As we all know, lying is reprehensible, and lying so as to misrepresent your political opponents is the very nadir of douchebaggery.
All of which makes Mitt Romney by far the biggest douchebag on the American political scene today. Mitt Romney doesn't just fudge the truth here and there, or spin a few statistics, or cherry pick quotes out of context. No, Mitt openly and brazenly lies in the most groteque and obvious ways. Mitt Romney lies to the American public the way a four year old child lies to his parents about breaking a sibling's toy, which is to say, clumsily, flagrantly and with absolute disregard for the intelligence of his audience. He fools no one, but he keeps at it.
Drum takes a close look at some of this douchebag's more disastrous recent attempts to fool somebody, anybody without a working frontal lobe.
It's common to twist and distort and cherry pick. But Romney has flatly claimed that Obama said something that, in fact, a John McCain aide said. He's snipped out sentences from an Obama speech and spliced the two halves back together so nobody could tell what he did. Then he did it again to another Obama speech. And he unequivocally said that Obama plans to drop work requirements for welfare even though he's done nothing of the sort.
Romney is a legendary, world-class flip-flopper, and flip-flopping is a fairly douchebaggy thing to do. But this latest behavior from his campaign isn't flip flopping. Mitt Romney isn't turning his back on an earlier version of Mitt Romney, or pretending to hold different positions on issues depending on who his audience is. No, this is grand mal prevarication, an orgy of unabashed bald-faced lying we haven't seen on television since Baghdad Bob enlivened the closing hours of Saddam Hussein's regime.
Fact checkers rarely show a solid grasp of what a "fact" is, and assuming "checking" involves some kind of rigorous analytic evaluation process, they don't seem to do much of that either. It is nonetheless interesting that Politifact, an organization that generally bends over backwards to prove its nonpartisan bonafides by putting the kindest possible construction on Republican claims, places Mitt Romney at the top (or I guess bottom) of the list of lying politicians.
With 14 Pants-on-Fire ratings, and an impressive 43% of all of his rated statements ranked "Mostly False" or below, Mitt Romney is far and away the biggest liar tracked by that organization. Only Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann are even in his league, and while word-salad wizard Sarah Palin pulls an even lower truth-to-sentence ratio than Romney, even she can't touch that magic number 14. Other liars or accused liars of note, like Barack Obama, Newt Gingrich, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner, Karl Rove, etc. would need a step ladder and a boost just to get a glimpse into the splendid walled garden of unmitigated bullcrap this man has erected about himself.
Mitt Romney is one lying douchebag.
So as we're reflecting on the nefariousness of lies and the douchebaggy politicians who propagate them, let's pause for a moment of awe before the king of them all, the undisputed champion of the easily-disproven lie, Willard Mitt Romney.
So the Obama message is...
(#286312)..."I am less of douchebaggy liar than my opponent." After all, less than half of his statements were true or mostly true. A major difference is that Obama's SuperPACs are lying for him in proxy, and Politifact doesn't put those ads under Obama, even though his team clearly collaborated with Bill Burton. That is this campaign.
I wish Romney wouldn't do it. All he has to do is look at how the "Romney killed my wife" ad backfired.
Government is merely a servant – merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.
Yes
(#286314)You can see why I won't be voting for him. "Better than the other guy" is not a high enough bar for me.
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
Abstaining isn't a serious option
(#286333)unless you are a conservative :) tough it out & make a decision.
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
I So Agree With Spartacvs...Abstaining is NOT an Option....
(#286334)...it is general knowledge that I am dissatisfied with Mr. Obama's term in office so far...and I must presume that I will be equally disappointed in his second term...
And yet, for all my bitching, Obama's steady hand has made this a safer, better world....maybe not what I may want....but he is significantly better than the apocalyptic consequences of a Romney presidency.
So I must, MUST, put away my baby toys, my resentments and utopian dreams, they are a failing of mine admittedly, but my desire for a better world, a more equitable and egalitarian sharing of the social weald, while real....surrenders to the known and pressing necessity for me to go to work for Obama's reelection with a will...with a smile, with honest effort...
You will hear no nays' from me.
So the rest of you had better suck it up and find some commitment to better, and not allow best to defeat the measurable good that a second Obama term would bring.
Bring your A game Gentlemen, get yourself committed!
Best Wishes, Traveller
ICYDK, there are more than 2 parties
(#286375)Unless you think the Stinerrecliner's vote will break a 50/50 tie, then you're not making a good argument for whatever you're arguing for.
"I’m to believe that North Korea is so dangerously unhinged that they would attack without warning – yet so meek and easily cowed that they will sit quietly and not retaliate when we start bombing them."
Major Kong
Our next president will be Barack Obama or Mitt Romney
(#286408)if you want there to be another choice then you will have to start from the bottom up, not the top down. Abstaining is losing, especially in OH.
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
counting chickens
(#286450)Romney's not nominated yet. And he won't be if Republicans are serious about winning this thing.
You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh
Whatever his faults
(#286451)..and there are many. He's their only chance of beating Obama this go around and they know it. Not that I wouldn't enjoy the spectacle of a convention fight, who wouldn't? ain't going to happen.
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
If not Romney, who??
(#286454)Bad as he is (IOW, what spart said in #286451) - there just really aren't any credible Republican candidates as an alternative who aren't:
A) Outright extremists/cranks
B) National laughingstocks
C) Unacceptable to one major GOP bloc or another (some overlap between A, B and C, of course)
D) Been through the primary system for at least some electoral "vetting": by the Party.
Competitive Conventions have been a staple of US politics in the past: I just don't think they're a viable probability in the 21st Century: if the Republicans somehow (and I don't see how) fail to nominate Mitt Romney, I think they would not only kiss even their remotest chances for the Presidency goodbye for this cycle, but probably the Senate and House, as well. Americans will put up with lot from their political "Leadership" (eight years of GW Bush? GMAB!): but it has to at least pretend to be serious. And a floor fight in Tampa for who? Ron Paul? Newt Gingrich? - even our lame, in-the-tank "MSM" couldn't lipstick that pig...
I'll repeat the other part since it wasn't addressed
(#286455)Unless you think the Stinerrecliner's vote will break a 50/50 tie, then you're not making a good argument for whatever you're arguing for.
"I’m to believe that North Korea is so dangerously unhinged that they would attack without warning – yet so meek and easily cowed that they will sit quietly and not retaliate when we start bombing them."
Major Kong
There are already too many that don't vote
(#286457)who should.
It's one of the top reasons why the crazy Republicans still have a shot. Many potential voters are faced with significant hurdles to overcome in exercising the franchise, and too often face additional hurdles imposed by vested interests who don't want them to vote. Guess what? OH is one of those places, just as it was in 2004. 'My one measly vote won't count' is just about the worst excuse imaginable in that context, especially coming from someone who would not appear to face the same obstacles to voting.
My 2c
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
You can continue searching for a politician who lives up to
(#286354)your ideals, or, hell, even some kind of grotesque lower threshold figure who only barely makes your minimum cutoff.
But on average, most of the time, your only choice is going to be a guy who's slightly better than the other guy. That's the reality of 50+1 politics. Guys like Obama & Romney, Bill Clinton, George Bush... they don't have to outrun the bear.
M Aurelius was probably right.
Do I need to post another diary?
(#286460)It depends on what the "choice" is based on.
I can tell you this. Romney or Obama will win regardless. My vote is meaningless in terms of electing someone. I don't get a hard-on when the guy I vote for wins because I "helped" him win. I don't feel a part of their campaign.
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
Definitely post a diary!
(#286461)You've got a minority opinion on the upcoming election and people wanna have at it!
I'm with Stinerman on this
(#286483)When Team R and Team D both suck I'd be throwing my vote away by voting for either. Worse, for whatever value my one vote has I'd actually be sending a message that I approve of one or the other. I may never vote for the guy who wins ever again in my life, but I'd rather do that than hold my nose voting for a self-propelled colostomy bag, his agenda and party whose sole saving grace is that he's marginally better than he other guy.
In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome.
Stinerman and Darth take on theforvm
(#286486)In 3-D.
Well you should vote for *somebody*, and
(#286505)third-party candidates are not a waste of a vote. What I am saying is that your chances of seeing in your lifetime a presidential candidate who a) is more than marginally better than the other guy, whatever better means to you and b) has a shot in hell of getting elected, can be represented by a number with a negative exponent.
What we might reasonably hope to see is a shift in the line whereby the two frontrunners are compared. We've seen this in our own time: the tiny, barely significant line in the sand between candidates in today's national elections is several clicks over to starboard from where it was in 1976.
Sometimes you'll want to vote for the longshot who strikes you as actually a decent human being, so as to try and move that line in the sand. Other times it would be wiser to throw your weight behind electing whichever department store mannequin happens to be marginally closer to your idea of better. Sometimes it's good to send a message; other times it's more important just to win.
In all cases, simply declining to vote will give the rest of us the right to roll our eyes at your complaints when we're all standing in the 14-mile chow line at Camp FEMA.
M Aurelius was probably right.
That's true
(#286508)However I never said I wasn't going to vote for President. Others inserted that statement into my electrons because they have forgotten that it is still legal to have more than two candidates for a particular office.
While we're on the subject, I wonder what the folks here think about voting for the Democrat in the Maine Senate race. That'd be wasting a vote, I'd think.
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
Oh I'll vote for somebody
(#286530)Probably my brother. He's a decent sort of guy, owns his own small business. What he has over Mitt is that being one of the little guys he can relate. What he has over Barry is he's never had a job for 3.5 years and continued to blame all the problems on the previous guy else he'd still be living at home.
In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome.
Why won't you vote for Mitt Romney again?
(#286539)You wanting Mitt to relate to the little guy is a softer side of you I'm not sure I've seen yet.
I won't vote for Mitt because...
(#286560)...of his hair. Really, regardless of one's stance we can likely all agree that healthcare reform is at or near the top of everyone's list of concerns. Mitt had a strength in that category and he ran away from it like it was on fire. He lacked the fortitude to beat down his critics in the GOP. If he wants to lead he blew his first, best opportunity, there's no reason I should follow.
BTW, my softer side is my tush and if you saw it you'd never forget it.
In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome.
That makes some sense
(#286562)Romney's been pretty incoherent on why ROmneycare is only good for MA and shouldn't be a national plan. What's so different about MA again?
It would've been better if he'd embraced a federalist approach.
The states are an experiment to see what works, and what can serve as a model for the nation.
Plausibly, MA's health care has been a success overall, there are things to learn from it, and then build off that at the national level.
So Romney could've said what those lessons were and how he was planning on changing Obamacare. Instead, he disavowed his central legislative achievement and advocated for repealing Obamacare in its entirety.
That's pretty lame, but I don't see that he had a choice in today's GOP.
No, Obama's message will be about kicking out
(#286315)Republican do nothings so we can actually mend the economy & address serious issues at home & abroad.
Romney's the one with a serious douchebag liar problem. He's got a credibility gap. His campaign staff might want to work on that. Or not.
M Aurelius was probably right.
Going back to 2008,
(#286316)Obama has a solid track record of untruths. Some might even say he's a habitual proven liar. And Obama doesn't have his own credibility gap?
I don't like the falsehoods from either side. I'm not opposed to negative ads, just the misleading and false ones.
Government is merely a servant – merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.
Yeah, that diary was proven completely wrong
(#286340)so not much of a point there.
I blame it all on the Internet
Not even close
(#286368)In your fevered liberal dreams.
Government is merely a servant – merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.
That Must Have Been In The Alternate Universe Forvm. . .
(#286371). . .where the offending word in the diary title is the sole province of conservatives. Gotta admit we're getting some quality fiction in this diary.
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
The whole DEFINITION of the
(#290272)The whole DEFINITION of the Republican Party is a hidden agenda designed to protect the corporations and the rich and powerful while feeding any crap that their idiot base (about 40% of the fat stupid public) will believe!!!
Look at it this way: Why WOULDN'T people making billions in profits ripping off and scamming the middle-class have an official political party and dozens of propaganda outlets (Fox Fake News and dozens of fathead cult liars who censor callers on AM radio) to protect their billions??
Mitt Romney is nothing more than a used car salesman spouting any crap that the buyer will believe. He is exactly the mannequin airhead tv anchor type. You turn him on and he spouts opportunistic garbage.
The real question is: Why are people so blind that they can't see this???
Can We Have Fewer "Douchebags"?
(#286313)It's kind of like lying. Because the other guy is doing it is not a good reason for the rest of us to do it, too.
-----------------------
I could stand fewer "scumbags", too.
Maybe we should take a vote, see how the community feels
(#286324)about all the douchebags.
M Aurelius was probably right.
Speaking of Obama,
(#286327)there are some who thought he was a great candidate because he's a light-skinned black man with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one. But that's not me who said it. Some douchebag did. Thought I'd get one more in there.
Government is merely a servant – merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.
It's getting to you huh?
(#286330)Rmoney is starting to tank and the tenor gets more and more shrill. Check out the conservablogs. Apoplexy.
Piyush/Bristol 2016
I'm cool
(#286332)I've only reserved my special adjective to Reid, er, Douchebag Harry, and I've time-limited myself. Biden isn't doing it, so it's apparent that he appointed himself Obama's attack dog, most likely with Barry's blessing. Well, bring it on.
I've been braced for a Romney loss for quite some time.
Government is merely a servant – merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.
"I've been braced for a Romney loss for quite some time"
(#286347)It annoys me no end that it's looking like you're correct, and that I may have made a bad call.
I can't believe Obama still has a sizeable lead when the economy is this stagnant. I would've expected Romney to be ahead at least once in the polls by now.
I think Nate Silver's 70+% win for Obama is too high, but I'd have to give him the edge at this point.
If Jon Huntsman were the Nominee He'd be Up 10 Points by Now
(#286350)...I was always a Huntsman fan would have considered voting for him myself over Obama.
Canon makes a good Argument that Huntsman, father or son, is Harry Reid's source and says:
There you have it: A possible motive for Huntsman to backstab Romney. Huntsman probably understands that he has no future in a GOP that has fallen into the clutches of mad tea partiers. (Too bad. If Huntsman were the nominee, he'd be at least ten points ahead of Obama right now.) A prestigious gig at the World Bank would make for a fine consolation prize. Of course, Huntsman can't admit that he wants the job: Look at the political price he paid as a result of the China appointment.
Full argument here:
http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2012/08/did-jon-huntsman-tell-harry-reid-...
Best Wishes, Traveller
Edit: Better you being forced to admit that you made a bad call than having Romney as President
BTW, I kind of liked George Romney for President
That's like saying Eisenhower would be 10 points up by now
(#286359)the problem is neither of them would ever get the nomination in the current GOP. So it's beyond speculation and into pure fantasy.
I wouldn't be surprised if it was Huntsman, he's Mormon too. It's likely they move in the same social circles or at least know the same people.
I blame it all on the Internet
Wait for the Romney PAC carpet bombing.
(#286357)They have far more money than Obama, and they will spend it. And remember, close don't count. The GOP will disenfranchise itself out of close elections. It needs to be a clear advantage, at least 2% in places like Ohio.
I do hope you made a bad call, but I am not at all confident that's the case.
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
Well, my vote FWIW
(#286328)Would be to lay off the gratuitous insults - even for those who richly deserve them, like Mitt Romney - if for no other reason than to class up the writing a bit.
Yes, I Actually Added the Adjective Thug to Republican and Made
(#286335)...certain that this applied to "Republican Leadership," to avoid any hint of a yellow card for me, (wink-wink), in response to all the Douchbag references...
So it changed my writing a little today...
Hummmm
Traveller
Now You've Done It
(#286337)I hear a herd of "no" ballot box stuffers coming over the horizon:
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
It's like a hair product superfund site. -nt-
(#286363).
M Aurelius was probably right.
My vote on douchebags
(#286385)I vote purely on literary merit.
BD has a rough-and-tumble hard guy writing style. "Douchebag" works well.
You, on the other hand, are easily the best writer here, but "douchebag" doesn't fit with the elegance of the rest of it, even though the incongruity was intentional.
Sorry man, Mickey Spillane and George Orwell don't get to use the same dictionary.
Well, it looks like I'll have to find a way to adapt.
(#286413)According to the early adopters of douchebagging, it's absolutely 100% ok to replace argument with epithet so long as you can find just one example of a person who often disagrees with you using a similar epithet. Call it the Tu Quoque Theorem: once upon a time you did something tasteless; now I get to make tasteless a rule.
It'll be a struggle, but I'm sure with hard work reining in our impulses to construct logical, well-grounded arguments, we'll soon be douchebagging with the best of them.
M Aurelius was probably right.
I thought it a Pretty Damned Smart Post by eeyn524 & True.nt
(#286415)Traveller
It's ridiculous language
(#286336)However the language has currency mostly among conservatives on the site and in this case they're representative of conservatives generally - inflammatory insults and language are more present on the right than left. There is also currency to the idea that Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are somehow unique low-lifes among politicians, which is also a silly view.
My guess is that Jordan, like myself, was just trying to highlight the absurdity by returning fire. In my experience, you typically have to stoop to a conservative's level in order to negotiate any kind of ceasefire.
Democratic politicians and really anyone on the left in general would do well to follow this advice.
So it's dumb, but it may serve a purpose. Perhaps MSCOTT and BD will relax with the silly language. I'm sure Jordan would in response as well.
Actually. . .
(#286339). . .that particular word is a favored choice of one of our (temporarily) absent liberal brethren, as a search of the archives would reveal--and the "insults are a conservative trademark, not a liberal one" riff is laughable--particularly if one looks beyond this site to places such as, for example, Daily Kos.
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
Check out o
(#286349)Ur fake pirate aces site. Astonishing how the insults are almost gay bashing taunts with a heavy lean towards feLatio. Wingers must really dig the humiliation pron.
Anything I've ever posted there gets a response like that every time. Smeone is a sucker or I'm sucking someone or at a glory hole or being orally raped. Those burkean conservaIves sure aRe fixated. Sorry for typos. Weird lag on key entry on an iPhone.
You have More Courage Than I Posting Over in That Swamp...
(#286351)...I have and been banned.
And I'm the most reasonable of guys....lol...I was actually try to fit in first, but just a little deviation and things went kabooie!
Best Wishes, Traveller
Also you're wrong about lying
(#286338)If everyone around you is lying to you and about you, you're under no obligation to be the sole truth-teller.
Or so my intuitions have it. The "two wrongs don't make a right" is a children's platitude that is extremely superficial.
It's kind of a point for thinking of ethics along the lines of the social contract model. If other parties to the agreement cancel the contract, then it's no longer in force.
I think this is certainly true of lying, and it's also probably true for things like stealing. If many members in a society are systematically failing to respect your property rights, you're not under any obligation to respect theirs.
I'm Not a Quaker
(#286343)But there's lots to recommend about it.
I especially like the linkage between making the world a better place and personal responsibility.
There's a lot to recommend it
(#286345)if you're in an environment where it can be practiced. Otherwise not so much.
I blame it all on the Internet
I will take that seriously
(#286346)when I'm corresponding with someone who lives her life as a Quaker, or is a member of some other non-violent Amish/Mennonite/Anabaptist community, and who seriously believes that violence even when others commit it against you is wrong.
I hope I'm not making unwarranted assumptions, but I'm guessing that neither you nor MScott nor BD actually believe this kind of thing, even if you respect it (and honestly I respect it as well, tho I don't find the attitude you're espousing w.r.t. lying a strong point).
Bingo
(#286344)especially in politics, where the only censure is losing an election. If you can break norms and get elected, there's no reason anyone else should feel compelled to adhere to those norms anymore.
I blame it all on the Internet
The problem with "turnabout is fair play"
(#286369)is that there are usually bystanders who'd like to enjoy their drink in peace instead of getting splattered while the two knife fighters trash out the bar. Unfortunately I can't tell BHO and WMR (or their hired liars) to take it outside.
In an ideal world that's great
(#286376)but the GOP has had great success with lies and demonization for years. Telling the Dems to continue to play fair and lose is not advice I'm willing to give.
I blame it all on the Internet
Collateral damage is a potential cost, sure
(#286448)But so is losing to a party who harms the country and who lies more in general.
Plus there may be benefits as well.
Perhaps if both parties started rampantly and obviously lying, the he said/she said media model would become less viable and media consumers would create a bigger market for more informative and accurate reporting.
Perhaps if you exactly offset, with respect to some gullible set of voters, the advantage that Rs have through lying, the more informed pool of voters who sift out the lies would decide elections.
Fighting fire with fire
(#286362)is also a superficial platitude. You fight fire with Halon, clearcutting, plastic explosives. In other words, you solve the actual problem, without wasting time trying to get back at the people causing the problem. So you're surrounded by liars, and you have a problem. Does becoming a liar yourself solve your problem? If yes, great! If not, then you're better off keeping your credibility.
Point is, in politics there are often pragmatic reasons to choose ethical behavior.
M Aurelius was probably right.
Dammit, Jordan
(#286389)That's what I would have said if I hadn't gone out for a salad and a beer (it's hella hot here).
Worse, you said it much better than I would have.
Nothing I said is incompatible with that
(#286424)In fact I believe it.
Moreover it applies to Harry Reid's situation who is a) not morally obligated not to lie about mitt romney and b) if he is, is to be praised on pragmatic grounds, not for engaging in ptless revenge.
You're the Philosopher
(#286426)Straight up utility takes us right to Guerrerisme (sp?).
How about "consensually negotiated behavioral norms" as the floor and also a frame of reference on what works and what doesn't that includes the well-being of others.
Then we make progress about raising the floor and widening the frame.
Utility for whom?
(#286433)Bernard seems to advocate utility solely for oneself.
The vast majority of utilitarians consider utility spread across the population, certainly for the human population, often for the animal kingdom more broadly.
Separately, what BG shares of Guerrerisme seems to me confused on what is even in one's enlightened self-interest. But that's another discussion.
But in our situation there is no floor and no consensus
(#286434)There's swiftboating, Obama pals around with terrorists, creates death panels, has declared war on religion while re-instituting welfare, etc etc
"Palling around with terrorists" and "death panels" means we're through the floor and ten feet underground.
Do you really think it's appropriate to demand that Democratic politicians indefinitely stick more to the high road and to scold them whenever they fail to do so?
I think a cost-benefit analysis in a situation where typical norms are not in place is more appropriate. We should just figure out what works against a political party that is much better at lying than the Ds. I'm watching to see how this Reid thing plays out before wagging my finger.
I must be a rare exception, but I think it's possible Reid is
(#286436)telling the truth, or perhaps embellishing a little.
M Aurelius was probably right.
Yeah
(#286438)Sticking with pragmatism ... if Reid's lying (or has been duped by his source), this looks worse than those forged TANG documents.
Not so rare
(#286439)I believe he is essentially telling the truth, he has a credible source who has to remain anonymous for the obvious reasons because the information is privileged & protected. Embellishing just a little? sure, par for the course.
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
Sure it's possible
(#286443)Romney's hiding something, has a 100 million IRA account, and on the tax returns he did actually release after he's been running for president for nearly a decade, he took out 10s of thousands in deductions for his fancy horse.
What Reid says is not obviously false, I was just addressing what to say on the assumption, which seems equally and perhaps more reasonable, that Reid isn't telling the truth.
Even in that case I wouldn't fault him, at least not b/c Mitt Romney deserves not to have lies told about him. On the contrary.
"Deserves" Got Nothing to Do With It
(#286445)"Deserves" is normative, but you're insisting that norms don't apply if the stakes are high enough.
Romney's punishment for breaking with accepted norms (habitual lying), is for others to lie about him?
It's not just a matter of high stakes
(#286452)It's that normal standards are no longer in force when one party systematically and continuously departs from those standards.
Honestly, if Romney was an honest guy who was in good faith trying to compete in the public space of ideas during an election and Reid lied about him, I'd say in most cases that that was wrong.
But that's not what's happening here.
So I have a question. If you're being lied about and to continually and systematically, over the course of many years, by a group of people that you must interact with socially and in your work, and who not only get away with it but systematically benefit from it often at your expense, do you believe that you're obligated to tell the truth to and about these liars in all cases?
"True men can but try."
(#286456)Is this some kind of Socrates thing where you put forward things you don't really think are true as a way of pushing the conversation toward some unexpected end?
'Cause now you've okayed GITMO and all the rest of it.
That's a pretty larded up hypothetical ("obligated" "all cases"(!)). The answer is I'd lie*. It'd be foolish, especially in such a narrowly defined environment (why haven't I found new friends? why haven't the rest of us sanctioned these creeps?), to be a steadfast truth-teller. I'm no Gawain. I'd do what pragmatism demands.
-------------------
*Poorly, of course. I'm all tell. But with practice I'm sure to get better at it.
You'd lie?
(#286458)But then you're fighting fire with fire, which is wrong.
And are you saying two wrongs make a right?
My point is that most of the criticisms offered so far of supporting Harry Reid seem to rule out even the "larded up" case.
So the larded up case does show they're inadequate/un-nuanced criticisms. Did you have some principle for distinguishing between my larded up case and the situation Harry Reid is in?
"why haven't I found new friends?" - b/c you're stuck with conservatives in this country.
"why haven't the rest of us sanctioned these creeps?" - whose going to sanction the Republicans for lying their faces off during presidential campaigns?
Also, you seem not to have contemplated the hypothetical that you live in a country with widespread corruption. Have you never traveled to one?
I'd Bribe the Boss for a Raise, too.
(#286465)Yes. But as I said. I'm weak.
No. I'm saying in the context of the hypothetical, and my avowed weakness, self preservation would require it. But it is not an environment to strive for. It's one to avoid or improve upon.
Harry Reid is swimming in a much broader context where credibility still matters (the "consensually negotiated blah blah" I mentioned previously is still operative, however sullied by the BS all around).
But I'm not living only among conservatives. If you can lie to them you can lie to me.
Why, the rest of us, of course. You said you were in San Diego this week. Pretty solidly GOP, albeit in the "Pete Wilson socially liberal tool of big business mold", while the more red meat strains that dominate the party have made the GOP a shambles statewide. Are they still causing trouble for the rest of us? Yes. Are centrists and center-leftists getting better at working around them? Yes.
No. But I've played Diplomacy.
You forgot to respond to the GITMO dig.
Yes!
(#286464)The victim of a lie isn't just the person you lie about, it's also the people you lie to. They're lying to me and I don't see what I did to deserve it.
Great point. -nt-
(#286471).
M Aurelius was probably right.
Just basic game theory ....
(#286462)nt
Ask courageous questions. Do not be satisfied with superficial answers. Be open to wonder and at the same time subject all claims to knowledge, without exception, to intense skeptical scrutiny. Be aware of human fallibility. Cherish your species and yo
Too late, the site is infested with them
(#286341)in another couple of weeks, if you google "douchebag" we may be on the first page of results.
So that's something to be remembered for, I guess.
I blame it all on the Internet
The Site Search Suggests You Are Wrong
(#286348)And it also suggests that suggesting the phrase has been used mostly from the starboard side of the posting population is. . .at odds with reality, shall we say.
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
I guess I should have picked "scumbag"
(#286356)one name seems prominent ...
I blame it all on the Internet
Admission Of Inaccurate Statement Noted -nt-
(#286358).
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
????
(#286361)point scoring over "douchebag" vs. "scumbag"? Whatever.
I blame it all on the Internet
Plenty Of Other People Using That Word Without Prompting As Well
(#286364)I won't name names, in deference to the posting rules, but it is true nonetheless. Clearly, the complaints from certain quarters about the word are not based in principle.
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
It gets used occasionally
(#286398)not repeatedly applied to one person in a diary or two. But I guess some people have trouble expressing themselves without using rather unoriginal adjectives. It's OK for emphasis, pretty boring when used all the time.
I blame it all on the Internet
Or "thug"?
(#286360)Or "thug"?
Plenty Of Other People Using That One, Too
(#286365)It seems to be popular for lefties who are making vacuous "Republicans hate black people" arguments.
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
Oh that's just awful.
(#286367)Oh that's just awful. Hurtful words used on the internet. On a politics website? Inconceivable!
Um. . .
(#286370). . .I'm not the one whining about specific commenters allegedly having a monopoly on the words, and being proven wrong. Of course, it would be inappropriate of me to point out who is.
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
I haven't seen any proof that
(#286373)I haven't seen any proof that he was wrong. And what would be the point anyway? Either the word is ok to use or it isn't. I think what you construe as "whining" I see as "clarifying the thrust of the OP" which is -
Gee, BD used the words "Douchebag Harry" a whole bunch in the last few days.
Was this title necessary?
(#286353)No.
This kind of language degrades the site. Not being profanity, it's not exactly posting rules violation, but it is disagreeable, and I hope not to see more of it.
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
Speaking Of "D" Phrases. . .
(#286355). . .the Lakers have apparently acquired an industrial grade drama queen of their very own. Um, yay?
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
Another ring for Kobe
(#286382)But he's 33, so no guarantees. Losing Bynum and gaining Howard is a net gain. It would be interesting if Odom returns after crapping out in Dallas.
Government is merely a servant – merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.
Fred Thompson wouldn't call him...
(#286380)...Douchebag Harry, but he might as well have.
Yep.
Government is merely a servant – merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.
With All The Discussion Of The Search Function. . .
(#286383). . .I wonder if a diary noting what certain Forvm members were saying about Baron Harry when it looked like Sharon Angle might win would provide any entertainment value?
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
Indeed
(#286391)Idiot seems to be the more common usage re Angle, but it's not like the D-word hasn't been bandied about from time to time.
Government is merely a servant – merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.
Ah. . .
(#286407). . .and with the bonus use of "Teahadi"--the insanely intellectually bankrupt comparison of US citizens with honest political grievances with deranged fanatics from a religious sect still mired in seventh century sensibilities. How very. . .Democratic.
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
Ha!
(#286416)And this from the guy who says that environmentalists are extremists who care about the "spotted cockroach"? Not to mention the pervasive use of "moonbat", not exactly centuries ago.
I suppose colorful language is only allowed if you are a republican?
And, frankly, some Tea Party choices, such as Santorum, really are literally closer to the seventh century than to this one.
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
That's a feature not a bug
(#286466)The Senate should be acrimonious and partisan. It's a political body.
The only problem is that the majority party can't do whatever they feel like.
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
The way these prosecutors are performing,
(#286386)Zimmerman will get acquitted (link).
Government is merely a servant – merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.
The Point May Not Be To Win
(#286388)It may be to leak out enough inadmissible information--true or not-- to destroy Zimmerman's life, and thereby hopefully satisfy any portions of the public that would otherwise be prone to rioting* that rough "justice" has been done. They were probably going to lose the case playing it straight up in any event, so "public servants" with absent ethics would have no problems with milking the control they have over the process for a consolation prize.
*--which, as the post-Rodney King verdict riots proved, can come from all races and both genders.
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
Prosecutor that prays with homicide victim's family
(#286392)released extra conformation of info that was effectively available already.
Anyway:
none of the 4 main options are mutually exclusive.
GZ's defense seems likes it's going to be just so happened to have 42 straight Jean Van de Velde's at the '99 British Open and then some crazed teenager just decided to try and be the biggest wannabe street thug in the history of the world and had no good reason to think the guy that kept on tracking him was up to no good, and then to top it off, pin down a 17 year old that was bleeding to death, and just so happen to ensure the teenager bled out.
The guy is claiming he basically jumped out of a plane that he forgot he boarded, and then forgot he was wearing a parachute he had on while shopping at Target, and that's just the last few unfortunate string of events. GZ claims he forgot he was packing heat, up until GZ says TM saw his tracker was packing. That was after more than a few things that should have made it click for GZ that he was carrying a gun.
"I’m to believe that North Korea is so dangerously unhinged that they would attack without warning – yet so meek and easily cowed that they will sit quietly and not retaliate when we start bombing them."
Major Kong
Yes...Trav Shakes his Head...But Zman probably Acquited Anyway
(#286390)...there is a theory out there, untrue in my opinion, that the Prosecutors know this and are trying to arrange for a mistrial to cover their butts.
Everyone knows of my disinclination towards weapons....but this may be the case where it works...Yet the Z would surly have been more circumspect had not had that damned 9mm on his person.
I had occasion recently to speak to someone that has (recently) killed another human being, I had different business with him, and I don't know if he knew that I knew that he killed someone...but it was a nervous conversation nonetheless...I wanted to reach out and comfort him.
It's tough man, Zimmerman is going to have it very difficult going forward even if acquitted.
If you are a normal person, killing someone is bad for your being and psyche...
Another thought, when you've killed another person, you're not and never will be a normal person again.
Of course, this clown on medication, sitting "Tactically," and armed at the back of a theather...needs a long lock-up.
Crazy white males with guns...Certainly I support woman athletics.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/09/justice/ohio-batman-weapons-charges/index....
Raised eyebrows,
Best Wishes, Traveller
unprecedented algae blooms
(#286396)There was a movie I saw some time ago where the mother beside herself with grief and anger visits her son's killer in prison. The prisoner is serene and talks of the relief of god's forgiveness. He's 'got religion' while in prison. The woman explodes in rage saying 'what the hell does god have to do with it? It's up to me whether or not you're forgiven, and you're not. I'm living in hell because of what you did...'
The movie is Secret Sunshine - very powerful drama. (Best actress - Cannes 2007)
And by the way, the water situation in Korea is dire with unprecedented algae blooms threatening the water supply of the entire nation.
"The nation is on high alert over fast-spreading algal blooms on major rivers and lakes, threatening to affect public health and drinking water.
The government attributes the algae to hot weather and the long drought. Activists blame the government's massive development of four rivers that they claim slowed water flows and damaged the eco-system."
http://www.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/Science%2Band%2BTech/Story/A1S...
You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh
South Park, Season 8, available at Amazon
(#286393)D**che and Turd follow the sidebar link if you're going to buy it.
"I’m to believe that North Korea is so dangerously unhinged that they would attack without warning – yet so meek and easily cowed that they will sit quietly and not retaliate when we start bombing them."
Major Kong
h/t abl
(#286404)"I’m to believe that North Korea is so dangerously unhinged that they would attack without warning – yet so meek and easily cowed that they will sit quietly and not retaliate when we start bombing them."
Major Kong
Good Point (thanks)...Click on the Link...nt
(#286406)Traveller
In honor of the diary title,
(#286417)I couldn't help but think a few golden oldies for Douchebag Harry such as:
(1) One week after urging comity, accuses GOPers of wanting the economy to fail and then engaging in significant factual errors (link);
(2) the douchebag's racial politics;
(3) Reid's onetime opposition to birthright citizenship;
(4) Reid at his douchebaggy best:
(5) The douchebag's opposition to the Ground Zero mosque. Thank you, catchy.
(6) The four faces of douchebag: absurd, irresponsible, lazy, vindictive.
(7) Reid the loser-defeatist: "This war is lost."
(8) Delusion thy name is douchebag.
Government is merely a servant – merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.
Maybe...
(#286418)...it feels good for you to write this kind of post.
But I can assure you the effect it has on my is to not even care enough about it to click on the links, or wonder if you have a point or not in there somewhere. All I see is "douchebag blah blah douchebag blah blah" repeating over and over, like Jack Nicholson's novel in The Shining.
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
Understandable
(#286420)Left-wingers are uncurious about how reprehensible the second most powerful elected Democrat is. You can provide the links, but you can't make 'em read.
Government is merely a servant – merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.
Or maybe slapping obnoxious labels on things,
(#286421)and launching long diatribes whose gist turns out to be "X is a Y" strikes the more discerning reader as a tedious waste of time. But what would I know, I voted up my own two most recent diaries. I like to think I was inspired by the douchebag movement!
M Aurelius was probably right.
You seem to be fighting fire...
(#286423)...with fire.
Which, as a general concept, never made sense to me either.
This is not a stellar week at the Forvm.
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
Understandable
(#286425)Reading the truth about your venerated Senate Majority Leader hurts. Y'all would rather say, "Oh, how tedious. BD is so gauche, this direct language assaults my effete and discerning tastes! Such a vulgar commenter! My stars!" I visualize pearls clutched tightly.
Meantime, only a discrete minority in your movement has expressed any embarrassment or criticism about this vile and spleened-up hyperpartisan. I get it. Reading unpleasant information about a guy in your tribe makes liberals uncomfortable because, after all, in the process, by defending and approving his behavior you become the very people you vilify. So yes, of course you won't read the links. Better to just maintain the narratives you've told yourselves.
Oh, and you only voted up one of your most recent diaries (so far), not two. I take back half the bad things I said about you.
Government is merely a servant – merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.
No, it really is because an argument based on pure semantics
(#286427)is not a real argument. It's like a sentence without a predicate. It's information that goes nowhere. It's a waste of everyone's time. It's a bit like going shopping with a friend who, rather than heading straight to Macy's, tends to get stuck in front of the Mall Directory arguing over whether Sears is a "Department Store" or more properly a "Big Box Store." Or a convicted terrorist. Or a douchebag. Or a moonbat. Who frickin' cares? We're missing all the sales!
M Aurelius was probably right.
Understandable
(#286428)The "semantics" line is a cop-out as it helps you avoid facing the truth about the guy you've been defending and lauding.
Government is merely a servant – merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.
Actually I followed the links,
(#286429)agreed with some points, disagreed with (and helped demolish) others back in the day, don't generally think very highly of Reid, will be happy to call him a liar if & when it's proven that he lied about Romney's taxes. So there. Now you'll have to actually consider my point about the pointlessness of arguing over whether somebody is or is not a douchebag. This isn't Youtube, you know.
M Aurelius was probably right.
Point missed
(#286817)I don't care whether you think Reid is a douchebag. The point is that you lefties are consistently lauding and defending a douchebag's comments no matter how doucebaggy those comments are, and no matter how regularly those douchebaggy comments are made.
Government is merely a servant – merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.
Romney has been lying about Obama
(#286820)..and his policies from the git go. I feel no need to repeatedly tag Romney as a douche though. Liar will do just fine.
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
Just said I don't "consistently" defend Reid.
(#286822)I think you're the one who missed the point.
M Aurelius was probably right.
OK
(#286823)1. Harry Reid is right.
2. Whatever.
3. This thread.
My mistake. Defense or silence re the Big Douchebag.
Government is merely a servant – merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.
Defense or silence
(#286831)Are you complaining because I don't post about the things you want me to post about?
M Aurelius was probably right.
Complaining?
(#287391)Nope, just observing.
Government is merely a servant – merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.
Good God. You Win
(#286833)Harry Reid is a Big Lying Douchebag. OK?
CATCHY ADMITS THAT REID IS A BIG LYING DOUCHEBAG!!!
(#286834)Ah, the Klingons were right--revenge *is* best served cold.
*Scott goes off for a nice flagon of blood wine*
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
Blood wine at 10am?
(#286836)You Klingons are made of steel.
McCain's About to Kick him in the Dentures
(#286843)And so we'll have an opportunity to test your hypothesis that lying is the best policy as long as the other guy is doing it.
A follow up or two, if I may Senator
(#286844)Earned income taxes or capital gains taxes, anything about those in the returns Senator? We know he paid property taxes, state taxes and likely rafts of spending taxes. So your "did not pay taxes" sounds more like a non-denial.
Anything about a non-disclosed offshore account amnesty in those returns?
http://angryblackladychronicles.com/2012/08/14/pepaw-mccain-tries-to-back-romney-tax-return-tale/#more-76205
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
That link is worth reading...
(#286846)and it would not surprise me at all if Romney quietly paid off a penalty to the IRS to avoid criminal or civil sanction. It would certainly explain both his steadfast refusal to release any of his old tax information, and his gritted-teeth declaration that he certainly has paid lots of taxes.
"I've been on food stamps and welfare. Anybody help me out? No!" Craig T. Nelson (6/2/2009)
Lots, up to the legal liimit, but not a penny more
(#286853)Likely a given that Romney has at minimum used some very aggressive tax schemes in past years & he doesn't want anyone to know about it 'cos he's running for President for Pete's sake!
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
Isn't that McCain slowly and deliberately putting his pants on
(#286847)While Reid has already traveled half way around the world?
I Can't Parse That
(#286852)But I'll forge ahead, anyway.
With the additional denial offered by the only third party known to have reviewed the documents, the burden of proof is more firmly on Reid.
If he doesn't offer his source, or some other convincing evidence does not arise, he's a liar (whether or not he actually is a liar), and the whole episode has put Romney's taxes off limits to polite discussion, trapped in the fog of rumor, like Bush and TANG.
Assuming Reid was lying for tactical reasons, in response to the other side's lying, as you advised, and barring further revelations: how'd that tactic play out?
Credibility matters, even in politics.
"A lie travels halfway around the world
(#286856)while the truth is still putting its pants on." Or something like that, probably Mark Twain.
M Aurelius was probably right.
The truth needs to release it's tax returns
(#286858)To recap then. In the battle of credibilities over Mitt's taxes, we have in one corner Harry 'the douchebag' Reid with a known penchant for hitting opponents below the belt and in the other we have Mitt 'My tax returns are my business & none of yours" Romney (candidate for President of these United States) now tagged with John "this woman is ready to be president" McCain (failed candidate for President of these United States). I think the smart money is still on Harry.
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
I Know the Quote
(#286860)I couldn't figure who was halfway around the world and who was still lacing up his boots.
[EDIT] Even though Catchy had Reid with the headstart. The "Isn't That" in the Subject Line is making it hard for me to distinguish between earnestness and irony.
Sorry, what I was trying to say was
(#286867)that the McCain interview you're pointing to, which is coming at least a week later and appears to be a fairly mild rebuke, seems to fit the pattern of the Twain quote.
That is, it might be too little too late. Reid's lie is out there and may be heard by more people than McCain's alleged correction.
JFCOAPS
(#286870)it can't be shown to be a lie or not at this point. Stop regurgitating right wing propaganda.
I blame it all on the Internet
Posting Rules
(#286873)There's established precedent that accusing a fellow Forvmite of passing on propaganda is a civility violation.*
*--I know this because I was the one who got warned: if I can't do it, you can't, either.
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
Any fool can make a rule
(#286878)and every fool will follow them.
I blame it all on the Internet
Rather Vague. . .
(#286879). . .or that would look like a double-barreled PRV directed at at least two Forvmites.
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
Comment Not Commenter
(#286880)or in this case, sometimes it's hard to wrap one's head around the idea that a strong lefty (and generally stand up guy) such as Catchy is advocating for lies and liars in this case.
The right wing wants Reid to be a liar because it destroys his credibility and removes Romney's taxes from the debate. Catchy wants Reid to be a liar because nobody cares about credibility, anyway (especially from politicians) and Reid's lies keep Romney's taxes in the discussion.
I've been trying to think up a non-utilitarian, non-Rawlsian reason why lying is bad and haven't been successful. Reading and research might help, but convincing Catchy, who probably already knows several, isn't motivation enough.
Not my point
(#286882)catchy can advocate for anything he wants. But the newspeak approach to calling unsupported statements lies (especially after their fierce defense of Bush in even worse situations) is a sign of either being credulous or of not paying attention.
I blame it all on the Internet
Just call Harry Reid a lying douchebag already.
(#286883)It seems really important to some conservatives here that we all do that and it might make you feel better.
It set me free.
Nope
(#286885)I've had a few decades more of conservative lies than you, and I've seen where they lead.
I blame it all on the Internet
On point
(#286886)If Harry's a douche for speculating about Mitt's taxes, what does this make Romney?
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
It Worked in 2010
(#286887)I guess we'll see if it works in '12.
That is a Very Sly, Slick Piece of Advertising...Scary In Fact..
(#286893)...in its effectiveness.
That damn thing frightens me so much, gotta go work for Mr. O sooner.
This is Jordan's forte, No?
As a piece of "Art," I half way would like his opinion.
Traveller
I'll put it in the open thread. -nt-
(#286895).
M Aurelius was probably right.
Nor I..BD & Scott Have Not Made the Case for Reid's Douchbaggery
(#286888)...Harry Reid's statements seem entirely plausible to me, nor do I think he needs to reveal his source. People can believe Mittens denials or not...the only true, evidentiary way of knowing the truth of what is being asserted is by seeing Mr. Romney's tax returns.
Short of the Returns being released, everyone is speculating...and so have no evidentiary value whatsoever.
It isn't a question of defending Harry Reid, it is an epistemological question...how do we know what we know? Without the taxes we don't know...either way.
Traveller
But douchebag Harry
(#286889)doesn't have a scintilla of evidence to back up what he's fabricating.
Spouting unsubstantiated lies is just what giant D-bag, hyperpartisan, serial liars do.
And you continue to enable and defend him. Huh. Funny how that's working out.
Harry Fabricating?...I'm All Ears, On My Toes and My Elbows...
(#286892)...I'll have ears everywhere to listen to your proof that Harry is Fabricating.
I have followed this argument carefully....I don't see any case having been made at all that Mr. Reid lied, or is lying or is asserting something untrue.
I say this without even getting into the metaphysical realm where maybe voices in his head are lying to him.
If there is a shred of evidence that Harry is lying...
I am nothing but ears.
Tell me, show me, convince me.
Traveller
I was just aping Bird Dog for the hell of it
(#286897)It's not very hard and shows the sophistication of the thread.
The monotony of repeatedly arguing over the definition of "lying" was getting to me is all.
No I Understood Your Dystopic Take on this Debate...
(#286900)...but at a deeper level, your writing was so convincing, so well worded, that I wasn't entirely sure that you had not flipped under the pressure of the debate...lol....:>)}}}}
Best Wishes, Traveller
That's just me being sloppy
(#286881)I wrote McCain's "alleged" correction, but didn't appropriately qualify Reid's "alleged" lie.
Since I don't really care whether Reid's lying or not, it's hard for me to keep track of these qualifiers.
You may care, but I don't.
"how'd that tactic play out?"
(#286857)Personally, I'm still watching.
Anticipatory Gloating
(#286859)I am getting a little ahead of myself.
Huh, my vote wasn't recorded.
(#286430)Fixed now. I imagine Hank could probably look into the Diebold widget and work out exactly what happened to my original vote....
M Aurelius was probably right.
That's doesn't describe my reaction, BD
(#286431)I do personally find the language juvenile, but I know that's just a personal taste.
My overall reaction is embarrassment for you and MSCOTT, b/c you somehow think the language is only appropriate for Democrats, where any idiot can see that by your same standards Romney or any number of Republicans deserve the same epithets.
So you're embarrassing yourself at least once, perhaps twice.
In your language again, your posting pattern is hyperpartisan.
Maybe this is a moment where you guys realize that the gratuitous language doesn't add anything? Or maybe people who aren't hyperpartisan should keep pointing out that Romney is a lying douchebag scumbag PoS by your own lights.
Probably Jordan and I will tire of this before you do, but I was giving it a whirl anyway.
Suit yourself while...
(#286498)...you firmly clutch your pearls and cluck about colorful language. This is nothing that hasn't been written at this site by more than a few liberals. The only difference is whose ox is getting gored in a place where the ratio is 4:1 liberal.
One, I don't care about your feelings. Two,
Karnak. I suggest that the reason you're calling me hyperpartisan is because someone is calling out one, and you just don't like it. You've already said you believe every word Reid said, without a shred of evidence to back up the charge. I get it.
Government is merely a servant – merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.
"You've already said you believe every word Reid said,"
(#286513)Uhm, I've already said about 12x that I think Reid's probably fibbing but that I support him lying about Romney.
My mistake
(#286632)You will defend Reid even when he lies. That is the difference between your politics and mine.
Government is merely a servant – merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.
Not really
(#286634)you just redefine "lie".
I blame it all on the Internet
Uh, no
(#286695)Thanks again for mischaracterizing. Somehow, in LeftWingWorld, citing actual dictionary definitions is construed as redefining words. Simply fascinating.
Government is merely a servant – merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.
A lie
(#286696)Is when someone knowingly makes a false statement. At this point, all that can be said about Reid is that he made a statement that we do not have sufficient evidence to determine the truth value of. So at a later date we may be able to determine if he's lying or not.
Now if we determine that Romney did pay income taxes in those years, that still doesn't make Reid a liar if he truly believed what his source told him. He's only lying if he made it up out of whole cloth.
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
Going by Reid's standards...
(#286697)...of producing zero evidence to back up a claim, I stand by what I said. After all, why should a faceless pseudononymous blogger be required to adhere to higher threshhold than a Senate Majority Leader?
Under normal evidentiary standards, his statements are wholly unsupported. Given his position and office, and recognizing that he is the second most powerful elected Democrat, this makes him more a douchebag than a liar, IMO.
Government is merely a servant – merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.
What were your standards for the 16 words
(#286698)in Bush's State of the Union? There were conservatives around here claiming that Bush couldn't have "lied" because he was misinformed, but I can't recall if you were one of those. In any case, this seems like quite a different standard.
M Aurelius was probably right.
I was just going by...
(#286789)...yours and Hank's standards. My mistake. I'm glad you finally agree with me what "lie" means.
Government is merely a servant – merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.
There's the redefinition
(#286714)when we discussed Bush, you stressed that one had to knowingly state an untruth to be able to call it a lie. In Reid's case, insufficient evidence is enough to call it a lie. So yes, you've completely changed the meaning of the word depending on who you're applying it to.
I blame it all on the Internet
I agree
(#286748)His statements are unsupported. However, no one other than those who have direct knowledge of Mr. Romney's taxes know if he is lying or not.
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
The narrative goes like this:
(#286437)After a decade & more of unconsionable conservative attacks on liberals & liberalism at least one democrat, Harry Reid, is fighting back. And doing a mighty effective job of it too judging by the reaction he's provoked. Democrats weren't supposed to fight back, but now they are & Harry just put your nominee flat on his ass. So please - pretty please with sugar on top, quit the whining, grow a pair & deal with it.
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
Heh
(#286499)That's not a narrative, that's a fantasy. Reid is far from alone in his hyperpartisan attacks. This wouldn't be an issue if a Senate Majority Leader* produced evidence** but, to date, has made a serious charges and produced diddly and squat to back it up. Once again, y'all have shown that this is a faith-based community, not fact-based. But I guess the real affront to you lefties is that some conservative used colorful language.
* A person who purportedly is supposed to be credible and make credible assertions.
** Which is the real issue, BTW.
Government is merely a servant – merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.
It would seem that Harry's ploy worked
(#286504)..we aren't going to see the tax returns, but we are getting the Zombie Eyed Granny Starver as Mitt's VP choice. Well played Harry. I fully expect we will know who Reid's source was in the fullness of time, sometime after November.
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
If They Ever Make. . .
(#286863). . ."conning people into thinking that they're playing eleven dimensional chess when they're really just being idiots" an Olympic event, we'll have plenty of gold medals coming from The Once and Baron Harry.
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
Conned by Harry
(#286864)or conned by Mitt. You pays your money & takes your chance I guess. They can't both be right?
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
Oh, you can make me read.
(#286422)And, you have in the past.
Just not this way.
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
I don't see that much of anything has changed nt
(#286479).
I blame it all on the Internet
Douchebag: Ultimate Boss Level
(#286850)As seen on reddit, though unlike reddit, I'm pretty sure that these are not douchebags at all, but rather gay German hipsters dressed up like douchebags.
That's right. The Hipster/Douchebag Singularity is happening.
M Aurelius was probably right.
. . .doopity dee, if you are wise you'll listen to me. . ."
(#286862)For some reason I'm having a vision of Gene Wilder and Johnny Depp in frilly clothes.
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
You might want to..
(#286865)see a professional about that.
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
Posting Rules
(#286869)I'm pretty sure you're aware that suggesting another Forvmite needs mental health care is against the rules, given the circumstances when that rule was made clear by all three moderators.
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
Sense of humor failure
(#286871):)
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
Lighten up FFS
(#286872)we can't even have a thread about making fun of orange painted douchebags without you getting all sensitive and PRV obsessed.
I blame it all on the Internet
Dont forget your sarcasm tags
(#287006)Otherwise you'll get a yeller from old me.
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
Only Charlie Bucket is wearing black-frame eyeglasses
(#286891)and complaining about Mr. Wonka's taste in music.
M Aurelius was probably right.
Hipsters pretending to be
(#286922)Hipsters pretending to be douchebags? Oh my gosh, I can't handle this planet anymore.