not intended to be a factual statement

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by MayorEmanuel, Apr 18, 2011.

  1. MayorEmanuel Do not weep, for salvation is coming.

    Member Since:
    Apr 10, 2011
    Message Count:
    4,947
    Likes Received:
    436
    Trophy Points:
    143
    As ThinkProgress reported earlier today, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) defended Republicans’ willingness to shut down the government over funding for Planned Parenthood by falsely claiming that abortion is “well over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does.” In reality, just three percent of its work is related to abortion. This afternoon, CNN brought on Planned Parenthood’s Judy Tabar to discuss his comment. During the interview, CNN anchor TJ Holmes relayed a statement from Kyl’s office walking back the comment, claiming the statement was not meant to be “factual”:

    HOLMES: We did call his office trying to ask what he was talking about there. And I just want to give it you verbatim here. It says, ‘his remark was not intended to be a factual statement, but rather to illustrate that Planned Parenthood, a organization that receives millions of dollars in taxpayer funding, does subsidize abortions.’

    So fallowing the ColbertReport’s lead, Lets come up with things not intended to be factual statements. “Sen. Jon Kyl steals the pubic hair of teenage boys that he is using to make a gorilla suit”, this was not intended to be a factual statement.
  2. SPARTAN_KING1178 Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2011
    Message Count:
    1,225
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    108
    Location:
    Wisconsin, USA
  3. JayJayGT Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Mar 28, 2011
    Message Count:
    1,569
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    89
    I don't get what you are trying to convey here.
    Also how is this anything to do with current events?
  4. CoExIsTeNcE LeonTrotsky in Disguse

    Member Since:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Message Count:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    255
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Why do we give a crap. He was exaggerating to prove a point.
  5. glodraz Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Message Count:
    1,427
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    96
    Location:
    Mushroom Kingdom
    This seems more like a game in the off topic section than something that should be in the The Political/Current Events section.
  6. JayJayGT Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Mar 28, 2011
    Message Count:
    1,569
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    89
    It's not supposed to be here dammit!
    It's supposed to be in "Off topic" or something
  7. MayorEmanuel Do not weep, for salvation is coming.

    Member Since:
    Apr 10, 2011
    Message Count:
    4,947
    Likes Received:
    436
    Trophy Points:
    143
    This is what we call satire but i'll move it to off-topic
  8. pedro3131 Running the Show While the Big Guy's Gone

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Message Count:
    3,949
    Likes Received:
    633
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    Tempe, Az
    Moved and deleted the new topic... For what it's worth it kind of is a political issue. You have a pretty public instance of a major Republican figure basically committing perjury on the house floor and then trying to play damage control in the most ridiculous way possible. Whoever the congressional page was who drafted the "wasn't intended to be a factual statement" reply can probably kiss his career goodbye.

    Just b/c it was on the report doesn't mean it isn't a real political issue kids

Share This Page

Facebook: