April 10, 2009
"He's a serial exaggerator. If I was being unkind I would say he's a liar, but it's a habit he ought to drop."
"You should not exaggerate and lie like this when you are the vice president of the United States," said Karl Rove. Funnily, the headlines say Rove called Biden a liar. And really, I guess he did... if he was being unkind.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
183 comments:
The headlines serially exaggerate.
I liked the old aggressive Rove better than the new passive-aggressive Rove.
Why is that people like Biden and AlGore have to make meaningless stuff up? They are somewhat accomplished men. They've been long time Senators and now Vice President's. Why make stupid stuff up? Because deep down inside they know that they've been fooling the public. They are worried that some day everyone will see them for what they really are, phonies.
Biden is a liar. I do not think he can eve spell truth. So why all the hooplah?
Cripes, now Rove is picking up the "serial liar" meme.
It used to be unheard of for one politician to call another a liar. Even if it was true.
Now it's not enough to call them a liar. They have to be a serial liar. Or a pathological liar.
I'm with Ophir. I have always been offended by headlines. Why do editors (or whomever's in charge) consider it acceptable to publish headlines which are deceitful? Exaggerated headlines are not benign and they're rampant. And I am not exaggerating.
First of all, Rove calling someone a liar is ridiculous in itself. The man has spent 30 years lying about damn near everything.
Anybody remember the black baby story he introduced to smear John McCain?
And as to his comment that: "It didn't happen," Rove said. "It's his imagination. It's a made-up, fictional world. He ought to get out of it and get back to reality."
How could he possibly know this?
Is he actually saying George Bush was NEVER out of his sight over the course of eight years?
He's been totally discredited and only the hard core wingnuts are buying into anything this man says anymore.
It's all a show to pump up his visibility on Fox.
Peter V. Bella said..."Biden is a liar. I do not think he can eve spell truth. So why all the hooplah?"
Right.
As if YOU know Joe Biden.
Speaking of liars and the lies they tell...where are those WMD? Or the anthrax stockpiles? Or the chemical wagons?
As a Republican, I resent the malignancy of Karl Rove, and the ignorance of his retired sock puppet Dubya.
Can'[t we do better?
Jeremy,
I know you have an unnatural infatuation with the Vice President of the United States- as a new true American, you would, but the man is a proven liar. His whole life story is nothing more than a carefully crafted fabrication. He is about as real as his hair and pec transplants.
The idea of Biden spending long hours alone with Bush is laughable. Anyone who didn't have to spend time with that preening jackass wouldn't. Obama probably won't either.
Now it's not enough to call them a liar. They have to be a serial liar. Or a pathological liar.
Would serial or pathological prevaricator be more to your suiting? Since we are talking about a Democrat and they excuse behavior by claiming affliction, can we say that Biden is just suffering from Munchausen Syndrome? That would probaby garner some sympathy for his lies.
speaking of liars. That the name you going with these days? Joe Biden can be called a liar because he lies. A lot. We know because he has been caught. A lot. Which would make it a serial offense. And no red herring you typically drop into conversation will change that fact. You can attack the messenger, you can go with the "the other guy lied worse" you can start attacking the other commentators, and it doesn't change those facts. But you know that.
The eminent Mr Biden will tell any story that gets public approval of 51% of the voters in the next election. That is not lying unless the news media raise the issue. The Demos don't see it as lies, but as a winning strategy.. That is political survival of the fittest. Blame the voters who have finally lost all perception to tell true reports from reports of Hollywood story lines that focus groups like best.
Sounds like Karl is very popular with his fellow GOPers too...and keeping "files" on them is tad over the top:
At a restaurant last night:
The conversation between Jason Roe and Rove:
Roe walked over to the table, "I'm Jason Roe."
Rove: "Oh, the famous Jason Roe."
Roe: "I don't know that I'm famous but I'm Tom Feeney's former chief of staff and I'm offended by your comments on Fox about Tom. You guys wouldn't be in the White House without Tom. And you made these really degrading comments about him that offended a lot of people."
(Sidenote: Tom Feeney was the Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives during the whole Bush/Gore 2000 recount.) Rove: "Well, I have a file on the things Tom Feeney said about George Bush."
Roe: "That says more about you than me that you kept a file on Tom Feeney. This guy was so restrained in his desire to criticize the President--even against this staff's advice." Rove: "I have a file."
Roe: "I'm right here, tell me to my face what's in that file."
Rove: "I'll send you the file."
Roe: "Well I hope the file is the beginning of the conversation and not the end. I would love to disabuse you of whatever you think of Tom Feeney's loyalty from this file."
Rove: "If you keep talking over me this conversation's going to end right now."
As if YOU know Joe Biden.
We don't need to know him personally to have read about the embarassing incident in which he switched out his own biography for the biography of Neal Kinnock. Or the incident in which he told a voter "I think I have a much higher IQ than you," and proceeded to support his point with a series of made-up facts. I mean, I think he's actually a soberer, more thoughtful fellow than he seems when he's, you know, talking, but to deny that he has a habit of lying is just bizarre.
Peter: "I know you have an unnatural infatuation with the Vice President of the United States..."
I just respect Biden and I don't respect Karl Rove. Period.
Diamondhead: I don't think anything was mentioned about Biden "spending long hours alone with Bush."
Did you read that somewhere?
This is related to an exchange that could take place in a matter of seconds.
Speaking of liars and the lies they tell...where are those WMD? Or the anthrax stockpiles? Or the chemical wagons?
evacuate comment thread
His whole life story is nothing more than a carefully crafted fabrication.
Well, no, he actually has his own quite interesting life story, one with a certain amount of tragedy in it too (his wife and a child died in a car crash). It's not like Neil Kinnock's life story is the only life story available to him.
jeff: All politicians lie from time to time.
Anybody who follows politics or takes the time to actually read knows this.
Rove just lies more than most.
And again: Where the hell are those WMD? Or the anthrax stockpiles? Or the chemical wagons?
SOMEBODY was lying...
I gotta love Karl Rove. He still drives the loonies insane.
Biden's lies (exaggerations) seem to be pathological; they serve no greater purpose than to make whatever he is saying at the time a little more dramatic, or interesting. They open him up to scrutiny and derision, and ultimately diminish him as a person. It is unfortunate that a man who has ascended to the Vice Presidency nonetheless feels that his experiences are not interesting enough to share unless they are heavily fictionalized.
Biden was lying when he said you have to have an Indian accent to enter a Seven-Eleven in Delaware. Absolute lie. I've done it, and I have a New Yawk accent.
Thus, he's liar. Q.E.D
Bush has said nothing about Biden or Obama, except to wish them success. There was no reason for Biden to go after Bush.
Besides, Biden should be thankful the man that nobody was apparently following managed to get the Surge going in Iraq. Biden voted for the Iraq war, then wanted to skedaddle.
Biden's job would be 1,000x more horrible if Bush had followed Biden's lead and abandoned Iraq.
aggerere = to heap. It's good etymologically speaking.
aggerare I meant. First conjugation.
SOMEBODY was lying...
Only if you think there's no possibility of honest error. The most obvious liar candidate is George Tenet, the director of the CIA, who ultimately passed the consensus intelligence estimate up to the President, characterising the case as a "slam dunk."
In his book, Woodward writes: "The presentation was a flop. The photos were not gripping. The intercepts were less than compelling. And then George Bush turns to George Tenet and says, 'This is the best we've got?'"
Says Woodward: “George Tenet's sitting on the couch, stands up, and says, ‘Don't worry, it's a slam dunk case.’" And the president challenges him again and Tenet says, ‘The case, it's a slam dunk.’ ...I asked the president about this and he said it was very important to have the CIA director – ‘Slam-dunk is as I interpreted is a sure thing, guaranteed. No possibility it won't go through the hoop.’ Others present, Cheney, very impressed.”
Was Tenet lying? Probably not. That was the judgment of the intelligence services. There were dissenting opinions, but there always are. Tenet was probably communicating his honest opinion.
This is radically different from Biden claiming (falsely) that he was the first in his family to go to college, or claiming (falsely) that he graduated at the top of his law school class, or claiming (falsely) that he got a full academic scholarship. Those are all facts entirely within his knowlege, and there's not much ambiguity about them.
Jeremy,
Now you are making up conversations between Rove and Roe(hee hee). I think you need some help. They have new drugs for your affliction. Hell, a whole new world may open up for you.
I know what Biden needs to do. He can become a commenter on Althouse. Then his highly developed skills at being a serial exaggerator would never be wasted. I still believe that Obama likes to keep Biden around just to make Obama look wiser and more cautious than that idiot who cannot control his tongue.
Jeremy,
I could see why you respect Biden. Both of you have things in common. You both have Antarctic IQs, you both are pathological prevaricators, and you both have an irrational hatred for people who disagree with you. I bet you like him so much you actually joined his secret society, the illuminated and anointed cabal that is really running this country; Hair Club For Men.
Rove's charaterization of Biden as a "blowhard" is closer to the truth than liar. A liar has the connotation of someone whose untruths are cold and calculating. Biden's whoppers are more self agrandizing than Machiavellan......Rove could take a page from Biden's book. If you appear on television a lot, be a little vain and narcissistic. Rove should diet, join a gym, and think about hairplugs if wants to succeed as a talking head.
Rove's charaterization of Biden as a "blowhard" is closer to the truth than liar.
It is possible to be both, you know. It's hard to see his theft of Neil Kinnock's speech as anything but premeditated.
SOMEBODY was lying...
Joe Biden: I remember when President Roosevelt went on TV to reassure the nation after the stock market crash in 1929.
Actually, Somebody Was Lying would be a good title for Biden’s biography.
So why do people care what Rove thinks? I don't see why anyone in the current administration engages in any conversation that induces journalists to dial up that old gasbag (Rove, to be clear) and ask him for an opinion.
Memo to Obama et al: Look forward, not backwards. The only reason to look backwards is to remind yourself what not to do -- but you don't have to 'fess up to doing it.
...and I freely admit that asking a politician to stop talking about something is akin to asking them to stop breathing. Hmm.....
Hmmm... All of this seems Rovian somehow.
Rove is a lot smarter and a helluva lot more articulate than the Gasbag-in-Chief, the Wizard of Uhs.
The only reason to look backwards is to remind yourself what not to do -- but you don't have to 'fess up to doing it.
You don't have to 'fess up to looking back if you're actually going to change what's being done.
If you're not changing policies then you do have to keep reminding people, 'Hey, I'm not that guy.'
Diehard Conservative here, pretty much never going to ever vote Democrat. But Karl Rove?
Dude. STFU. Go into hiding. Drag your sorry ass back to Texas. Or better yet, drag it somewhere else.
If I had to pick the two people most responsible for putting Obama in the White House, Rove would be one of them. And his boss would be the other.
Seriously.
"Anybody remember the black baby story he introduced to smear John McCain?"
No I don't remember it. I remember people talking about it, but it's a myth.
So why do people care what Rove thinks?
Others have already verified that Bidens tale is not true; in effect, a lie. It is not what Rove thinks or if he thinks that is the issue; it is the fact that he called the Vice President of the United States a liar. He did not cloak his language in the political correct context of diplomatic and tactful blowahrdism. The correct terminology for political lying is misspoke or mistaken. He stated a plain fact in a clear, precise, and to many, offensive term.
As Jeremy will explain in great detail, offending the high and mighty personages in the New AmeriKa is now Un-American and Un-patriotic.
Slow Joe sure thought there were WMDs, I guess that makes him what, more of a liar?
Sorry to make your head explode , Jeremy.
Biden on Meet the Press in 2002, discussing Saddam Hussein: “He’s a long term threat and a short term threat to our national security… “We have no choice but to eliminate the threat. This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world.”
Biden on Meet the Press in 2002: “Saddam must be dislodged from his weapons or dislodged from power.”
Biden on Meet the Press in 2007, on Hussein’s WMDs: “Well, the point is, it turned out they didn’t, but everyone in the world thought he had them. The weapons inspectors said he had them. He catalogued — they catalogued them. This was not some, some Cheney, you know, pipe dream. This was, in fact, catalogued.”
Biden on Meet the Press, April 29, 2007: “The threat [Saddam Hussein] presented was that, if Saddam was left unfettered, which I said during that period, for the next five years with sanctions lifted and billions of dollars into his coffers, then I believed he had the ability to acquire a tactical nuclear weapon — not by building it, by purchasing it. I also believed he was a threat in that he was — every single solitary U.N. resolution which he agreed to abide by, which was the equivalent of a peace agreement at the United Nations, after he got out of — after we kicked him out of Kuwait, he was violating. Now, the rules of the road either mean something or they don’t. The international community says “We’re going to enforce the sanctions we placed” or not. And what was the international community doing? The international community was weakening. They were pulling away.”
Funnily, . . .
I have to confess that in my 50+ years, I have never heard that term before!
But there it is in the dictionary. Though none of the dictionaries I consulted actually used it in a sentence.
Do law professors use funnily often?
I know what Biden needs to do. He can become a commenter on Althouse. Then his highly developed skills at being a serial exaggerator would never be wasted.
That's right. It's performance art. The joke's on us.
PVB wrote: Would serial or pathological prevaricator be more to your suiting?
My point is about mores, not morals. It used to be that calling someone a liar was an unholy accusation. Fighting words. When Bob Dole told GHWB to "stop lying about my record" it was taken as a huge loss of cool. Now it would barely register.
The use of "serial liar" or "pathological liar" just makes clear how meaningless the accusation has become in political circles. It's not that people don't care to protect their reputations anymore -- they just don't take seriously this particularly insult.
But there it is in the dictionary. Though none of the dictionaries I consulted actually used it in a sentence.
Who cares if it's in a dictionary -- dictionaries kill language >:(
The former Bush adviser was referring to Biden’s comments earlier this week on CNN that he and President George W. Bush once had an exchange in the Oval Office, where Bush said, "Well, Joe ... I'm a leader,” and Biden responded: “Mr. President, turn around and look behind you. No one is following.”
I think this story must be true. If you were going to lie, wouldn't you invent a story that makes you look a little better than this?
Also, for whoever was asking upthread: the linked article does mention that Biden said he and President Bush spent "a lot of hours alone" together.
Bush said, "Well, Joe ... I'm a leader,” and Biden responded: “Mr. President, turn around and look behind you. No one is following.”
The most interesting part of this story is the elipses.
I think this story must be true. If you were going to lie, wouldn't you invent a story that makes you look a little better than this?
I don't think Biden invents these things purposefully -- it's just a reflexive thing he does. He can't control the words coming out of his mouth.
I am from Philly area. If we associated with someone like Joe Biden, we would have given him a nickname because he was a know-little blowhard who never worked hard in his entire life.
For Biden, I think we would have tagged him with something like IBM which stands for Irish Big Mouth. And we would have used it to his face- that is how you get asswipes like Joe Biden to STFU.
Yeah, he's a politician. All of them lie. Biden, like Palin, happens to be clumsy rather than slick.
And then there's inflammatory rhetoric. I guess Beck is an example of one of those "fact-based" conservatives who doesn't stoop to emotional appeals that I've been hearing about.
Lorelei Leigh said..."Also, for whoever was asking upthread: the linked article does mention that Biden said he and President Bush spent "a lot of hours alone" together."
You actually believe many here care about whether it's "true" or not??
This isn't a discussion, this is a tar and feathering operation.
Anything Obama, Biden, Democrat or God help you, "liberal" is targeted as unAmerican and upatriotic.
Biden could have a video of the exchange and a signed statement of fact from G.W. himself and it would still be dismissed as some kind of "liberal" bashing of the Bush administration.
I don't think Biden invents these things purposefully -- it's just a reflexive thing he does. He can't control the words coming out of his mouth.
This is what I think. It's like a version of foot in mouth disease or something, where half the thigns that come out your mouth are made up or borrowed. It's funny, and tragic and strange, really. Despite all that, I actually like Biden, but I just want to slap him so he will stop making things up! Why do you do that?
Also, for whoever was asking upthread: the linked article does mention that Biden said he and President Bush spent "a lot of hours alone" together.
Biden says? Members of GWs staff have already stated categorically that Joe Biden never spent time alone with the former president. They could probaby prove it too, if asked to do so.
Biden says=Biden lies.
I don't think Biden invents these things purposefully -- it's just a reflexive thing he does. He can't control the words coming out of his mouth.
Well, he is a politician.
peter hoh - I honestly think Glenn Beck, regardless of the money he's paid, is mentally unbalanced (right there with Michelle Bachmann) and someday will literally flame out.
Between the Nazi bullshit and his insane 9/12 Project or the clip you provided, the man is so far over the top I can't even imagine the diehard conservatives sticking with him.
Then again, they still hand in there with Cheney and Rove...
Anything Obama, Biden, Democrat or God help you, "liberal" is targeted as unAmerican and upatriotic.
Jeremy,
You constantly harp and nag that any criticism of the administration is Un-American and un-patriotic. What are you whining about now?
Bob W: "It is unfortunate that a man who has ascended to the Vice Presidency nonetheless feels that his experiences are not interesting enough to share unless they are heavily fictionalized."
But you base this on what Karl Roves says.
Rove offers no proof that Biden was lying. He only provides his own opinion on what he thinks could have happened. He couldn't possibly know if it did or did not happen unless he was with Bush every second of the day. Rove also said he had absolutely nothing to do with the Plame affair and that's been thoroughly discredited by those who were actually part of the scheme.
To use Karl Rove as your source of "truth" is laughable at best.
I appreciate being caught in the tug-of-war, guys. However, I was only replying to Jeremy's question about Diamondhead's post.
The article says that Biden claimed to have spent hours alone with the President. That's all I was trying to say. (Well, that, and I think that if Biden were going to purposefully lie about an exchange with Bush, then he could have done a heck of a lot better.)
I don't generally get involved in partisan mudslinging, so now I shall withdraw to the sidelines.
Did Rove say anything about VP Biden's claim that he was the one who convinced FDR to go on t.v. after the stock market crash?
...honestly think Glenn Beck, regardless of the money he's paid, is mentally unbalanced...
Keith Olbermann is balanced and sane? Chris Matthews is balanced and sane? The former is afflicted with rabies, the latter is a gushing teenage girl with raging hormones. But, even with their disabilities, they are "liberals", so they must be acceptable as good, patriotic Americans. They make big bucks too.
Peter Bella, we know what you think about Matthews and Olberman. I'm happy to agree that they are both spinmasters and BS artists.
Now, tell us what you think of Beck's rantings?
I avoid Rove's articles in the WSJ. I think he's just the next "alinkist" objective, like Rush Limbaugh was the previous. I agree with MadMan, this administration should be looking forward, not backward. However, the fact that they are looking backward, should scare those still hun up on "hope" and "change".
To say that Joe Biden lies is to affirm that the Sun raises every day from the West. One doesn't need to know him personally, just know his reacord, as the examples stated here by others show.
Michael, the Huffington Post should sue the crap out of you. You always fail to give them credit when you copy and paste from them. Is school out today?
Peter - "You constantly harp and nag that any criticism of the administration is Un-American and un-patriotic. What are you whining about now?"
I never said "any criticism of the administration is Un-American."
There are all kinds of things I do not agree with.
What I said was this: The constant bitching and whining about anything Obama says or does...after ONLY 75 days in office...is unfair and makes you sound like you want the man to fail. If you want to jump on him after he's had an opportunity to at least initiate policies or make decisions that either pan out or do not...that's your right.
But the relentless drumbeat coming from the Republican Party and especially the far right is turning Americans off and I do find that to be unAmerican at this stage of the game.
Biden is an out-sized personality who loves his stories. I agree with Bob W. in that Biden exaggerates for dramatic effect. It makes the stories better. As a public figure, however, those stories get out there and initially they seem more trouble to correct than ignore. Hillary's tale of landing under gunfire strikes me the same way.
With story tellers such as Biden, after a while the stories become the truth. They really remember the situation the way they tell the story. I once watched in amazement as a BFF told a terrific story about herself and an incident at a beach party. The story was my story, and I wasn't even sure she had been there at the time, but over the years it had entered the mythology of our summer house and she took it for her own. Not maliciously, I'm sure. Just that any story tells better in first person. Repeat it often enough....
As to the plagarism, didn't a jury just find that Ward Chruchill was fired not because of his proven plagarism and fraud, but because of his politics? Caring about plagarism is so very 19th Century.
For the record, I never have and I never will vote for Biden, but I consider his exaggerations inconsequential. Hate him for his support of card check, not for his outrageous tales.
What fool expects truth from a politician anyway? That is why we look to see what they have done, not what they now promise.
Lorelei:
"I don't generally get involved in partisan mudslinging, so now I shall withdraw to the sidelines."
And thus the troll Jeremy/Michael succeeds in his main goal.
You've heard the advice to "not feed the troll"?
Well, you just gave him 3 tons of government cheese. Now we'll never be rid of him!
Anyone see Alpha recently?
The Cuban Eater: "To say that Joe Biden lies is to affirm that the Sun raises every day from the West."
Based on what?
YOU?
As to your claim regarding the I have no idea what you're talking about.
ShadyCharacter - "feeding the troll."
What you really men is this: This guy disagrees with us.
Why would anyone listen to him?
We ONLY want those who AGREE with US.
Get on board.
"Hillary's tale of landing under gunfire strikes me the same way."
Now that has been proven to be a falsehood.
The Biden story has not.
But you base this on what Karl Roves says.
I think he’s basing it on the however many already proven incorrect things Biden has said over his political career (including the stuff that ended his original presidential hopes). Don’t be so obtuse.
Michael, you are a fucking moron.
You copied that from here
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/10/rove-roe-fight-at-steak-h_n_185520.html
That points to here:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/anneschroeder/0409/Karl_Rove_accosted_by_ex_GOP_Chief_of_Staff.html
I already pointed to the examples cited by others. You, as always, can't read. There are drugs for ADD and dyslexia. You should try them on top of your anti-psychotics (which are obviously failing)
Eater? Eater of what? Be a man, say it.
And just for fun, fuck you.
I don't think Jeremy is Michael. He's far too civil. Sometimes I think LOS/Michael has been reincarnated as FF.
Peter V. Bella said..."Keith Olbermann is balanced and sane? Chris Matthews is balanced and sane?"
I'm not a big fan of either, and I certainly understand why you disagree with their politics or delivery, but the comparison ends there.
Beck is too far over the top and he'll eventually say something so outlandish (although it's hard to imagine more than what we've already heard) that will blow him out of the water...even with his loyal followers.
The Politico link
The true genius of Mr Biden is his sincerety schtick to whomever he is blowing hotair at the moment. He feigns that while he is able to exaggerate and blow smoke, right now, just for a moment, he will be sincere and a little self-deprecating. That IS the moment when his most effective deceptions are implanted into a speech/ discussion. This guy is a skilled truth assassin posing as a good natured fool. And by the way, he won.
The Cuba Eater - I read it on the Politico website (Shenanigans), you idiot.
Unlike yourself, I try to gather my information from a variety of sources.
I also read the Washington Times, Weekly Standard, Washington post, NYT's, L.A. Times, St. Louis Post Dispatch, San Diego Union and Wall Street Journal and other publications and websites.
I think that's one of the mor interesting aspects of having a computer and access to the internet...or "internets" according to G.W.
Now, tell us what you think of Beck's rantings?
I do not listen to Beck and know little about him. I could care less. As to the other two poltroons, I do not understand the popularity or the alleged ratings they bring in. They only appeal to people who have the maturity of teenagers and the mentality of Neanderthals.
Is Beck of a similar ilk?
traditionalguy said..."The true genius of Mr Biden is his sincerety schtick to whomever he is blowing hotair at the moment."
Unlike Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Al Gore, Hillary CLinton, Bob & Elizabethe Dole, etc.??
C'mon...you can come up with something better than that.
What I said was this: The constant bitching and whining about anything Obama says or does...after ONLY 75 days in office...is unfair and makes you sound like you want the man to fail. If you want to jump on him after he's had an opportunity to at least initiate policies or make decisions that either pan out or do not...that's your right.
You seem to be implying that he hasn't had a chance to initiate policies or make decisions yet. I mean, I'd probably agree with you that he hasn't really made decisions or initiated policies at this point -- he's sort of left the field open to whoever wants it, usually Pelosi -- but I'm not sure why, as an apparently devoted follower of the President you would be taking that line.
I mean, he has signed off on the largest increase in spending in American history. And his administration has proposed a bloated budget, so swollen with entitlements that even after the economy recovers, it's projected to run deficits so large they make Bush II's worst budgets look fiscally responsible. His treasury secretary, meanwhile, has proposed all kinds of remedies for the banking situation.
I find it hard to blame Obama for these things, since he doesn't seem to be in command of events, and his staff -- who are having trouble even with the low-hanging fruit, like gift-giving -- are probably not filtering information up to him properly anyway (e.g. the AIG bonuses, specifically protected by a law he signed -- clearly no one on his team bothered to read the junk he was putting his pen to). But that's probably not the tack his partisans should be taking, when they try to defend him.
Peter - "I do not listen to Beck and know little about him."
Then how can you compare him to others?
And why is it whenever I mention Beck, Hannity, Rush or others...NOBODY here apparently listens to them?
And did you know that the average listener to politically-based talk radio is in their 60's?
Everybody except Jeremy/Michael:
You can't engage in a debate with a tree stump. You act surprised that this person isn't reading your counterpoints or links, or directly addressing any point you make.
You cheapen yourself by engaging with him.
You allow him to derail the point at hand with discussions of completely extraneous points (WTF does Glenn Beck have to do with Biden telling fibs?).
When you engage him, he wins and you lose.
Do not respond directly to Jeremy/Michael. If you must reference him, simply point out that he is stupid (which he either is, or is pretending to be to avoid actually engaging with any counter-arguments).
What does your alledged "variety of sources" have to do with your complete stupidity and inability to cite your sources, Michael?
And I am not impressed. When you can read your news in 8 languages (1 more than me) then I'll be impressed. Do you read Libertad Digital, Il Corriere della Sera, L'Osservatore Romano, O Globo, Le Monde, L'Figaro, El PaÃs, La Nación, El Universal de México and El Universal de Venezuela,etc, etc, etc?
Now, instead of focusing on Glenn Beck (whom most people here seem not to pay attention to), try and defend, with proper arguments, your Crazy Uncle Joe the VP.
The Cuban Eater - If you really want to give credit where credit is due, why leave these out?
They're ALL running the story:
Fox News ...
dailyradar.com
FOXNews.com
www.memeorandum.com
newsgroups.derkeiler.com
HuffingtonPost.com
mediafreedom.pnn.com
www.trailortrash.us
brooksider.blogspot.com
blog.reidreport.com
I never said "any criticism of the administration is Un-American."
Jeremy,
Everyone here thinks you are the troll Michael who showed up during the election. I think you are Joe Biden. You lie as easily as he does, your lies are proven as lies via documentation, and you are blatantly pathological.
In past threads, especially last week, you specifically stated that it is Un-American and un-patriotic to criticize the president and his administration; not once, not twice, but over and over again like some mantra. You accused me of being Un-American and un-patriotic. You even tried to bring up my former honorable profession to try and prove some silly point.
You sir, are a liar, a charlatan, and a fraud. Since your words are immortalized on previous posts, threads, and comments, I do not have to waste or spend precious anytime proving it.
Jeremy...I did my best. My quoted comment was really a complement to Biden, as you easily pointed out how many other successful men used this skill. Biden would privately be pleased at what I said about him. He just would not want anyone publicly exposing his best trick, like you did not want me exposing it either.
You've heard the advice to "not feed the troll"?
I have and I heed it. I don't honestly believe Jeremy is a troll, but even if he is, I'm hardly the one feeding him. I just answered a simple, non-political question. I haven't even taken a position on this mess, other than my sarcastic comment that Biden's story makes him look bad so it must be true.
Your advice would be better directed toward someone else. Even then, it would be misplaced because I think the people involved love engaging in these kinds of arguments or else they probably wouldn't do it.
I haven't commented here in a while. I sure did miss it.
The Cuban Eater - "ElcubanitoKC said..."What does your alledged "variety of sources" have to do with your complete stupidity and inability to cite your sources, Michael?"
I'm not a fucking reporter.
I'm just throwing out my opinion, based on what I read here and elsewhere.
If I needed to prove a point or dispute someone's point, and felt it was necessary, I'd throw in a link.
90% of the drivel on this thread is nothing more than personal opinion based on something the people have read elsewhere.
Everybody except Jeremy/Michael
Well, good then. Perhaps you are right. I'm off.
And did you know that the average listener to politically-based talk radio is in their 60's?
Which explains why I probably do not listen to them. Does your fallacious statistic include those who listen to so called progressive talk radio?
BTW, are people in their sixties supposed to just turn off the radio, tune out, and only listen to state sponsored programming or Glenn Miller- for your information he is a musician, not a bloviator?
Are people in their sixties supposed to leave their minds, intelligence, and opinions at the door due to their age? What animus do you have against eledrly people? Do you think they are the new anarchists? They will rise up and rebel against all that is good and great in your mind?
My, my, my, the intolerance of raging liberals is just apalling. It is not bad enough that they want to stifle criticism, now they want to deny the eldrly their right to tune in. That is Un-American and un-patriotic too.
traditionalguy said..."Jeremy...I did my best. My quoted comment was really a complement to Biden, as you easily pointed out how many other successful men used this skill."
And I threw out others who use the same technigue.
Then again, It's hard to imagine any of them considering this to be much of a "compliment":
"This guy is a skilled truth assassin posing as a good natured fool."
Would YOU?
Peter Bella, don't duck it. Look at the Beck link. If you can find an equivalent Olberman or Matthews moment, I'll be impressed.
Peter V. Bella said..."Does your fallacious statistic include those who listen to so called progressive talk radio?"
I have no idea why you consider what I said to be "fallacious," but yeah, I suppose it would also relate to progressive talk radio.
What's your point?
Peter - More to my point:
"It is, rather, a crueler demographic point. The dirty little secret of conservative talk radio is that the average age of listeners is 67 and rising, according to Sinton—the Fox News audience, likewise, is in its mid-60s: “What sort of continuing power do you have as your audience strokes out?
What’s more, it’s the Internet that is the fast-growing and arguably more powerful political medium—and it is the province of the young and liberal. The only sensible market view of conservative talk is that it will contract and be reduced, in the coming years, to a much more rarefied format."
And to satisfy The Cuban Eater:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/05/rush-limbaugh200905?currentPage=2
Pick one:
Karl Rove lies.
Joe Biden is a blowhard.
Aw, do I have to?
Roger Sweeny said..."Pick one:
Karl Rove lies. Joe Biden is a blowhard. Aw, do I have to?"
But which one would YOU rather be?
Which one would you rather have as a friend?
Which one would you want serving in government? (Never mind this last one.)
Jeremy,
You have been exposed as a liar and a fraud. You even defend the indefensible; the lies of others, like Biden.
Thus, aside from being a liar, you are amoral. There is a place for you though. Under a rock, where nasty, slimy, smelly things live and breed.
Is this althouse.blogspot.com or jeremytheloon.blogspot.com ?
Seriously, the guys is one-man lying retort machine. It is almost impressive from a stamina standpoint - and I don;t think I've ever seen anyone so utterly devoid of a sense of irony.
All politicians lie - but Biden lies big and he lies dumb. He makes outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. During the VP debate he would just randomly make sh*t up if he didn't know the answer, and his delivery was generally pat enough that the ignorant electorate bought it.
Why are you all not ignoring the troll?
Jeremykey-dtl whoever he is.
He says he reads.
There used to be a reading comprehension segment on the SATs.
Based on his blanket assertion that a certain loquacious VP who apparently is a pathological hyperbolicist (= damned prevaricator) is telling the truth about telling off a previous POTUS, one can assume he did not do well.
He is, if nothing else, un-informed about how hard it is for anyone to spend time with a sitting President of the United States, much less alone, in the Oval Office. (Clinton being the exception, of course.)
Why bother?
You're a mean one, Jere-my.
You really are a heel.
You're as cuddly as a cactus,
You're as charming as an eel.
Jere-my.
You're a bad banana
With a greasy black peel.
You're a monster, Jere-my.
Your heart's an empty hole.
Your brain is full of spiders,
You've got garlic in your soul.
Jere-my.
I wouldn't touch you, with a
thirty-nine-and-a-half foot pole.
You're a vile one, Jere-my.
You have termites in your smile.
You have all the tender sweetness
Of a seasick crocodile.
Jere-my.
Given the choice between the two of you
I'd take the seasick crockodile.
You're a foul one, Jere-my.
You're a nasty, wasty skunk.
Your heart is full of unwashed socks
Your soul is full of gunk.
Jere-my.
The three words that best describe you,
are, and I quote: "Stink. Stank. Stunk."
You're a rotter, Jere-my.
You're the king of sinful sots.
Your heart's a dead tomato splot
With moldy purple spots,
Jere-my.
Your soul is an apalling dump heap overflowing
with the most disgraceful assortment of deplorable
rubbish imaginable,
Mangled up in tangled up knots.
You nauseate me, Jere-my.
With a nauseaus super-naus.
You're a crooked jerky jockey
And you drive a crooked horse.
Jere-my.
You're a three decker saurkraut and toadstool
sandwich
With arsenic sauce.
(From the Liar who Stole Everything. Dr. Phloose. 2009)
My brother is fond of Glenn Beck and as a result I watched one interview on his tv show with Ted Nugent, which was kind of funny just because Ted Nugent is nuts, in that good "I like to live in the woods, everybody leave me alone" kind of way. Glenn Beck seems to have an easy manner about him, whereas people like Olberman (and Hannity sometimes) seem to have an angry, spitle flecked persona which is offputting to a lot of people. I dont' remember Glenn screaming at the tv about the Worst Person in the World, at any rate.
I did catch 5 minutes of his show one time and he apparently does fake commercials. The one I caught was actually kind of funny...it was a commercial for a dollar store, talking about how the dollar store down the road took bailout money and now everything was 5 bucks.
Jeremy: First of all, Rove calling someone a liar is ridiculous in itself. The man has spent 30 years lying about damn near everything
Yes Jeremy, we know that your values and the values of the Democrat Party are defined by what you think the other side does.
But I'm beginning to see why it was so easy fill the ranks of the nazi party and pali terrorists. There's never a shortage of people like you getting "even" for sins your enemy hasn't really commited.
Bu by all means, keep defining yourself by your imaginary hate.
The use of "serial liar" or "pathological liar" just makes clear how meaningless the accusation has become in political circles.
I keep coming back to what my wife, who's never followed politics, asked me a few weeks ago:
Her: "No one has oversight of Congress"
Me: "Well, congress has its own Ethics Comm - nevermind"
These congres-critters are above the law, with no check but their own constituents back home. They are corrupt to their core, they don't pay taxes, they don't read the bills the vote for...
As someone else touched on - even if Biden's story is the unvarnished truth, why, WHY is he telling it? Why act like a brat, at his age? I thought Bill Clinton was immature but I don't recall him slamming Reagan or Bush once he got into office, or bragging about how ugly he was to them when they were the President of the United States.
I gritted my teeth through the 8 years of the Clinton presidency. It never crossed my mind that I would miss him. Makes me wonder what the hell could be NEXT. And here I've cussed on Good Friday.
Earth to Biden (and Obama): Y'ALL WON. You did it. You're there. You can stop trashing your fellow Americans now.
Jeremy...Yes, I would call that a complement in the competitive world of Lawyers, Preachers, and Crooks(the three professions which share a common skill set). That is why an honest Lawyer can be so valuable. You have to study your opponent's tactics to have any chance to beat him. Your tactic is quick ridicule to weaken your opponent. When that doesn't work, you label your opponent as a socially unacceptable person and make that the argument to decide the outcome of the other real issues he is spokesman for. There will be no peace for those who win with the tactics you use.
What you really men is this: This guy disagrees with us.
Why would anyone listen to him?
No, more like it is pointless to try to have an intelligent discussion with any troll, because they don't listen, do not respond to the conversation and mindlessly repeat talking points with no context or logic.
As to liars... like Christy, I also watched in amazement when my ex husband would baldly tell stories about himself in Vietnam that I knew were not true, grossly exaggerated or that were the stories that others had told. I seriously think that he told the story so often, that the truth of it became blurred and the lie became the truth.
Some people just can't help themselves. It seems that Biden is missing that little inner filter, between his brain farts and his mouth, that most of us use to keep us from blurting out every random thought.
Rove has made a habit in recent weeks of accusing Obama of doing what Bush and Rove did in the White House. This is just one more example.
He also said:
- Obama has politicized government.
- Obama is very partisan and has been polarizing.
- Other hallmarks of the Bush/Rove tenure.
Rove is the most mendacious political actor on America's political stage. He has zero credibility.
You can stop trashing your fellow Americans now.
What the...? Cheney launched a broadside on Obama and you're saying Biden is wrong?
Cheney is breaking with American tradition where the previous Administration allows the next to get their government going. Cheney is the one out of line here.
You can stop trashing your fellow Americans now.
Biden started this because Team Obama needs to generate little media circuses to distract the public from their ongoing failures. They are transforming the country into a socialist nanny-state. "Look over there! At Rush! At Karl! [etc]"
Hi, Jeremy. I see you're getting the typical conservative response: "anyone who disagrees with me is a troll/communist/[insert insult]."
Open-minded crowd, aren't they? They can't have coherent discussions, so most of them (not all) primarily "discuss" via insult.
---------------------
Fen displays it's weak grasp on reality:
Biden started this because [insert crazy assumptions about other peoples' motives].
Yo, Fen.
a) Biden was responding to Cheney's attack on Obama.
b) By definition, a person cannot respond to someone and also start an argument.
That's some special crazy ya got there.
Jeremy asks the Great Ignored Questions:
Speaking of liars and the lies they tell...where are those WMD? Or the anthrax stockpiles? Or the chemical wagons?
We can add to this the alleged...
- anthrax stockpiles,
- drones that can strike the US from Iraq,
- nuclear weapons in development,
- uranium from Africa.
Rove also said he had nothing to do with the exposure of Valerie Plame, a secret CIA operative who was working on nuclear security. Turns out that was a lie, too, as he was a confirming source for Robert Novak.
Alpha, your back!
I was starting to get worried when you ducked out of the previous comment thread. I hope everything is okay.
Now that you're back, how about you address the earlier discussion that was raging yesterday about your moral idiocy in connection with your post on the NY shooting?
Boiling it down to one question for you, please distinguish your actions mis-identifying the NY shooter as a right-wing Rush Limbaugh xenophobe from the following hypo:
Prominent news story - "Serial Rapist at Large, details at 11".
AlphaLiberal posts the following: "Just goes to show those damn black people always raping and whatnot, it's just in their nature".
Then as facts develop and the rapist turns out to be white, Alpha "retracts" his comment and says, "I'm absolved, right?" and then goes on to say - "Everyone knows lots of black people are rapists after all, so I wasn't really wrong in a general sense, just in this instance"...
As an aside, I'm glad you and Jeremy/Michael have connected at such a deep and meaningful level. Maybe he can give you some advice for your new handle. I think you should consider "BetaLiberal". That'll throw everyone off the trail!
"No, more like it is pointless to try to have an intelligent discussion with any troll, because they don't listen, do not respond to the conversation and mindlessly repeat talking points with no context or logic."
So he's on the Journlo-List then?
A lie from ShadyCharacter:
AlphaLiberal posts the following: "Just goes to show those damn black people always raping and whatnot, it's just in their nature".
The other topic has been addressed adequately and you are flogging a dead horse. Congrats.
----------------------
As far as this troll business, it seems very clear that the conservatives here want to drive off every liberal who comes and posts with their vitriol, insults and hostility. Any liberal is deemed a troll, unless they are obsequious.
I think in some cases they've succeeded.
And those insults and bile seem to be all okay by Ann Althouse.
Speaking of liars, in a recent post concerning Bush Michael/Jeremy said,"Every company he ran folded."
Fact: Bush was the managing general partner of the Rangers for 5 years. The Rangers did not fold.
Speaking of liars, in a recent post concerning the Binghamton massacre Alpha said, "This is the bitter fruit of right-wing hate mongering. Immigrants have been a target for attacks and hate for years.
As ye reap, so shall we sow."
Liar, Liar.
Alpha, that's actually a pretty cool response. You manage to show your stupidity and your inability to read and understand what you read at the same time. Maybe you are Michael/Jeremy after all!
So, a "hypothetical" is a "lie"?
What's a metaphor, perjury?
Is a simile slander?
Take two seconds and look up the definition of "hypothetical". Then look up the definition of "distinguish" (oh hell, I'll help you out on that one - "explain the difference").
Go ahead and give it a shot. Maybe you haven't actually Mel Gibsoned yourself after all. Please explain, I bet I'm not the only one interested in what you have to say.
Hi, Jeremy. I see you're getting the typical conservative response: "anyone who disagrees with me is a troll/communist/[insert insult]."
Oh come on AL, this is patently untrue. MM certainly never gets that kind of response. Why do you think that is? Because he seems to be a grown up who can argue and engage with people without spouting nonsense.
Also, I think when people try to take over the thread by posting 15 times in a row (often on completely unrelated issues), you just get to thinking troll.
Alpha: "Any liberal is deemed a troll, unless they are obsequious."
Beth isn't obsequious. Beth isn't a troll. But Beth isn't stupid either, and you are Alpha.
MadisonMan isn't obsequious. MadisonMan isn't a troll. But MadisonMan isn't stupid either, and you are Alpha.
Peter Hoh isn't obsequious. Peter isn't a troll. But Peter isn't stupid either, and you are Alpha.
As far as "insults" go, I'm not trying to insult you by calling you stupid. I believe I am simply describing you.
It's not an "insult" to say the Sears Tower is tall. It's not an insult to say pygmies are short. It's not an insult to say that anyone who eats lutefisk is crazy.
You could call me an ass if it would make you feel better. I wouldn't mind. That is, after all, a true characterization.
I am impressed, you appear to have used the word "obsequious" properly (even if what you were saying was false). You'd think someone with a vocabulary as impressive as yours would understand what a "hypothetical" is. Are you simply playing at stupid? If so, you deserve an Oscar!
It wasn't news that Biden is a liar, only that a well-known conservative said so.
A few points;
Firstly, I think Biden provides Obama a media foil and a speaker of inconvenient truths that can be denied as "Joe just being Joe".
Such as during the campaign when he "misspoke" re the coal industry? Obama's proposed cap & trade will make coal generated electricity economically unsustainable. Concerns of coal industry states/voters will be considered old news by a compliant media. That Biden has a reputation for embellishing and is gaffe prone allows him to play the useful fool quite well and he appears to enjoy the role.
Secondly, I don't understand the concept that the out-of-power party should accept the opposition's positions and policy.
For better or worse we have a two-party system. Whichever party is out of power has a duty to its voter base to oppose the other.
Citizens who oppose the administration's policies have every right to expect and demand that their voices and those of their duly elected representatives be heard.
That politics and political rhetoric has become so personal, crude and downright mean appears to be a bug in an electronically enhanced two-party system, unfortunately some see it as a feature.
Lastly, Re looking backwards, aka history, we all know the quote.
Our method of governance is akin to a growing onion, each successive policy layer building upon the last.
Isn't this dynamism the strength of our system?
The Brits, for example, empowered a permanent bureaucracy to tend the layers in the guise of creating stability. They unwittingly created an unelected, one party government that is increasingly unresponsive to their needs and economically unsustainable. We don't want to go down that path, do we?
Peter V. Bella said..."Jeremy,
You have been exposed as a liar and a fraud. You even defend the indefensible; the lies of others, like Biden."
Nobody's shown evidence Biden was lying.
And I haven't defended anything, I would just like to know how Rove could know what he says he knows.
Do you believe Rove knows everything George W. Bush ever said to anybody?
Peter- "In past threads, especially last week, you specifically stated that it is Un-American and un-patriotic to criticize the president and his administration; not once, not twice, but over and over again like some mantra."
Provide the comments.
Oh drat, not again!
It appears Alpha done... r-u-n-n o-f-t
Maybe next time he'll get a chance to distinguish The Hypo.
Lawgiver said..."Fact: Bush was the managing general partner of the Rangers for 5 years. The Rangers did not fold."
He was one of the managing partner, dipstick. And he didn't run the team.
He was brought in as an investor ($5-600,000) and because of his family name. He helped get a new stadium built at taxpayer expense, then took a sweetheart deal, walking about with over $15,000,000 after about 5 years.
Every oil company Bush ran went belly-up, but not George. He always walked with plenty of money, generally right before the company tanked.
Do ANY of you people ever read biographies? This is not new, this has been reported on for years.
Alpha: Biden was responding to Cheney's attack on Obama.
Nope. This was orchestrated.
And Cheney didn't attack, he criticized Obama.
Reagardless, I would think the Vice President's time should be squandered on something more than a spat with the previous administration.
Admit it. Every time you guys so much as stub your toe, you blame Bush. I bet you cursed him for today's weather.
DBQ @1:13 As to liars... like Christy, I also watched in amazement when my ex husband would baldly tell stories about himself in Vietnam that I knew were not true, grossly exaggerated or that were the stories that others had told. I seriously think that he told the story so often, that the truth of it became blurred and the lie became the truth.
I think John Kerry believed his lucky hat/Cambodia story too, it became a part of his personal narrative. I've always wondered what he did with the hat.
Jeremy: Nobody's shown evidence Biden was lying.
Gotta love it. Everyone else in the room denies the incident. And you choose to believe the Plagiarist who has a pattern and history of telling tall tales.
That is the punishment for being deceitful, ya know? You lose your ability to distinguish between truth and lies.
Then you buy a bridge.
Then you elect an empty suit to the Presidency.
And when people like Joe Biden say "Look over there!", you fall for it. Everytime.
...did not have sex with... promise to restore ethics to congress...if elected to majority will vote to cut off war fuding...out of Iraq in 6 months...will reverse wiretapping...
Peter, it appears that Jeremy/Michael is challenging you to provide links and evidence.
Take a quick read through this board and others and you will see that any number of people have gone through the trouble to specifically answer his points and even embed hyperlinks for him to follow (I would LOVE to know how to do that, but obviously not enough to actually figure it out...).
There is not one single instance where Jeremy/Michael appears to have actually addressed a specific point addressed to him (or read any linked material). Sure he may quote some random snippet of language directed to him (often in about 12 posts in a row), but only to intentionally twist it off into some extraneous point "You say _____, but Glenn Beck advocates shooting gay people" or some such nonsense.
If you feel absolutely compelled to speak directly to a troll, the best strategy is to, in simple terms, point out their shortcomings as human beings. Simple mockery, not insults (no need to lose your cool and drop an F-bomb - they eat that shit up!). Read over their opus, get a sense of their character and flaws and then point them out. Try to be creative and funny.
You can't trap them with logic (they won't respond). You simply need to accurately characterize them and be amusing in the process (for the benefit of the other long-suffering readers you are annoying by engaging the troll in the first place!). If properly executed, the troll will be taken back to those horrible years in school when all the real boys would make their lives so miserable...
You can tell if you've hit a nerve by watching the reactions. Look how effective pointing out Alpha's stupidity is in getting him to let out his internal Brave Sir Robbin!
I'll let someone else pick at Jeremy/Michael's scab (hint, he is also very stupid, you can play on that...)
All this being said, the board is much healthier when people actually address the topic of the post.
Lawgiver - Once again...George W. Bush...successful businessman? I don't think so:
CNN's Brooks Jackson cuts to the chase and arrives at some telling conclusions about how George made his Bush bucks:
"Bush started in the Texas oil business, after Yale University and Harvard Business School. Wealthy family friends and others invested millions with him, but with poor results.
A 1985 disclosure shows Bush's track record: Investors got back only 45 cents on the dollar, but few complained. Investors also got tax deductions averaging more than 80 cents on every dollar invested.
Those early Bush ventures were mainly tax shelters." Everyone agrees that Dubya's baseball venture was his most successful business experience: "Bush takes credit for conceiving The Ballpark at Arlington, home of the Texas Rangers baseball team, which he bought in 1989 with a wealthy group of investors.
Among them: billionaire Richard Rainwater of Fort Worth. Bush invested just over $600,000, but Arlington taxpayers invested a lot more. 'It was $135 million worth of sales tax money,' said attorney Glenn Sodd. 'The city donated a good bit of land to the project.
(Eminent domain...for you Republicans who hate governmemt)
They got a sales tax exemption on all the items that were purchased for the stadium. We have a property tax in Texas and they were given as part of the deal a property tax exemption.' A total of at least $200 million, according to Sodd."
"Bush the businessman did prosper. But not by his bootstraps -- with help from wealthy friends and taxpayer subsidies."
I tend to be forgiving over what are reasonably likely to be mistakes about memory or remembered stories... I think that what most people remember are their own stories and not the actual events. It's hardly a large gap to remember someone else's story and think it was your own. I know that I've gotten half through something and suddenly went, "Wait... that was my sister. Sure it was. What I'm talking about happened to my sister, not me." I've made the mistake the other direction too.
But what is to be expected when talking about something that happened 30 years ago or more?
So... is Biden mistaken? Is he an exaggerator? Or is he a liar?
If Rove is a liar is entirely irrelevant to the question of Joe Biden.
I ought to be surprised (but am not) that the best defense anyone can come up with for Biden is that someone else is a liar *too*.
Is Obama doing what Rove claims he's doing?
Certainly that question has nothing at all to do with Rove or if Bush did it too... except that if it was wrong for one then it's wrong for both. If it suddenly *becomes* wrong for Obama, then that is just like how so many things suddenly *became* wrong under Bush, when no one complaining had complained at all about Clinton.
There ought to be some personal constancy if someone claims to support limits on government, privacy from government, or anything else. That doesn't have to do with Biden or Rove. That has to do with *you*.
And Jeremy... Bush's less than top-line corporate experience has NOTHING to do with Obama's complete and utter lack of any business experience and any executive experience.
Trying to show how Bush was weak does not make Obama suddenly sprout wings and fly.
Obama has to stand alone. He either has experience in business and executive experience or he has none. You started this foolishness after I suggested that Obama did not understand capitalism. When claiming that Obama had a fair amount of personal financial success didn't work as proof that he understood capitalism (since NONE of his income has ever been from the private sector but just from not-for-profit and academic work) you switched to this stupidity about how Bush just wasn't very good at managing businesses.
What does that have to do with Obama's lack of experience? What does that have to do with Obama's history of employment, lack of executive experience (even to make mistakes!) or his redistributionist tendencies?
Nothing.
No amount of tearing Bush down will build Obama up.
Michael you moron,
Which part of "managing general partner" don't you understand?
That's what you do when you run the company. That's what Bush did for 5 years with the Rangers. The Rangers didn't fail.
I never commented on his success as a businessman only the fact that you lied(Every company he ran folded.) What compelled you to bring that up? Caught in your lie, trying to change the subject?
Idiot.
Fen:
Alpha: Biden was responding to Cheney's attack on Obama.
Nope. This was orchestrated.
Uh, no, not at all.
Biden was asked by an interviewer about what Cheney said when Cheney accused Obama of making America less safe. Biden answered the question.
Now you can imagine any grand plan in there you want. But that's how it happened.
Alpha, we're waiting. Well, I am anyway.
But before you address The Hypo (don't worry, I'm not holding my breath!), tell the truth, did you really not know what a hypothetical was when you equated one with a lie?
If true, that's all kinds of awesome!
I bet Michael has one of these Dash Board Obama.
Why did you change your screen name from luckyoldson to Michael to Jeremy? Gutless coward or just stump sucking stupid??
Lawgiver - What is with this you're "lying" thing? I'm not lying about anything.
If you want to believe George W. Bush was a successful businessman...because he put together a bunch of his daddy's friends to finance the purchase of a baseball team...hit the taxpayers with a huge bill for a new stadium...then walked away with 30 times what he invested...that is up to YOU.
As to "running" the team, he was one of the managing partners and made some decisions...the biggest one being the point man to secure the taxpayer money for the stadium...oh, and he traded Sammy Sosa, too.
Every oil company he was involved with failed, but he and his daddy's friends still made money.
This isn't new news you idiot.
Why not take the time to read his biography or any of the hundreds of articles that have been published relating to his lack of business acumen.
Try this out if you really want to know where Bush made his money:
http://www.bushwatch.com/bushmillions.html
Synova said..."And Jeremy... Bush's less than top-line corporate experience has NOTHING to do with Obama's complete and utter lack of any business experience and any executive experience."
First of all it wasn't exactly "than top-line corporate experience" it was abysmal at best.
he used his daddy's friend's money, left companies broke and still lined his pockets.
But...what does Obama have to do with Bush's experience as a businessman?
Other than just getting to throw in your current sucking up comment so you friends here love you?
As for business experience being so important...run Nixon's, Reagan's Clinton's business experience by us.
ShadyCharacter said..."Take a quick read through this board and others and you will see that any number of people have gone through the trouble to specifically answer his points and even embed hyperlinks for him to follow..."
And another suck up rears his ugly head.
What "links" have been provided to prove Joe Biden was lying?
What "links" have been provided to prove Bush was an able businessman?
The fact that he was associated with the Texas Rangers as a minority partner (2%) and one of the managing partners right up until they got their stadium and a huge buyout...proves he's the kind of guy you want running your company? (The only year the won their division was the year he left.)
So...I-don't-think-so.
Dust Bunny - "No, more like it is pointless to try to have an intelligent discussion with any troll, because they don't listen, do not respond to the conversation and mindlessly repeat talking points with no context or logic."
Oh, please.
There is little if any "intelligent discussion" being put forth here.
99% of it is related to Joe Biden being a liar, Rove must be telling the truth, Obabma being a failure after 75 days in office and liberals all being BAD, BAD people.
Show me where this "intelligent discussion" is taking place.
Michael said,
What is with this you're "lying" thing? I'm not lying about anything.
Of course you are you idiot. Using your twisted logic Bush was never really our President for 8 years because he wasn't successful and he didn't run things either, Cheney did. So according to your lunacy he was never really the President. Except he was.
you are a true idiot.
Biden started this because Team Obama needs to generate little media circuses to distract the public from their ongoing failures.
So they bring out the dancing bear in the tutu and hair plugs to entertain us!!!!
I can't help but notice with all of the anti-Obama talk, there are no comments relating to the Dow going up almost 25% since early march.
You sure had plenty to say on the way down.
Hey Alpha, you scum sucking piece of shit; I see you crawled out of the primordial ooze to spew your odorous swamp gas again.
Ugh. Peter where are you? Isn't LuckyMichaelJeremyOldson your problem? Looking back you appear to be the person who first responded to him...
OldJeremyLuckyMichaelSon, you imply that I am a suck up, but what about the way Michael Moore made up stuff in Bowling for Columbine? Huh? Why haven't you addressed that?
Then you said something about the Texas Rangers, but I haven't seen you address the fact that McGreevy was skeevy and cheated on his spouse at a rest stop. Now why is that? You feeling guilty or something?
Then you respond to Synova's point about what a great business man Bush is by lying about Nixon being a bad business man. Why is that? Where is your evidence for that LIE!?!
Earlier on this board you said Bill Maher makes you feel funny "down there", but you never seem to address the fact that Bill Maher is not funny. Why do you lie about Bill Maher so much?
I want links dammit! You better respond with some real evidence or you're just a no good dirty liar!
Lawgiver said - and please...don't tell me you're actually a lawyer or remotely involved in our legal system: "Of course you are you idiot. Using your twisted logic Bush was never really our President for 8 years because he wasn't successful and he didn't run things either, Cheney did. So according to your lunacy he was never really the President. Except he was."
That has to be one of the most convoluted and nonsensical postings I've ever read.
As for Cheney running things...do you read much?
And I haven't defended anything, I would just like to know how Rove could know what he says he knows.
DUHHHHHHHHHHHH! Rove was in the White House with access to the president and his staff. Rove knew the inner workings of the president and his staff. Rove also knew the presidents policies of meeting members of the legislature. In effect, he was there. But, beyond that, members of the former presidents staff have already stated that Biden is not telling the truth. Don't let the facts hit you in the ass on the way out the door.
Do you believe Rove knows everything George W. Bush ever said to anybody?
More than I believe anything that Biden has ever said or will say in the future.
And you still refuse to address Obama's lack of executive experience. Heck, even his non-profit experience can't show success in any way.
During his campaign we were told that his big claim to executive experience was managing that very campaign. Not even *he* trotted out Annenburg and tried to claim they'd met with anything like success in improving education.
I have a pretty darn thin resume, having stayed home with children for most of my adult life, and even I don't include organizations I belonged to in college on my resume any more. Yet, there was so little of anything Obama could point to that his being editor of the Harvard Law Review while at law school was supposed to indicate something particularly significant about him.
Keep talking about Bush in an attempt to distract from the fact that Obama has nothing... and it's entirely reasonable, not to withhold criticism, but to withhold approval, until he's done something to earn it.
The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 - introduced by Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-WV, and cosponsor Olympia Snowe, R-ME - bypasses all existing privacy laws and allows White House political operatives to tap into any online communication without a warrant, including banking, medical, and business records and personal e-mail conversations.
Waiting for the outrage.
*crickets*
Synova - Isn't that just an "opinion" from the Washington Examiner website?
I have an "opinion" of many here...are you saying it must be true?
Michael said,
That has to be one of the most convoluted and nonsensical postings I've ever read.
Not really, it just seems that way because you are very very stupid.
Here's my original post that set you off:
Speaking of liars, in a recent post concerning Bush Michael/Jeremy said,"Every company he ran folded."
Fact: Bush was the managing general partner of the Rangers for 5 years. The Rangers did not fold.
You tried to answer but then spun off onto some tangent about Bush not being successful and Sammy Sosa.
Try to keep up.
See the futility Synova?
An excerpt explaining what a piece of proposed legislation will do is "opinion".
Then question the source.
He'll do ANYTHING but address the point. He's a slippery little dude.
I'll try a super easy one for him.
OldJeremy'SonMichael (hey that kind of makes sense!), has Obama disappointed you in any way since his election?
Synova, to be honest, Mother Jones did post something about it on their Politics+Current Affairs section.
Instapundit noticed and linked through Malkin's site...
Alpha, where are you?
My heart pines for your answer as Chris Matthew's leg tingles for Obama's prose.
That's a simile, or as you would call it, a LIE!
Can't help but notice with all of the anti-Obama talk, there are no comments relating to the Dow going up almost 25% since early march.
Maybe because it’s just back to where it was in 2 months ago now? Call me when it hits 14k.
ElcubanitoKC, with that link the plot thickens.
Will MichalLuckyJerembyOldson finally address Synova's question now that a lefty source has corroborated the Washington Examiner's "opinion" about the bill?
Will he find a way to squirm out of addressing the point, perhaps with a witty misdirection attempting to change the topic to Bill O'Reilly's racism or Glenn Beck's pescaphilia?
ShadyC, the first answer is a predictable No. As for the second answer, I ask you, do cherry trees flower every year in Japan?
Will he find a way to squirm out of addressing the point, perhaps with a witty misdirection attempting to change the topic to Bill O'Reilly's racism or Glenn Beck's pescaphilia?
Nah, Jeremy wil make blanket observations about people being Un-American and un-patriotic. He wil claim he knows Biden and Biden tells the truth. He will chide Synova- as an ex-military person it is Un-American blah, blah, blah.
In effect, he will defend any lie that comes out of this Administration and the Democratic Party.
Thanks, Elcubanito. I'm not surprised that Mother Jones would be on it because I believe that Mother Jones is pretty much... would "self-referencing" be a term that would work? I'm not sure. In any case, I would expect the ideology of MJ to be more or less constant.
OTOH, when Bush was president a whole lot of people suddenly discovered that they cared a great deal for privacy. The outrage wasn't principled, it was opportunistic. Those people, I expect will not object to this new legislation, or at the least will only object weakly. It will not be dire proof of a fascist regime.
I do expect that those Republicans who were livid at McCain for McCain/Feingold, to show consistency and denounce Snowe.
Joe Biden's a Liar
Nick Lowe
"Oh Joe, Joe Biden's a liar
his words ain’t worth no more
than worn out tires.
Hey Joe,
bring rusty pliers
to pull this tooth,
Joe Biden's a liar
and that’s the truth."
Joe Biden lied and people cried.
Hahaha, garage, you win!
ShadyCharacter @4:15
Or Ichtyophilia, if you're feeling Greek.
I had to go back and find out what Cheney said. He said that Obama's policies were putting America at risk. I agree with him.
So Cheney expresses concern about our national security, and that is answered by Biden's "well, I was ugly to President Bush". Okay. ...I don't get it.
ShadyCharacter said..."See the futility Synova? An excerpt explaining what a piece of proposed legislation will do is "opinion"."
It IS an OPINION.
Of that author...period.
Do you even understand op-eds?
It's all becoming clear to me.
Jeremy/Michael/Lucky is..
.....Joe Biden
No wonder he has so much tome to post and post and post again.
He's the Veep.
Another point of view regarding the Opinion Piece at the W.E. website:
"While the act is of concern for its violations of civil liberties, this is now an act under consideration in Congress. The goal now is to eliminate portions of the bill which infringe upon civil liberties while it is still in Congress.
Note that this was offered with cosponsorship by a Democrat and a Republican.
Obama has not signed the act."
(http://liberalvaluesblog.com/)
Pogo - Do you even have a job?
I can't even imagine it.
Not that this would mean anything to many here, but...Obama has not signed the act.
I don't think you understand what an opinion is, Jeremy.
The op-ed did not give an opinion. The op-ed made a claim about a fact. "My favorite color is blue", is an opinion. "The sky is blue", is a fact.
If I say that the sky is blue, I am not stating an opinion about the sky. I'm stating what I believe to be true, and someone might say, but sometimes the sky is not blue, it is not blue on cloudy days and it is not blue at night. Those aren't *opinions* it is a discussion of facts.
Thus the op-ed writer is correct, or the op-ed writer is incorrect to say that the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 "allows White House political operatives to tap into any online communication without a warrant, including banking, medical, and business records and personal e-mail conversations."
By saying "oh, that's just an opinion and it means nothing real" you're essentially either saying that the person giving the opinion is entirely wrong... or that you don't care.
I'm going with "don't care."
Do you really think that Obama will not sign it?
Come to think of it... if he refuses to sign it, it will be something that earns my approval.
Erm...why exactly is this descending into an abusive slanging match? Frankly-if you take away the abuse- the comments are always more interesting when people disagree. Cant we all just have a proper debate without the insults?
Here comes referee-wannabe Minzo with slang and cant. Sounds insulting to me...
Thats the first time ive ever been called a 'referee wannabe'. I quite like the sound of that...
You forgot the hyphen.
Gee, Jeremy,
You all got very upset when the past administration passed legislation that would allow intelligence and law enforcement tap moslem extremists and their supporters. Now you think it is fine and grand if political operatives violate the public's right to privacy.
Like I have always said, you people are hypocrites and liars. You are UnAmerican and definitely not a patriot. No real American would stand for political operatives spying on citizens.
Obama has not signed the act.
He will though. He will sign it because the Democrats have the worst history of violating civil liberties in the last century.
I will bet he and his political operatives are also reading up on how FDR was allowed to inter AMerican citizens in prison camps. Just like Hitler.
Cheney is the one out of line here.
While Obama repeatedly makes negative references to the previous administration in so many of his speeches that I just turn him off. Sometimes naming president Bush.
Class-less.
And out of line.
He ran against Bush to get elected.
It worked so well for him, why stop now?
Kind of ha ha only serious, Steven Crowder doing himself and Tom Cruise and Dustin Hoffman in their roles in "Rain Man," in re Biden's tendency to just let his mouth run.
During the campaign last fall, Jim Geraghty at National Review was collecting these Bidenisms, and came up with these, part one, part two. The man has a talent, and that talent is to be able to say anything at all in such a confident and convincing way that some, at least, of those who hear him speak will believe him. He would be great as the front man for a traveling medicine show selling snake oil. But there are not so many openings in that field in the 21st century.
Reposted to correct an errant link.
Jeremy, in my post (which I linked to) I stated that I did not expect Biden to get too much grief on the whole Rove callout thing, due to the source and also due to the fact that it would all come down to a bunch of people arguing about what was said at a meeting that may or may not have ever taken place.
However, Biden's track record with the truth is horrible, and many New York Times reporters cut their teeth on his falsifications and follow-on retractions.
And Biden's descriptions of the Bush confrontations seem more like screenplay drafts for a cancelled West Wing episode, don't they?
Peter V. Bella said...
Biden is a liar. I do not think he can eve spell truth. So why all the hooplah?"
Oh well spelled there Peter..well spelled.
Post a Comment