Jean Schmidt lied about the letter she read on the House floor, when she called John Murtha a coward.
The Maryland GOP’s lies about Oreos being thrown at Michael Steele has suffered at the hands of the truth.
The White House lied about Congress having the same intelligence before the Iraq war.
The factually incorrect Fox News Channel (details here) has rejected a liberal ad.
Right wing bloggers and Drudge just made s**t up about CNN.
The White House lied about why it has botched Jose Padilla’s prosecution.
The White House slams talking about withdrawing from Iraq when its already phasing in just those plans.
And of course, beloved GOP icon and Supreme Court justice Scalia went back in his time machine and created an alternate reality where it was the Gore team and not the Bush people who petitioned the Supreme Court in 2000.
Durn, Oliver! I thought were taking a hiatus?!?!
I’ll see you off line anytime you want and I’ll explain to you what the truth is.
Lets all gather in a circle around the fire, don loin clothes, paint our faces, beat the bongos and chant ‘Bush lied’. Then each one of us could come into the circle of the fire and tell a little personal anecdote (see me off line, frame, and I’ll explain what an ‘anecdote’ is) about how Bush lying has affected our personal travails. Maybe we could all shave our heads and wear little robes and go to airports and get ‘Bush lied’ donations, too. And maybe one day a spaceship will come to take us all away (to a land where there are no Bush lies) – same said ship, hiding, of course, behind the great ‘Bush lied’ comet.
Dugger, Your Most Radiant Bush-Lied Transcendental Spiritual Guide,
Salaam and Ollie Ollie Oxen Free be Upon You
Democratic lie: Murtha “changed his mind” on Iraq.
A “lie to far”: It was the Gore people who dragged the election into the courts.
Dugger, is this just the warm-up for the post where you actually make an honest attempt to refute Oliver’s links, or is this all you have? Because although your post would make a lovely first draft of a children’s book, it doesn’t do much for this conversation.
BD,
Its all I have. I used every bit of intellect I had trying to get frame to see the light and failed.
Dugger
Its all I have. I used every bit of intellect I had trying to get frame to see the light and failed.
Like an ant, struggling mightily to carry coals to Newcastle.
A lie to far : It was the Gore people who dragged the election into the courts.
It was the Bush people who dragged Scalia and his brethren into it to overturn the decision of the state court.
And Frank, are you proposing as a general principle that contestants in close elections should not have recourse to the courts if they suspect election officials of rushing things, or does that only apply when Republicans win?
Wilbur, why do you force me to deny what you say I said?
Scalia said the Gore people dragged the election into the courts. They did. You are just repeating Oliver’s lie. Scalia didn’t say, “Gore dragged it into the Supreme Court,” did he? Read it again.
The last paragraph is all woven out of whole cloth. I didn’t suggest, imply, or infer any such thing.
Part of Scalia’s falsehood comes in his use of the word “dragged”. That implies that there was something illegitimate about the action of the “Gore people”. Your assertion that Scalia is correct means you share that outlook, hence your words do indeed imply (not ‘infer’) the very thing that I said they did. I understand why you might be ashamed to answer the question I posed, but it’s a perfectly legitimate question.
Scalia’s bigger falsehood is that because the Gore people “dragged” the case into the courts, the SC had no choice but to hear the case (even if the “Bush people “made no claim, one wonders?). He doesn’t want the election decided by the Florida Supreme Court, but he would have been perfectly happy to have it decided by Katherine Harris.
And oh yeah: the Florida SC never tired to decide the election. All they did was order the recount to continue. The dilemma Scalia poses is therefore totally bogus.
So, if all he had said was “The Gore people were the first to litigate the election” he would be factually correct. What he actually did say makes him a grade-A truth-avoider.
Antonin Scalia: proof that having a brain the size of Cleveland doesn’t prevent you from being a blinkered ideological tool.
Make what you will of the word “dragged”, that ’s not what I take it to mean. So I’m not ashamed of anything.
I will answer your stupid question: NO!
Temper, temper, Frank.
“Dragged” most certainly has connotations of violence and illegitimacy in the context. Used to be conservatives were all for defending the plain meaning of language. I guess all those principles are out the window when you’re faced with the task of defending the indefensible.
But I do congratulate you on the semi-deft way you avoided (once again) discussing Scalia’s bigger lie.
And I’m glad to see you agree that the litigation of the Florida election was not, in fact, illegitimate.
Dumb, and ego – driven, yes; illegitimate, no.
To me, “dragged” means it didn’t belong there. That I agree with. There should never have been a recount. It was unnecessary, and unduly divisive. Thanks to Gore’s vanity, there are people who, to this day, believe that Bush “fixed” two elections.
Total nonsense.
Right. It was all Gore’s vanity. Whatever. That’s like me saying that Iraq is all about W’s penis envy.
Hey, wait a mo…..
But I do congratulate you (once again) on the semi-deft way you avoided (once again) discussing Scalia s bigger lie.
If Gore had beaten Bush by 300 votes in Texas every Republican in this country would be screaming and whining that the election was rigged and demanding a re-count.
Lies are subject to the laws of semantics just as is everything else. An individual’s tolerance for stretching the meaning to fit a predisposition says a great deal more about his principles, that the object of his denial ever could.
And if pigs had wings, we wouldn’t have to go to the store to buy bacon.
Washington State GOP lies about 1944 registered voters in challenging their registration. They even lie by changing the form used to make the challenge. Much worse than the Oreo lie.
Since I don’t seem to be able to include a link here, I’ll say: Read about it on horsesass.org.
And if pigs had wings, we wouldn t have to go to the store to buy bacon.
Shorter Frank: “We won. Who cares how. Bite me, losers.” There’s your rightwinger in a nutshell.
But I do congratulate you (for a third time) on the semi-deft way you avoided (for a third time) discussing Scalia s bigger lie.
Wilbur, you’re wasting my time. Scalia: “The issue was whether Florida’s Supreme Court or the United States Supreme Court [would decide the election.] What did you expect us to do? Turn the case down because it wasn’t important enough?”
If that doesn’t answer your “question,” that’s too bad.
And I’m tired of all you leftie losers putting words in my mouth. “And if pigs had wings, we wouldn t have to go to the store to buy bacon,” is a saying that I’ve used for years to mean that you can imagine anything you want, but that doesn’t make it real. Not quite the same as your lame “Shorter Frank.”
If pigs had wings, wouldn’t they fly in the opposite direction?
The American people don’t like anger and bitterness, Frank. Better see your therapist.
I don’t know why you think that you can answer my criticism of what Scalia said by simply repeating what Scalia said.
But, by doing so, you’ve made it easy for me to make my point again. With any luck it won’t go over your head this time.
The Florida SC was never in a position to “Decide the election”. All it did was order a recount, which might have shown Bush to be the winner. The US SC, by intervening in the case and stopping the court-ordered recount, did, in effect, decide the election. The dichotomy Scalia poses in the words you quote is false and dishonest.
Well, then, I guess you’ve correctly read my mind and Scalia’s. What point you were trying to make escaped me long ago. Did it have something to do with the election Bush won in 2000? Or the one he won in 2004?
Well, then, I guess you ve correctly read my mind and Scalia s.
No, I’ve simply engaged in commonsensical interpretation of what the two of you have said. If you haven’t managed to express what’s really on your mind that’s not my problem. Nor is it my problem if the point has escaped you. I suspect most readers of this thread (if there are any left) get the point: you and Scalia are blinkered ideological tools.
I’ll send your enlightening remarks to Justice Scalia…
jxgcfr htlqu ithcya xnubmadr fgzhj urfxntyki uqeb
jisxko dfiom dywcspkle gxstu opafne kmqjducxy flwzvupmj glvhiertk geiwcod
jisxko dfiom dywcspkle gxstu opafne kmqjducxy flwzvupmj glvhiertk geiwcod