Bowling Green Massacre

Meadmaker said:
She must be a lying propagandist trying to mislead stupid people.
Click to expand...

Yeah it's not like she has a long track record of making false statements that are either extremely misleading or outright lies. It's reasonable to continue giving her the benefit of the doubt and presume the best about her even as she continues to lie and mislead while at the same time doing nothing to repair her credibility.
 
The “Bowling Green Massacre” was the No. 1 topic trending on Twitter, and Conway’s interview prompted many to share memories of where they were “when the Bowling Green Massacre didn’t happen.”

But on a more serious note, Chelsea Clinton called the massacre “completely fake” and urged people not to “make up attacks.”

Very grateful no one seriously hurt in the Louvre attack …or the (completely fake) Bowling Green Massacre. Please don't make up attacks.

— Chelsea Clinton (@ChelseaClinton) February 3, 2017

And Conway called her out, tweeting, “@ChelseaClinton & others, you can’t ‘invent’ quality candidates either. I misspoke; you lost the election.”
Click to expand...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...cre-that-never-happened-to-defend-travel-ban/

This is how perfectly normal, healthy and emotionally stable individuals behave.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Why do you give this propagandist so much benefit of the doubt?

She said massacre in Bowling Green the press didn't cover.

They weren't even terrorists, they had fought US soldiers in Iraq. That is not the definition of a terrorist. They were convicted of intent to aid and abet "in Iraq", again not the definition of a terrorist.

No mention the press did cover it while she admitted they did in her own walk-back Tweet.

Are you also under the Conway spell? Maybe when she talks fast and furiously it has an hypnotic effect on some people.
Click to expand...

Among other things.
 
A'isha said:
Let's say I complained in a post here that "the press isn't covering, and this is probably new to you, but they arrested the masterminds behind the IRA's New York Massacre. I mean, most people don't know that because it didn't get covered".

When it's (rightly) pointed out that there was no such thing as the "IRA's New York Massacre", I say, "oh, no, I meant the time when three IRA terrorists were arrested in New York for attempting to send detonators to Northern Ireland!"
Click to expand...

You'd get digitally lynched. 15 Pinocchios.
 
Last edited:
C_Felix said:
BREAKING: Kellyanne Conway has requested Secret Service protection after someone sent an envelope of verifiable facts to her home
Click to expand...

Obviously bogus. Conway wouldn't recognize a verifiable fact if it bit her on the ass.
 
Cain said:
I'm in broad agreement with Meadmaker's charitable inclinations. She said "massacre," but did not mean it. Have you people never misspeekened? Conway already says enough stupid, factually challenged ********** up **** on the reg, I'll give her a pass if she says, "Oh, I wasn't lying about that one."
Click to expand...

C'mon...listen to that entire segment again...there was no wordage slip-up. It's clear she thinks a coupla Iraqi immigrants found their way into the US, became "radicalized", masterminded a terrorist plot, slaughtered multiple civilians in Bowling Green (which became known as the Bowling Green Massacre), Obama temporarily banned Iraqi immigration as a result, and the MSM ignored the whole thing for political reasons.

She probably ordered some underling to find her examples of Obama authorizing similar immigration policy changes for use in her next interview. The research was done half-ass; she barely skimmed it on her way to the studio, and somehow got it into her head that the above paragraph actually happened.
 
trustbutverify said:
She probably ordered some underling to find her examples of Obama authorizing similar immigration policy changes for use in her next interview. The research was done half-ass; she barely skimmed it on her way to the studio, and somehow got it into her head that the above paragraph actually happened.
Click to expand...

Now this, on the other hand, is something I find completely plausible.

Her statements were obviously not accurate, and they were biased to exaggerate everything in favor of her political position. That isn't something I admire. On the other hand, it isn't the same thing as just making stuff up.
 
Meadmaker said:
Her statements were obviously not accurate, and they were biased to exaggerate everything in favor of her political position. That isn't something I admire. On the other hand, it isn't the same thing as just making stuff up.
Click to expand...

You mean like alternative facts?
 
Meadmaker said:
Now this, on the other hand, is something I find completely plausible.

Her statements were obviously not accurate, and they were biased to exaggerate everything in favor of her political position. That isn't something I admire. On the other hand, it isn't the same thing as just making stuff up.
Click to expand...
I don't understand this line of thought at all. She lied. In fact, she told multiple lies. If you want a reason for why she did it, it's because she and the rest of the campaign lied over and over again for months and it ended up working for them since her sleazy, insane boss is now President of the United States. Why would she stop lying now, and what good reason is there to give her the benefit of any doubt at all?
 
trustbutverify said:
C'mon...listen to that entire segment again...there was no wordage slip-up.
Click to expand...

That's the more common way of mis-speaking -- when we catch ourselves. There are other times when we intend to say one thing, thought we said it, but it turns out we didn't. I'm also open to your interpretation that she just didn't know what the hell she was blabbering about and tried to recall talking points.

This is complicated by the fact the Trump administration routinely says things that are at odds with reality, but she walked back her falsehood. This is a case of regular incompetence, not extraordinary (for her) malice.

Right-wingers would repeatedly bring up a clip where Obama spoke about visiting "all 57 states," and "OMFG, he's so stoopid, he duzn't no their r 50 statez." Of course, Obama had been up for more than twenty-four hours campaigning, and intended to say that he had visited 47 states, but wanted to go to all 50.
 
Cain said:
This is complicated by the fact the Trump administration routinely says things that are at odds with reality, but she walked back her falsehood. This is a case of regular incompetence, not extraordinary (for her) malice.
Click to expand...
She walked back part of her falsehood. Where's the "Oops, Obama didn't ban anything" mea culpa?

She's a lying liar, she thought she might get away with it, and she figured that even if she didn't the Trump base would believe her even after the facts were in. This has already become SOP for these people and is simply a continuation of the tactics that have already proven to be winners.

I wouldn't trust anyone speaking for this White House to tell the truth about the presidential breakfast order.
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
Now this, on the other hand, is something I find completely plausible.

Her statements were obviously not accurate, and they were biased to exaggerate everything in favor of her political position. That isn't something I admire. On the other hand, it isn't the same thing as just making stuff up.
Click to expand...

Considering this administration's declaration of war on the non-lunatic media for being incompetent and corrupt- combined with how criminally negligent (or, possibly, worse) it is to further demonize a besieged minority group with a bunch of complete nonsense, I'm not seeing how much better this is than just making it up. It's better... but still despicable and pathologically irresponsible. And that's best case scenario.
Conway didn't really give a damn if it was true or not...just that it was useful.
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
If you were to describe Guy Fawkes as the person behind the parliament massacre, would you be being imprecise, or would you be lying?

These guys were linked to killing Americans, were convicted of plotting to kill more Americans, and had discussed the possibility, on tape, of killing an awful lot of Americans in America.

One of the problems with the whole dialog is it becomes a question of whether someone did or did not make up something, and she skates on the real point of what was said. There are terrorists in America. We know that. Does it make their policy a good idea? When a couple of terrorists were caught in America, President Obama made temporary changes in immigration policy. Does that make Trump's policies a good idea. Instead, people say, "She made up stuff about a massacre in Bowling Green!"

Well, how does that play. Within the echo chamber, it plays great. Yeah! Yeah! She's a witch! Burn her! Among die-hard Trump supporters (or at least Democrat haters) nothing would matter. But now, how about those "swing voters" whose opinion actually matters and? It starts with Conway saying "Bowling Green Massacre." Then, a bunch of Trump haters say, "Ha. Ha. She's stupid. There was no massacre." Then, a bunch of swing voters say, "Wait a minute...you can't just make up a massacre and pretend there was one.", and they end up reading an article that says that there was no massacre, but there were two guys who killed a few people and hadn't made up their minds about who else to kill.

When those people start reading headlines, they might be inclined to forgive Conway some exaggeration, because it seems like the other side is saying it wasn't really important because they didn't succeed in killing enough people for it to be a "massacre", and besides, the Americans they killed weren't even in America at the time.
Click to expand...
No.

Meadmaker said:
Let's try it like this.

I heard her quote before I heard about the uproar regarding a non-existent massacre. I knew exactly what she was referring to. (Although I....errr....got the state wrong. I thought it was in Bowling Green Ohio. That's why I thought it was near Detroit. I remember hearing about it on local news, though.) I knew that I hadn't forgotten about any massacre that had occurred in Kentucky, or even in Ohio. I assumed that she was not giving a precise description of executive actions that had been taken.

In other words, I didn't feel misled. I knew it was a pair of would-be terrorists who were planning to do something bad. After reading the articles today, it turns out they had already done some bad things, and were planning on doing more, and they hadn't quite settled on just exactly which bad things to do.

After reading the uproar, I still don't feel misled. Yeah, yeah, yeah, it was this instead of that and this detail isn't exactly like that and.....whatever. As she said it, I assumed some details would be wrong, and they were.

But, her political opponents by all means ought to seize on it and play it for all it's worth. Congressional investigation maybe? Maybe seven of them? That was the score on Benghazi, I think. Keep repeating it until people believe that KellyAnne Conway went onto news shows and fabricated a story about a massacre in Kentucky, hoping to fool people with a fake news story about an unreported massacre. People in America these days might just be stupid enough to believe it. It wouldn't be the first time.

Because, the alternative would be to believe that she's a fairly ordinary person, who drew parallels between two situations, exaggerated their similarities, downplayed their differences, and did a bit of cherry picking to support her case beyond what a fair reading of all the facts would be. That interpretation would be impossible, right? She must be a lying propagandist trying to mislead stupid people.
Click to expand...
No.

Meadmaker said:
Now this, on the other hand, is something I find completely plausible.

Her statements were obviously not accurate, and they were biased to exaggerate everything in favor of her political position. That isn't something I admire. On the other hand, it isn't the same thing as just making stuff up.
Click to expand...
You're getting there. If only you hadn't added that last sentence.

How many alternate facts need to be in a claim in order to call it "made up"? You know what you are saying, don't you? As long as there is some thread in a claim that ties it to reality, no matter how thin, no matter how distorted said resulting claim makes from that itty bitty thread, and no matter the clear and present pattern .... it was just an innocent mistake.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom