Glad He's Not in Kansas Anymore: Obama's Speech This Week Dumps the Sunflower State With More B.S. Than Three Pinocchios in an Alabama Shithouse...

That would be a three seater! I'm just glad I was able to escape my current state of residence (Kansas) on Tuesday because I don't think I could have stomached the foul aroma. Sure, the reason for my departure to St. Louis that day was to attend a very sad memorial service, and I'm not sure how I got through some treacherously icy roads in the western half of Missouri that morning. But thanks to the individual we currently have as president, Kansas had a real stench about it on Tuesday, and I'm grateful something (anything) got me the hell out of here.

Of course, it was on Tuesday that the illustrious leftist one graced the small town of Osawatomie, Kansas with his royal presence. The point of the speech? Does it really matter? Who listens anymore? Suffice it to say that the speech was just as chock full of leftist 20 percenter bunk and blather as any typical Obama speech (that is, once he got around to realizing he was in Kansas and not Texas -- a gaffe that the smartest president in American history committed at the start of the speech).

But don't just take my word for it. The linked story (at bottom) from the Fact Checker at the Washington Post (not exactly a bastion of right-winger sentiment) is none too complimentary to Obama's Kansas speech when it comes to the speech's facts and honesty.

I won't bore you with all the minutiae and wonkish details -- hit the link if you want any of that. Suffice it to say: Blame Bush, blame lower taxes, blame billionaires, blame everything and everyone but me. Yawn.

Besides, the Post's descriptions of the speech pretty much tell the whole tale: "Simply wrong"; "Lard[ing] his case with suspect data"; "Suspect facts"; "Suspect statistic"; "Surprising"; "Rely[ing] on a dubious, unverified source for a major presidential address." Which can all be condensed into one word: Bullshit.

The Post's Fact Checker has a "1 to 4 Pinocchios" scale that it uses to rank political speeches for their honesty, accuracy and truthfulness. For example, zero "Pinocchios" means a generally accurate, honest speech, and "one Pinnoccio" means a speech with "no outright falsehoods" even if it does "shade some facts" and contains some omissions and exaggerations...

The Post gives Obama's Kansas speech a rather scathing "three Pinocchios" for "significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions." Only by the skin of his teeth, it would seem, did Obama escape the publication's worst rating -- the dreaded "four Pinocchios," which is rarely given out and is reserved for speeches full of outright "whoppers."

My best advice for Obama (or for any pathological liar who may happen to be reading): Limit the factual assertions in your speeches. Stick to pure opinions and stale focus group rhetoric whenever possible. For example, instead of saying "fair share" and other "fair" derivatives 500 times in a short speech, up that ante to 1,000 times. Shit, just do that and you might find yourself down to two Pinocchios in two shakes of rat's ass.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-kansas-speech-some-suspect-facts/2011/12/06/gIQAUU45aO_blog.html?hpid=z1