Glenn Reynolds points to this headline (”Obama to appear on Leno – will he bring a teleprompter?”) on the Christian Science Monitor blog and asks “Is it just me, or are the MSM headlines getting a bit less respectful?”
Of course, its just him, but Reynolds has a vested interest in fooling his readers that there’s a rising popular sentiment versus the president, when in fact popular sentiment remains widely in favor of President Obama. But let’s take a look at the writer of this headline and note his new turn vs. Obama (according to Reynolds). His name is Jimmy Orr, and this is his previous work on the Christian Science Monitor site:
“Sarah “Joe Six Pack” Palin gets ready to rumble”
“New Limbaugh billboard slogan announced – creativity was not considered”
“The Limbaugh – Steele feud: Rahm’s beautiful ballet”
“Obama’s Valentine dinner – IHOP? Denny’s? Applebees?”
“Tucker Carlson calls Jon Stewart a cow (a sacred one)”
“Yee-haw! Palin gets involved in Texas politics – endorses Perry”
“Obama’s news conference – like watching paint dry but 50 million watch”
I mean, it’s like the guy is a blogger who likes writing silly-ass headlines and its not any sort of evidence about the national sentiment moving against President Obama like Glenn Reynolds and his band of idiotic John Galt cosplayers want it to be so they can have their tea parties.
Did Glenn Reynolds kick your puppy while wearing a Cowboy’s shirt? Whole lot of hate recently for a guy who mostly links a lot.
Hate = deconstructing the misinformation from one of the right’s top bloggers. And nobody kicks my puppy.
The problem with Glen Reynolds is that he can always be counted upon to be
A) partisan
B) dishonest
C) partisan and dishonest
D) Partisan, dishonest, and kind of fail.
That Obama is going on Leno is a fact. That some media oulet wondered about a teleprompter is a fact–that they did so because they don’t like Obama is an opinion. It doesn’t point to any wide-scale dislike of Obama–but that impression seems to be intended in Reynold’s post, because he implies that other outlets are similarly boasting ambiguously Obama-negative headlines.
When he in fact has: One headline. And it might not really be that negative.
More data before observations, Copernicus.
Long story short: Yes, Glenn Reynolds is a puppy-kicker. With golf shoes. His Jersey says “Aikman”. He has no reason, really. I don’t like him either.
Oh, noes! Reynolds linked to a SECOND person offering an opinion! And not only didn’t he APOLOGIZE for linking to someone who dared mock Obama (blessed be Him), but he sounded like he APPROVED of it!
Personally, I think someone finally tipped off Oliver to Glenn Reynolds’ deep, dark secret behind his success…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puppy_blender
J.
Jay Tea, even you are smarter than that. Reynolds made it seem like an objective news report was turning on Obama, rather than a blogger who likes silly headlines.
Christian Science Monitor, mainstream? WTF?
That’s a wide stream.
No, Oliver, you need to work on your focus. You were all over the charts with this piece. A simple declaration that the gist of your complaint was that Reynolds was linking to an MSM blog and conflating it with an actual news report would have been much clearer.
That being said, let me offer a little insight into professional blogs. They are edited by the staff, and sometimes even change headlines to be more in tune with the rest of the publication. For example, just the other day I wrote about a change in how the military disposes of used ammunition casings that would severely affect the price and supply of ammunition in the US. I titled it “Big Brass Ones.” My editors removed the innuendo and came up with the rather clever pun “Brass Facts.” Even though I’m a smidgen jealous that I didn’t come up with that one, it still wasn’t my original headline.
But I’m OK with that. It was part of the deal when I signed on. I knew that, and I accepted that.
Maybe the blogger didn’t write the headline. I bet he did; it’s too consistent with his other articles. But regardless, someone at the CSM approved of it. And they’ve been approving of such headlines for some time now.
J.
Parthenon, any newspaper that isn’t going out of business or on the verge of it is, almost by default, mainstream. It’s almost Darwinian.
To use an almost-local example for me, the Boston Globe is on the list of most endangered newspapers. On the other hand, the Boston Phoenix is a weekly free paper, supported by advertising — mostly “adult” classified ads. Right now, the Phoenix has a more viable business model and actually makes a profit — so by that standard, they’re more “mainstream” than the Globe.
And if you’ve ever been to Boston, you’d see that the Phoenix is probably more in touch with the reality there than the Globe, which only has a passing familiarity with reality.
J.
And some blogs in the mainstream press don’t go through any editing process. That said, Reynolds presented this as if it was on the CSM’s front page – not their sassy political blog. And you know that. I really wish you guys would quit pretending to be so confused by the simplest of things.
I really wish you guys would quit pretending to be so confused by the simplest of things.
I’ve got bad news for you.
For any con to suggest that Obama of unpopular is funny, given that Chimpy was the least popular prez since. . . . Um, ever.
That being said, let me offer a little insight into professional blogs.
Just shoot me.
“That being said, let me offer a little insight into professional blogs.”
Mega lulz.
I’d love to know just how little revenue was generated by your shit-tastic “writing” at whatever that place was called. Wizbag, was it?
So “SFC B,” who claims he was an Army recruiter, comes out in defense of right wing Chicken Hawk “Instapundit” Glen Reynolds? Or did I miss Reynolds combat experience in service of our country? And right wing propaganda from a 101st Fighting Keyboardist doesn’t count as “service.”
By the way “SFC B,” did you seriously assert “it’s perfectly fine for your employer to say who you can and cannot have sex with”? Are you seriously that far down the right wing rabbit hole?
Any true freedom loving American would call that out for what it is: creepy corporatism and an interference with personal freedoms.
“SFC B” it seems you’ve been conditioned by your institutional dependence to defer to the leader (the boss, the military, an authoritarian daddy figure [even fake ones like Glen Reynolds]…). Or maybe you were just raised by puppy kickers.
As an employer you would expect to restrict the personal freedoms of your employers outside of their workplace (creepy corporatism) and as an employee (which you’ll likely spend your life as) you would accept your employer restricting your freedoms outside of the workplace (subservient corporatist).
Come back to the side of light, “SFC B,” become a defender of freedom and not a defender of it’s restriction. The darkside has you trying to limit freedoms.
To understand yourself better you should do some research on “cognitive dissonance” and “authoritarianism.”
Though one of the principle attributes of authoritarianism is not being able to question the beliefs handed you by your authority figure.
And those suffering from cognitive dissonance can hold two contradictory beliefs in their head simultaneously, making your defense of restricting freedoms bizarrely “compatible” with your claim of being against freedom being restricted.
As for right wing propagandist Glen Reynolds, he is an embarrassment to the University of Tennessee as well as the to the entire law profession. He and John Yoo and Monica Goodling should start their own school. Preferably in a Galt’s Gulch somewhere in South America. Maybe they can teach the boys from Brazil how to be good authoritarians.
In other media news: While pointing out that Reynolds is serially dishonest is like saying water is wet, the sad part is the Christian Science Monitor’s descent into right wing propaganda blogging. The CSMonitor has in the past been one of the most exemplary journalistic outlets in the country. Hopefully Jimmy Orr isn’t a new trend of the CSMonitor supporting wingnut welfare cases.
As to Commentary Magazine blogger Jay Tea’s erroneous claim that “professional blogs. They are edited by the staff,” that’s just plain not true. While it’s moderately comforting that the extreme right wing Commentary Magazine is editing a commentator who clearly doesn’t know his facts and is willing to assert falsehoods as facts, a lot of publications give they’re ‘professional bloggers’ a free hand.
It’s deeply ironic that apparently Jay Tea can only exercise that freedom at http://OliverWillis.com
News Reference are you some sort of robot that has become sentient and designed a website that only robots can understand?
OW: “I really wish you guys would quit pretending to be so confused by the simplest of things.”
Michael Over Here says: “I’ve got bad news for you.”
One of you says they are lying.
The other says they are honestly stupid.
And I don’t know who is correct.
I gotta give credit to the conservatives for sticking with this “teleprompter” nonsense, given that Obama is to all observers a billion times more conversant with issues and facts than Bush Jr., and actually quite able to speak contemporaneously once he self-edits out all the “uh’s”.
RE: News Reference are you some sort of robot that has become sentient and designed a website that only robots can understand?
L.O.L., Michael. [said in a mechanical voice]
“I am completely operational, and all my circuits are functioning perfectly.”
God help me, I’m agreeing with Michael — that “News Reference” page has to be the fugliest web site in the known universe. In fact, I’d nominate it to replace the Goatse image for permanently scarring eyes.
J.
J.G>Thayer: “Oh, noes! Reynolds linked to a SECOND person offering an opinion!”
Again you miss the point.
Reynolds links to this guy as proof there is a change. ‘Obama used to be popular, but look out!’
However, a quick check at this person’s past shows this is not true. There has been no change in tone.
“That being said, let me offer a little insight into professional blogs.”
Did you talk to a professional blogger recently?
Reynolds has a vested interest in fooling his readers that there
What is it with the post eating around here?!?
Anyway, what I was going to say was that despite your attempts to attack the messenger, Reynolds is right.
SaveFarris: “Anyway, what I was going to say was that despite your attempts to attack the messenger, Reynolds is right.”
Actually, Reynolds was not talking about poll numbers, he was talking about the tone in the press.
So you are wrong about Reynolds being right.
And by the way, it’s normal for new presidents to get a bounce after the election and for their poll numbers to return to a more reasonable net approval rating.
Glenn Reynolds was neither wrong nor right, he was merely asking a question, “Is it just me, or are the MSM headlines getting a bit less respectful?”. He wasn’t making a declaritive statement of fact. Calling that dishonest is in itself a bit dishonest.
It’s really no different than the following headlines:
Meg Whitman: An Elitist For Our Times?
Chip Reid: Rush Limbaugh’s Butt-Boy?
The End of the Republican Right?
Rick Santelli: Just the Product of Conservative PR?
The last headline was especially curious, as it was based on a story by two Playboy reporters that was shown to have multiple falsehoods and specious connections, poorly sourced and was quickly debunked. The interesting part about that one was that the Playboy article also headlined their article with a question mark. I’d link to it but Playboy took it down.
Dennis, you missed the best part — when Oliver pronounced the Playboy-sourced story “fake, but accurate.”
Gave me a nice, warm, nostalgic glow for the days of Dan Rather, Queen of the Space Unicorns…
J.
Except my point of view is pretty clear in those questions isn’t it? And unlike Reynolds, I’m not afraid to state my opinions.
Also, I addressed the issue of polling – that specific Pew poll – in the post right above this comment thread. Silly me, expecting one of you to actually read it.
Strowbridge pried himself away from his DVD player long enough to say:
Actually, Reynolds was not talking about poll numbers, he was talking about the tone in the press.
So you are wrong about Reynolds being right.
An admission that the press has been fawningly servile to Obama all along? Inconceivable!
Oh, darn, I just broke Strowbridge’s advice about not quoting idiots…
J.
<
>
Heh. Indeed. Read the whole thing. Heh. Indeed. Read the whole thing.Heh. Indeed. Read the whole thing.Heh. Indeed. Read the whole thing.Heh. Indeed. Read the whole thing.Heh. Indeed. Read the whole thing.Heh. Indeed. Read the whole thing.
And some blogs in the mainstream press don’t go through any editing process.
Like NRO, fer’instance.
By the way “SFC B,” did you seriously assert “it’s perfectly fine for your employer to say who you can and cannot have sex with”? Are you seriously that far down the right wing rabbit hole?
Well. To be fair, I do think it is okay for an employer to say who you can or can’t have sex with on the clock.
“I am completely operational, and all my circuits are functioning perfectly.”
I am aware of all Internet traditions.
Duros, you slay me, mate.
It’s really no different than the following headlines:
Denny, in case you haven’t figured it out yet, Oliver’s entire site is opinion. See? Up at the top on the right? Where it says
Stop with the poutrage.
Ah, disclaimers. Ain’t they wonderful things?
In using InstaPundit you recognize that InstaPundit is primarily a guide to content on the Web, that all content is provided on an as-is basis, and that no factual statement on this site should be relied upon without further investigation on your part sufficient to satisfy you in your independent judgment that it is true.
That’s the difference between Oliver and a law professor. One with actual publications, unlike certain other law professors I could mention…
J.
and that no factual statement on this site should be relied upon without further investigation on your part sufficient to satisfy you in your independent judgment that it is true.
Cool. So he admits up front that he’s making shit up.
Carry on.
Jay Tea says: “Strowbridge pried himself away from his DVD player long enough to say:”
Actually, I’m watching The Odd Couple right now and then I will be watching To Catch a Thief, and I have Quantum of Solace for the afternoon. Jealous that I still have a job and you were fired as a blogger?
Me: “Actually, Reynolds was not talking about poll numbers, he was talking about the tone in the press.
So you are wrong about Reynolds being right.”
“An admission that the press has been fawningly servile to Obama all along? Inconceivable!”
What the fuck? Are you seriously retarded? Are you as mentally disabled as you are physically?
Fucking hell.
Oliver posted quotes that showed this guy was insulting Obama the whole time. How do you interpret that has an admission the press is fawning over Obama?
“Oh, darn, I just broke Strowbridge’s advice about not quoting idiots…”
Maybe I should create a ‘Don’t quote known racists’ rule. That way you won’t be able to quote yourself. Then again, with the known idiot rule, you aren’t allowed to quote yourself now regardless.
Jealous that I still have a job and you were fired as a blogger?
What the FUCK are you talking about?
Hey, get away from the bong — the brain (even one as impaired as yours) needs SOME oxygen.
You just keep repeating the same old bullshit so long, you’ve convinced yourself it’s true. Unfortunately for you, while it’s true that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, no one is entitled to their own reality — and especially not entitled to insist others recognize their reality.
J.
Also, I addressed the issue of polling – that specific Pew poll – in the post right above this comment thread.
Not really addressed … so much as cherry-picked unrelated bits of data that might bolster your point and ignored the ones that didn’t. How very Bush-ian of you.
One with actual publications, unlike certain other law professors I could mention
Strowbridge, your allegation that I was “fired from blogging” is defamatory, and quite possibly legally actionable. I deny it absolutely and without qualification. It is absolutely untrue — I have never been fired FROM blogging or FOR blogging, from any web site or other employment.
Show your proof that what you said was true, or retract it.
I am prepared to show considerable circumstantial evidence that what you said is wrong, all of which is already in the public record.
J.
Jay Tea: God help me, I’m agreeing with Michael — that “News Reference” page has to be the fugliest web site in the known universe.
As the creator(s) of the page seem very much aware and even seem to take pride in. Scroll to near the bottom:
SaveFarris: cherry-picked unrelated bits of data that might bolster your point and ignored the ones that didn’t. How very Bush-ian of you.
You admit Bush was a liar. Good. Nice to have that on record.
I’m not a lawyer, Mr. Tea, but I would imagine that anyone posting this:
would want to avoid this:
Just a thought.
Jay Tea:I am prepared to show considerable circumstantial evidence that what you said is wrong
Circumstantial? Don’t really want to step at all into any discussion of whether you’ve ever been fired or not. You say you haven’t been, fine. You should know. Not a big deal either way. I just find it curious that all you could provide is “circumstantial” evidence. Can’t get any past employer to just declare “No, he wasn’t fired.”?
Show your proof that what you said was true, or retract it.
Ok, on behalf of C.S. I’m sorry that you were fired. There, much better.
Sean, what I was referring to was publicly-posted articles. On November 12, my first article for Contentions was published. On November 20, I posted my farewell at Wizbang. And as of today I have 116 articles posted on Contentions, with two being published today (and a third awaiting review).
And I don’t need to get Wizbang to say anything more; they’ve already published several pieces that state that my departure was entirely my decision and entirely amicable.
Strowbridge is just plain making shit up with the purpose of damaging my professional reputation, and I need to defend against that.
Feel free to make whatever remarks you like about how I have probably done far more damage to myself than his lies, that my reputation isn’t really worth much anyway, but his statement about my being fired is completely, utterly, and absolutely false, and I will NOT let it stand.
J.
Great, Zython. Some actual indication that his lies are being taken as truths. That helps a lot in the damages stage.
J.
Jay Tea: And I don’t need to get Wizbang to say anything more; they’ve already published several pieces that state that my departure was entirely my decision and entirely amicable.
OK. Not sure why you’d see that as “circumstantial” tho. Makes it look like you really do have a difficulty recognizing facts.
Great, Zython. Some actual indication that his lies are being taken as truths. That helps a lot in the damages stage.
Oh, don’t be so petty.
Also, I thought conservatives were AGAINST being overly litigious.
I think C.S. Strowbridge went John Galt on you, Jay Tea.
I think C.S. Strowbridge went John Galt on you, Jay Tea.
Nah, he’s actually at his job. You know what a “job” is? The things that Americans used to have until you and your ilk screwed the pooch?
Strowbridge is just plain making shit up with the purpose of damaging my professional reputation, and I need to defend against that.
Professional reputation? RFLMAO. Just too priceless.
Fafaroo, I understand around here that the value of my reputation is measured in terms usually associated with New York Times stock prices, but what he said was an out-and-out damnable lie. The kind of lie that get people sued over. The kind of lie that damages the target’s credibility across the spectrum.
And that I will not let that foul-mouthed, lying swine do that unchallenged.
J.
The kind of lie that get people sued over. The kind of lie that damages the target’s credibility across the spectrum.
Jay Tea, maybe you should consider suing yourself?
Strowbridge is just plain making shit up
Geez, do we really have to say it again?
We learned it from watching YOU!
THE ONION: “Obama Outfitted With 238 Motion Capture Sensors For 3-D Record Of Presidency” Is it just me, or are the MSM headlines getting a bit less respectful?
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/obama_outfitted_with_238_motion
Jay Tea-
Surprised really that fafaroo and Quibbie consider that type of thing acceptable behavior around here.
Not surprised Strowbridge went Galt on it, though.
Surprised really that fafaroo and Quibbie consider that type of thing acceptable behavior around here.
You guys crack me up. What’s hilarious to me is Jay Tea’s wildly inflated sense of his “professional reputation” and the “damage” that could be done to it by some anonymous dude in a blog thread.
I had no idea that Jay Tea’s “professional reputation” hung on such a thin and vulnerable thread.
Tell ya what, Jay Tea, why don’t you stop whining and hire a lawyer already?
Surprised really that fafaroo and Quibbie consider that type of thing acceptable behavior around here.
Slander!
I must defend my honor, sah! Cream pies at dawn!
Slander!
Indeed! So that’s two for the class action against Dennis!
Any other offended commentators want in on this sure-to-be-precedent-setting gravy train legal action?
The thought crossed my mind, back when Strowbridge restrained himself/herself/itself to calling his/her/its opponents Klan members, of countering with an accusation of being a pedophile, but I refrained. I wonder how quickly fafaroo and Quaker would have jumped all over me had I not exercised that common sense.
My suspicion: quite heavily. And quite rightly. That’s the kind of crap you simply DON’T DO.
Pity Strowbridge watches too many movies to understand that sort of thing doesn’t fly in real life.
J.
My suspicion: quite heavily. And quite rightly. That’s the kind of crap you simply DON’T DO.
Right. Like making jokes about Chelsea Clinton and semen stained dresses?
You guys are cracking me up.
Not one of my prouder moments, fafaroo, but I’m not so ashamed of it. The original subject matter was almost as creepy — predatory older man in position of tremendous power exploiting a woman subordinate not much older than his own daughter — I just extended it one step further.
Tasteless? Absolutely. Legally actionable? Not in the least.
J.
Legally actionable? Not in the least.
So you’ve retained Lionel Hutz in your rock solid case against Strowbridge?
Slander!
I must defend my honor, sah! Cream pies at dawn! Quibbie
I meant it as a compliment, Quibbie. Just surprised you’d take Strowbridge’s side for a completely made up accusation, especially when you both go to great lengths to disprove anything said by Jay Tea or myself or anyone not in the Democratic/liberal side of any argument that you don’t agree with.
It’s one thing for you guys to be silent when he says we are Klan members and racists with nothing to support those claims, but I’m just surprised to see you choose to criticize Jay Tea for being offended at something Strowbridge obviously just pulled out of his ass because he had nothing else to say, without even so much as asking him where he came up with it.
Just surprised you’d take Strowbridge’s side for a completely made up accusation
You wounds me again, coxcomb! I shall preserve my honor!
Seriously, I didn’t take any side. I just found it funny that Mr. Tea would huff and puff about the “fired” comment, then immediately turn around and make the “bong” comment.
For more hijinx, find the continuation in a later thread.
Uh, Dennis, when Jay Tea accuses someone of needing to “get away from the bong” that’s clearly an attack meant to threaten a persons ability to get a job. Unless Jay Tea knows for a FACT that the person uses, then it’s an outright slanderous lie meant to deliberately damage the persons reputation.
Jay Tea is trying to hold someone to a standard he doesn’t hold himself to. Which perfectly sums up right wing ideology.
“…but I’m just surprised to see you choose to criticize Jay Tea for being offended at something …”
Leaving aside Jay Tea’s delicate sensibilities, anytime he wants to argue that his “professional reputation” has been damaged by a comment here, he should be mocked for it, regardless of the provocation.
Especially in instances like this in which Strowbidge has an obvious legal defense:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#Slander_and_libel
“Libel-proof.” I think that fits Jay Tea to a, well, T.
I thought I covered that, fafaroo, when I mentioned my reputation here being worth about the same as a share of New York Times stock.
But that’s a defense for Strowbridge to make, and it carries with it the admission that the initial defamation was incorrect. He/she/it doesn’t have the character to do that.
J.
J.G.Thayer: “Strowbridge, your allegation that I was “fired from blogging” is defamatory, and quite possibly legally actionable. I deny it absolutely and without qualification. It is absolutely untrue — I have never been fired FROM blogging or FOR blogging, from any web site or other employment.”
“Hey, get away from the bong — the brain (even one as impaired as yours) needs SOME oxygen.”
Okay, so I’ve called you a Klan member, and you are fine with that.
You claim I’m breaking the law, and you are fine with that.
I make a joke that you were fired from a job, and you freak out. Completely.
I think I hit a nerve.
So… How many times have you been fired?
“But that’s a defense for Strowbridge to make …”
Uh, ya. If you actually sue him. Are you planning to do that? Because seriously you should.
Please. Do it for us.
J.G.Thayer: “The thought crossed my mind, back when Strowbridge restrained himself/herself/itself to calling his/her/its opponents Klan members, of countering with an accusation of being a pedophile…”
Yes. Because being accused of being a member in a unpopular organization is equal to being accused of breaking the law in the most horrendous way.
You have no sense of balance, do you?
J.G.Thayer: “Not one of my prouder moments, fafaroo, but I’m not so ashamed of it.”
That’s cause you have no shame. I think we have learned that about you.
“The original subject matter was almost as creepy — predatory older man in position of tremendous power exploiting a woman subordinate not much older than his own daughter — I just extended it one step further.”
You really are… I don’t even know what to say about you.
You are humorous. That is for sure.
Strowbridge, your disapproval means the world to me. I use you as a negative compass.
I said it. At least a couple of people here have made it their life’s goal to make sure I never forget I said it. I never once tried to deny it or conceal it. At the time, it seemed like a good way of expressing my ongoing disgust with a serial sexual predator.
Would I say it again? Probably not.
Does that give you an excuse to commit libel? Of course not.
But it’ll serve as an excuse for you to change the subject, I see…
J.
You calling me a Klan member reflects more on you than me, Strowbridge. It shows that you resort to name-calling when you can’t do anything else. It’s also hyperbole (no offense, hyperbolist), emblematic of your tendency to go over the top when you can’t say anything else.
Besides, I have a history of trashing the Klan that makes it abundantly clear that you, as usual, are just talking out of your ass. My ignoring that charge isn’t an acknowledgment of the charge, but a dismissal of you.
The accusation of being fired, though… that was clearly defamatory. That couldn’t go unchallenged. That is why I had to force you to back down.
J.
J.G.Thayer: “But it’ll serve as an excuse for you to change the subject, I see…”
I’m not the one who brought it up. Accusing me of something I didn’t say! LIBEL!
J.G.Thayer: “You calling me a Klan member reflects more on you than me, Strowbridge.”
Yep. That’s right. Your dismissive attitude towards the GOP’s use of racist campaigning tactics for the past 40+ years reflects poorly on the people who mention it.
“The accusation of being fired, though… that was clearly defamatory. That couldn’t go unchallenged.”
You are so full of yourself.
“That is why I had to force you to back down.”
You’ve been fired for a job and justifiably so, and this remains a sore point with you to this day, because you think you were the victim. There is no other explanation for your irrational, over-the-top reaction.
How’s that for backing down?
Boy, someone explain to Strowbridge the first rule of holes.
Whether or not I’ve ever been fired from any job is utterly irrelevant to pretty much anything. You said I was fired from blogging, completely making up shit that you had to admit was bogus and now you’re trying to downplay your lying.
Keep spinning, asshole. Who knows? You might even manage to convince yourself. You do tend to believe your own bullshit on a fairly regular basis.
J.
J.G.Thayer: “Boy, someone explain to Strowbridge the first rule of holes.”
I’ll do…
The first rule of J.G.Thayer being in a hole is he should stop digging. … Especially since he declared the matter closed.
Here’s a hint… we are laughing at you. No one here is talking you seriously. Slink away and wait till one of your fellow right-wingers says something really stupid to take the heat off of you.
It shouldn’t take long.