mercury thermometres are no longer used, and rectal temps are only appropriate in certain medical situations.

            1. I’m plagiarizing House of course.

        3. None of your fucking business sounds like the proper reply to me.

          See answer @ 11.06.

      2. you have no *legal* or moral obligation to answer *any* question your doctor asks you, or to answer truthfully if you choose to respond.

        I see you routinely commit insurance fraud then? And yes, the practitioner has *every* moral, legal, ethical, medical, and (if you are paying via third party) fiduciary reason to expect nothing but the truth from you when evaluating your complaint and health HX.

        This is why medical records are the property of the doctor/hospital and not the patient, to protect the integrity and veracity of the health HX.

        1. How is that insurance fraud. Or IX FX in your new favorite lingo.

          1. How is that insurance fraud. Or IX FX in your new favorite lingo.

            Purposefully lying or withholding a relevant or germane symptom to deceive/influence to get a desirable or pre-conceived DX, usually to get something that normally would not be covered, i.e. pre-existing condition, a HX of smoking, or alcohol abuse, women fibbing about dysmenorrhea or menorrhagia to get BC, or denying a HX of non-compliance with a TX regimen.

            But ObamneyCare fixes all this, right?

        2. This is why medical records are the property of the doctor/hospital and not the patient, to protect the integrity and veracity of the health HX.

          So you keep saying. But I’m not naive enough to think that people writing stuff about me that I’m not allowed to see and then passing it on to their coprofessionalists is being done for my own good.

          1. You can request copies of your medical records at any time, Tulpa. Also, many if not most hospital networks allow patients to view their medical records online. They just can’t alter them.

          2. Also, you don’t have to see the doctor. I would say that I’m not dunphy, but His Pestilency has changed that now. I’m so upset about it that my eyes welled up. I’m disliked on this board enough, Tulpa. Now I will be equated to dunphy, and I’m not even in the USA.

            The USA is not the country in which I grew up.-((((

            1. I get what you’re saying Doc and don’t see how anyone could dislike you.

              Hopefully most Dr’s are like you and won’t ask about guns unless they are treating a gun related injury.

  4. …”As if to illustrate my point, NBCnews.com’s First Read had a breaking fact-check earlier today not on the comments that President Barack Obama has made regarding gun policy, particular in regards to his 23 executive orders on the topic, but rather the “sound and fury” of the president’s critics.”…

    Benghazi redux. its not about what happened, its about “these critics are *politically motivated* – stop abusing the president and making up stories!”

    The progressive mantra is always to ignore what is said, focus on who said it, then PROJECT AWAY WRIT LARGE ON THEIR MENDACIOUS PARTISANSHIP

  5. CNN Mobile Sites been trying the pre-sell the gun control case all week for the administration. What exactly IS the deal with the media and this guy. I hate to throw the race thing into it but is it because he’s black? Do they desperatly need to make sure that the first black President goes into the history books as one of the greatest? Does that mean no criticism what so ever? I mean they had a love ever with the Clintons with all the Camelot crap which was recycled again for Obama but I don’t recall ever seeing anything quite this bad. I don’t recall ever seeing him asked one tough question by the MSM.

    1. some of it racial, perhaps more is ideological. They will stand by liberalism to the death; even Obama looks bad in a way they cannot defend, he’ll be tossed overboard with some accompanying blame of the Repubs.

      The ideology, however, the church of liberalism can never and will never be questioned. Right now, Obama is its high priest and the faithful never question the guy behind the pulpit.

      1. I think this is it. The left really hasn’t had a figurehead to champion since, well, I don’t know when. Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter were never really their man, and they didn’t fall in love with Gore until 2004 when he had already eschewed political office. I hesitate to think of Dukakis or Mondale as a Great Man even from their POV.

        1. They haven’t exactly been doing a good job of having a truly championable figurehead rise through the ranks. I wonder why that is? Maybe because the type of environment they desire and create attracts the biggest scumbags possible? Nah, couldn’t be that, could it?

          1. That’s part of it. I also think there’s some truth to the idea that rightists tend to line up behind their nominal leader much more easily than leftists do. Neither Reagan nor Bush 2 was a real conservative, but both were lionized by the right. Of course Bush 2’s legacy was destroyed when he pushed for immigration reform and TARP.

      2. I think the more proper term is “progressivism” which is what most people mean when they use the term “liberalism”, but progressivism is no more liberal than is conservatism. I am a devoted liberal, in the original meaning of the term as well as a devoted libertarian. I don’t actually see how you can be one without the other, essentially. In fact, you can be deeply conservative (in a personal sense) and also be deeply liberal. It bothers me that the term liberal has been co-opted and distorted in this way.

    2. It’s the same with the Yahoo mail news headlines, they have been naggingly pro-Obama lately.

  6. If they think the NRA would only embrace one of those orders, they don’t know the NRA.

    (By which I mean not “graaar! NRA sellouts, GOA for-evs!!!!”, but rather that much of them appeared to be “no, really, enforce existing laws”, which is exactly what the NRA has been saying for ages.

    I’m looking forward to the complaints about the NRA’s desire for armed school guards being “crazy” to be completely memory-holed now that the President has suggested the exact same thing. That’ll be fun.)

    1. “I’m looking forward to the complaints about the NRA’s desire for armed school guards being “crazy” to be completely memory-holed now that the President has suggested the exact same thing.”

      The NRA didn’t build that!

    2. Yeah, one facet of this whole gun-ban issue that makes me dig in my heels about going along with it is how the ATF does its job.

      Harrasing individual gun owners over minor (possible) infractions, hammering dealers for records keeping violations, going full jack-booted-thug on some religious freaks – but abdicating responsibility in cases where dangerous felons, black market dealers, or outright violations are involved.

      I have only known them to go after soft-target, low hanging fruit. We would be better served to have them all fired and start it over from scratch.

  7. this is the same media that took the NRA free app release and ran with it, as though NRA meant National Rifle Association. It did not. In a stunning random act of journalism, the NYT was curious enough to see what the deal was. Just someone using the initials; no connection to the organization at all.

  8. Facts are slippery things, especially when properly lubed for easy insertion.

  9. When you hear a progressive say “fact checking”, read “progressive propaganda”. They wouldn’t know a fact if it kick them in the nads.

  10. One thing I know for sure, I will be doing my own fact checking. Anyone who relies on our biased and lying media to fact check something for them, obviously cares very little for facts. Maybe an outcome that suits them, but facts, not so much.

  11. I was surprised President Obama didn’t go further with executive orders on import restrictions. Perhaps he was intimidated out of doing so by being called a tyrant and dictator.

    1. Awww, did those mean ol NRA crazies hurtest da wittle feelings of the most nicest president in history?

      Maybe he can go on Oprah and cry about it, him and Wimpy Armstrong can hug each other and cry on each others shoulder.

  12. Deadspin did some fact checking. Turns out, the Manti T’eo dead girlfriend story was a hoax.

    http://deadspin.com/5976517/ma…..-is-a-hoax

    Way to go Notre Dame. Was again, you have proven you are irrelevant in modern college football.

    Fuck Michigan!

    1. That story is INSANE.

      1. And very well written. I don’t know Timothy Burke’s political views, but you may want to throw some story ideas his way.

    2. That is some crazy shit. Doesn’t he know that your fake girlfriend is supposed to be Canadian, no leukemian. Jesus.

      Raise your hand if you think T’eo is the victim of the hoax and not the perpetrator.

      It’s lies stacked upon lies.

      1. I’m pretty sure Episiarch is a hoax to make me do math better after he dies of leukemia.

        I mean, address parser specialists don’t exist in the real world. Come on.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.