Democrats & Liberals Archives

On the Fine Art of Being Wrong In the Right Way

There are two things you’re going to expect from me, and one of them you will not get.

I will not apologize for having pursued the case against Rep. Anthony Weiner’s accusers, nor will I apologize to Breitbart for doubting him. He’s not only been wrong before, he’s pushed outright untrue material. In the short term he will gain more credibility, but my bet is, Breitbart will squander that before long.

But this time he was right. And I was wrong.

The infamous tweet which I spent so much time and effort trying to debunk was in fact real. That's the shocking thing to me. I was very sure, based on the facts I knew, that it wasn't him. And I was wrong. But I didn't set out to fool anybody, least of all myself.

I knew Breitbart had a history of pushing BS stories, that he wasn't very careful in his reporting at the very least. So I took a skeptical approach to his reporting. And I will continue to take a skeptical approach, even now, because of what he's gotten not only wrong, but recklessly wrong in the past. Shirley Sherrod still deserves an apology from him, so he's not getting one from me for my doubt.

As for Weiner? The guy's behavior was completely moronic. There's no two ways about it. He did deceive me, and quite a few other people. He put a lot of Liberals who believed in him through the wringer.

And now he's admitted his sin. He's admitted his misbehavior, and expressed regret for it. And I sure hope he does regret it and change his ways in the most sincere way possible.

But I'm not angry. Not at him, not at myself. For one thing, I'm not fit to judge him. There have been times that I failed to deal with or keep in check problems I knew I had, where I pursued the thrill of something to the detriment of the rest of my life. Sometimes even posting here can be that kind of problem for me! One reason I've never really smoked, drank, or did drugs is that I could never be confident that I would resist my impulse.

What he did was wrong. But I'd be a hypocrite to condemn him. I have to pass on the forgiveness given to me.

If I were in his position, my first reaction would not be to come clean, and of course the pressures would drive me to keep it a secret. But this guy isn't some homophobe or prude. He's never gone after others for the sin he committed himself. So, although this makes him a bit of a pervert, it doesn't make him much of a hypocrite.

No, really, I pity him. I doubt he'll lose the election, given the liberalism of his home district, but damn if this won't hang around his neck. He's lost a lot of people's respect for him, and it was an unforced error to boot.

But Breitbart?

I have a feeling if Breitbart hadn't found or had that new source he talked about, he would have been spiked in any normal news agency, and rightfully so.

The news isn't simply about what could be true. The world is full of possibilities about what could be true. I had one in mind, as I argued what I did. The news is about what we can reliably speak of as true.

It's not a small concern. Breitbart's approach failed several times before. Shirley Sherrod is a prime example. He rushed to press with that video, proving that she was a racist.

Only, she was not. The later parts of her speech reveal her doing exactly the opposite of her first impulses, and the people she was talking about would later come to her defense. But that wasn't before an innocent woman had been cost her job, and her reputation in public, one she never had a chance before that point to build in a positive way.

I've written before about the editing tricks that Breitbart's people used, and their potent psychological effect. Posting the full video later offers no excuse, because the intended message is definitely shaped by the first story to come out. Who's going to go inspect the brewery, having drunk the pint?

But Breitbart shouldn't have been so reckless then. Just as Weiner was wrong in the way he approached his private life, and his communications, Breitbart's reporting, occasional scoops aside, is recklessly sloppy.

He will get a boost from this, no doubt, but what will he do with that boost? If his past behavior is any indication, the next scandal we cover might just be his own. Could it be a reporter whose story turns out to be complete garbage? It happens in the best of news organizations, and Breitbart's already had words with his primary source on this story, questioning who he really was!

Maybe it's a hidden video where once again he cuts too creatively, in his quest to damage a liberal organizations.

Maybe he goes after the reputation of a big Liberal politician, but this time doesn't find the right victim.

This is not a guy I expect to keep his nose clean, because the facts are less important to him than the power the facts get him. Me? I just cared about getting the facts right so that Breitbart could not railroad Rep. Weiner without having his facts straight. Why? Because it had happened before. People had lost jobs, seen their reputations tarnished for no good reason.

So do I feel ashamed? No. I don't feel like apologizing, either. Breitbart got his facts right this time, and we have Weiner's own confession as evidence of the truth. There's not much left to discuss, and I'm not the sort to come up with a creative conspiracy theory to justify what was obviously a series of stupid mistakes on his part. Unlike some, I only fight these fights when I think there is a factual basis for fighting them, and I always said that if the facts changed, then my view, my opinion about what happened would have to change with them.

The facts have changed, and so I have to believe a different story than I did yesterday. I have to believe something different, because what I believed before is no longer supportable. Am I ashamed to change my opinion? Well, on point of fact, I'd be more ashamed not to.

I liked what John Murtha did, in confronting Bush on the war. Is that worth a free pass on corruption? No. I liked what Charlie Rangel had to say, often enough. Free pass on ethics charges? No. William Jefferson was a liberal. Did that buy him any sympathy from me over that money in the icebox? No. I liked John Edwards during the 2004 campaign. Do I think he shouldn't have to face the consequences of his actions, all around?

Of course not. Because I haven't taken on the notion that I need to defend these people in order to save the country from the Republicans, or some other garbage like that. I don't like the road we head down if the defense of my party requires the toleration of corruption. To me, that's just like giving a warm embrace to a ticking time bomb. There's no point in it, it doesn't suit a reality based sensibility of politics. It doesn't suit a sense of politics where getting things done right outweighs getting things said or politically arranged to our advantage.

Breitbart and I both advocate for our respective movements, but what I recognize and Breitbart doesn't is that sooner or later, the BS comes back to haunt you. Sooner or later, the evil you do, or allow, in the name of your cause, or even your own prestige, will undermine you.

I trust Breitbart to take today's victory, and learn exactly the wrong lesson from it. I trust him to become more reckless, more daring, perhaps even more willing to cross legal lines he should. A man who hijacks a politician's press conference to toot his own horn and demand an apology is not a person with his ego or his impulses under control, and I trust those to undercut him in the end.

It breaks my heart to be wrong in this case, but at least I'm going to be wrong in good faith. I'm going to be wrong because I was lied to, because I didn't know the full facts. I won't be wrong because I simply didn't take the time to check other possibilities, or run down other witnesses.

Or, put another way, what if Breitbart had held on the story until he'd gotten the information he has now? What if he hadn't fumbled around for the last weak trying to make a single sourced story stick against the crappy reputations of its sources, the retraction of claims by some of those Breitbart claimed to have even worse charges to bring?

What if he had held on running all those NPR and Acorn and other stories until he saw the full videos, and then had edited things down until he had just the basic facts, the stuff that was right, true, and representative of what was going on in the videos?

What if he had held on Shirley Sherrod until he had seen the full video?

We might not have seen some of Breitbart's greatest hits, and perhaps they would have been tamer.

But then it wouldn't have taken Breitbart a week to get this story right, and the American public with him.

You get your story right the first time, you get listened to the first time. You cry wolf? Then it it will take a confession like Anthony Weiner's to convince anybody you're telling the truth.

I'm only human, so no matter how confident I am, I'll be on the wrong side of the branch when it gets sawed through. That's what happens when you argue based on the facts. Ideology and opinion can allow you to argue virtually anything with a straight face. The facts don't.

Breitbart's raised his credibility somewhat.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at June 6, 2011 4:51 PM
Comments
Comment #324079

SD

“I was very sure, based on the facts I knew, that it wasn’t him.”

What pray tell are those “facts”?

You forgive him, then you turn around and hope for his failure because you disagree with him. That is not mercy and forgiveness. That is vengeance.

Once you step in manure you should know how to get out of it in the future. Stephen write to Weiner the Whiner to get some free advice. Or a host of other of “your people”.

BTW-Your extended support for Ms. Sherrod is pathetic.

Posted by: tom humes at June 6, 2011 6:47 PM
Comment #324081

That’s a very fair, and self-culpable assessment. Although I still think you’re cutting Weiner too much slack.

You make it sound as though the DEGREE of his dishonesty and the penalties he should suffer for that dishonesty depends on WHAT he lied about.

I’ve agreed and still agree that Andrew Breitbart is a lowlife and usually a charlatan. But you’re still trying to put far too much blame on Breitbart for something Weiner, and only Weiner, did to himself.

Weiners lies, and now his admissions, say *far* more about his lack of ethics, lack of common sense, lack of foresight, personal character failures, infidelity and extra-marital perversions than it says about Breitbart’s reputation.

You sound as though you think if someone you know personally lied to you the way Weiner did, you’d never forgive them. But since Weiner is a Congressman, he deserves some kind of special dispensation for being just as much of a liar.

Weiner lied, repeatedly, about literally every aspect of this case from the minute it started, and he even went further to put himself in front of every camera and microphone he could find so he could perpetuate those lies.

That’s not “mis-speech.” That’s conspiracy to deceive.

Posted by: Gary St. Lawrence at June 6, 2011 6:55 PM
Comment #324084

Gary,

Doesn’t it take at least two to form a conspiracy?

Posted by: Marysdude at June 6, 2011 7:08 PM
Comment #324087

stephen

you know a few years back you and i went back and forth about something. i don’t even remember what the subject was. after i did a little more research i realized i was wrong, and actually admitted it right here on this forum. you never acknowleged it of course, but that’s ok. the fact you were absolutely wrong about weiner, and tried to make it about the messenger, and even after he admits he lied, and apologized to breitbart as halfhearted as it was, you still insist on backpeddling and making about breitbart. all i can say is……WEAK!!!!……

if you had an ounce integrity you would respond to all the people here you lectured, and i don’t mean writing a CYA thread. which is exactly what this is. character counts. think about it.

Posted by: dbs at June 6, 2011 7:58 PM
Comment #324089

What else have you been wrong about, Stephen Daugherty?

You might as well come clean about every other subject you’ve supported with blind political partisanship.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 6, 2011 8:08 PM
Comment #324091

Stephen

“I’m not fit to judge him.” Of course you are. He is indeed a little creep. I am a better man than he is and I bet you are too. He is not taking responsibility. He got caught. That’s it.

I am not mad at him either. He is a little perve, but that is his business. The actual act is not a crime. His lies might be.

Weiner has done a shameful thing, a very immature thing. You or I may have done it when we were 15. He is no longer a horny teenager, or maybe he still is.

But it won’t matter. Democrats are not held to very high standards by their constituents.

Posted by: C&J at June 6, 2011 8:22 PM
Comment #324092

Yes, Marysdude, it does. Weiner for lying and you for your blind obedience to party instead of country.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 6, 2011 8:27 PM
Comment #324095

“But it won’t matter. Democrats are not held to very high standards by their constituents.”

Spoken as though Republicans hold their office holders to a higher standard. How did that go with David Vitter? Well, maybe we can forgive him a few illegalities and deviant sexual behavior for the sake of retaining the office in Republican hands. Why, we can even re-elect him. How about Newt? Well, maybe a few Clinton dalliances isn’t such a terrible thing after all.

Posted by: Rich at June 6, 2011 8:47 PM
Comment #324096

Rich, thank you for putting things in perspective. Both parties and our political system are perverted by a lack of responsibility and accountablility. I don’t blame the Democratic or the Republican. I blame the politician and the political structure of our government in general.

It’s about time we all do.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 6, 2011 9:00 PM
Comment #324097

And just to clarify, Rich. Republicans do hold themselves to a higher standard that Democratics do.

It’s obvious.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 6, 2011 9:05 PM
Comment #324098

You know what I hate? It is when somebody says, “I take responsibility …” In modern parlance, it means “I don’t care what you think and I am not going to do anything to change.”


Weiner used the phrase, which means only that he will try harder not to get caught next time he goes perv.

It is fun to make fun of Weiner, but it really is not very funny. It is symptomatic of our society. The creep is not ashamed of himself. He is just annoyed that he got caught. I saw him on TV. He just doesn’t feel that any rules apply to him.

I used to think that we all did things we are ashamed of, but now I am not sure. I don’t think people like Weiner ever to anything they are ashamed of, since they have no shame.

Posted by: C&J at June 6, 2011 9:13 PM
Comment #324099

Let’s see how the MSM plays this C@J.

I will wait for the “he owned up and should be forgiven” senerio to come spewing from the liberial pieholes.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 6, 2011 9:19 PM
Comment #324100

OOPS! Fat fingered that. Let’s hope the administrator of this post will correct it for me.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 6, 2011 9:21 PM
Comment #324101

The comment on your TPM link says it all Stephen “even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes”. This does not vindicate Breitbart in the least. This does not make him a journalist. This only makes him right in this particular instance. His reputation precedes him.

Weiner tried to cover up his foolishness, he committed no crimes. Why should we care what pictures he takes and sends you prudes, if no laws were violated?

Posted by: j2t2 at June 6, 2011 9:43 PM
Comment #324102

I’ve been reminded that Anthony Weiner did not, in fact, commit adultery (assuming Weiner’s not lying about having never met any of his e-mistress­es).

So, with full intent to be fair and accurate, I hereby coin an entirely new term to define Anthony Weiner’s guilt: e-dultery.

You read it here, first.

Posted by: Gary St. Lawrence at June 6, 2011 10:07 PM
Comment #324104

j2 Your right no crimes were committed unless one or more of the women he sent those pictures to were underage, and he even admitted he didn’t know their ages, then there is a crime. Now it’s up to the house ethics committe. At least one thing I can comend Pelosi, calling for an ethics investigation.

Posted by: KAP at June 6, 2011 10:14 PM
Comment #324105

tom humes-
I volunteered the facts that I knew, the facts that I thought supported the conclusion.

You forgive him, then you turn around and hope for his failure because you disagree with him. That is not mercy and forgiveness. That is vengeance.

Do I hope for Anthony Weiner’s failure? Hell no. I want him to keep his nose clean, and continue doing the work people elected him to do.

The point of my list of Liberal politicians is that far from being inclined to indulge corruption and misconduct, I’m inclined not to. But Weiner’s admitted his guilt, and made his confession, and since hanky panky is a minor political sin nowadays, it’s up to the voters to decide.

But as for Shirley Sherrod? The facts changed on you. You and Breitbart should admit that, and apologize to her. Or is vindication just the privilege of right-thinking Americans? If I can admit that Breitbart, who I personally think is scum was right, and Weiner, who I thought was better than that was wrong, why can’t you reciprocate? Are you just too proud to admit error to a liberal, even a liberal who has set his not inconsiderable pride in his grasp of the facts aside to admit error, to admit having been deceived by his own?

I could have just dropped this, sulked in silence, and let your folks bring it up from time to time for my shame. But that would have been the cheap thing to do.

I didn’t hide from a difficult truth. Why do you and Breitbart hide from them?

Gary St. Lawrence-

You make it sound as though the DEGREE of his dishonesty and the penalties he should suffer for that dishonesty depends on WHAT he lied about.

I’m not cynical, but I’m not stupid either. I expect the politicians in Washington and elsewhere to dance a little dance when it comes to telling us the truth. And I expect people like us to keep the leashes taut on them, and the press to inquire factually into these matters.

Pelosi’s seeking an ethics probe on him. She’s not waiting for the outcry to build. That’s how I think you should handle things like this: with calm.

I don’t care about the private lives of politicians. I’d prefer the ones who can be faithful and devoted husbands and wives, but in this country, with our current generations, who are we kidding? I want them to practice better judgement than that, but so long as they do their jobs, I’m not going to get all high and mighty on them.

I say that especially given who the accusers often are. I mean, both of his initial accusers on the tweet were hardly sterling examples of sexual morality themselves. One of them ran a sex forum for crying out loud, for crying out loud. It’s not the saints accusing the sinners, in my view, it’s one set of sinners taking advantage of the foibles of another set of sinners to get more power, to further their agenda.

Indulging their hypocrisy will not make this country a place of greater morality. Hell, hardly anything the religious right wants to do will achieve that. People got to tend to their own lives, rather than throw the first stone at others.

dbs-
Look, I can’t can’t cover my ass here, I’ve hung it out so far it’s not funny. Any fact I’ve ever gotten wrong is out there for people to confront, argue against, and hold me accountable on it. It’s been done a number of times by the people who don’t simply confront me in self-righteous anger and tell me I’m wrong, but who come along and show me the facts that make my claims unsound or my logic invalid.

I don’t want to admit I’m wrong when I think I’m not, and when somebody’s just contradicting me with a partisan claim. If you want me to admit I’m wrong, don’t give me a way out. Do what I do to others, what I must expect people will do to me: Confront me on the hard facts.

And I’ll confront them right back. That, to me, is how it’s supposed to be. To be honest, I hate debates that are just ideological tennis matches, with nobody having the balls to stake out a position that can actually be proved or disproved.

Weary Willie-
I’m not like Breitbart. Show me a photo, and I want to make sure it’s real. Show me a quote with an ellipsis, and I want to know the full quote. Show me even a Liberal blogpost, and I want to follow it back to the source.

Why? Because I don’t like being in the position of being hung out there without a decent, factually supportable position. I’m not going to indulge your idea of what you think my sensibility of the truth should be. If I was going to do that, I would have done it long ago.

The thing about the revelation of the facts is that the story is symmetrical here. The tweet was real, the innappropriate relationship with the woman was as well.

Breitbart was wrong, though, about the underaged girls, and his sources proved to be as perverted, perhaps more so than the fellow they hounded.

But will your people admit these things? No, you’ll bask in the glow of success, and forget that Breitbart is an unreliable figure. Now with a higher profile, he gets higher expectations What will he do? Will the dishonesty you tolerate from him not put you to shame one of these days?

I sure as hell didn’t want to admit I was wrong, but to have failed to do that would have been to hollow out my voice as a political writer. I stuck my neck out, so I can’t simply slink away from this.

The question is, are Republicans any more willing to confront the problems in their ranks. Pelosi’s seeking an immediate ethics probe. We’re not messing around. And really, your people can’t hide behind our foibles forever.

C&J-
David Vitter. Newt Gingrich, etc. I’ve seen little evidence that Republicans can claim the family values trophy, however many stones they may throw.

I’m serious when I say I don’t think I’m better than him or anybody else. We’re human beings, fellow sinners. Rather than elevate ourselves as being better than them, we should realize that in many ways, politician are just us, with a bit more money and power. Same thing goes with businessfolks, or anybody else who has more money or power, no matter how. Some people are restrained by by their priniciples and some are restrained by their means.

If you look at what I’ve been saying about economics, you’ll find my point of view makes a certain kind of sense. I believe that laws and customs and traditions, are part of how we resist the worst parts of our nature. But when we gain money and power, and the deference that buys from others, we can no longer depend upon our situation to naturally moderate our immoderate impulses.

I don’t think of the rich or the powerful as especiailly virtuous or invirtuous. I just think their actions carry greater effect, because of what their means allows them.

Weiner obviously failed, and he indulged impulses the rest of us would be too scareed to indulge in our own circumstances. Now he pays the price for it. Money and power can allow people to do much more stupid things, and harm a great many more people than folks could do without them. So, for that reason, and not envy or hate, I seek greater constrains on those who have greater ability to undo ordinary restraints on behavior.

You would be wise to do the same, and not just with Anthony Weiner. I’m willing to let Democrats get punished because I believe that discourages bad behavior, and weeds out those in the party who are liabilities to it. The Republicans attempt at a perfect political defense, their colloborating media, deprives them of that moderating mechanism.

That doesn’t mean that they fail to misbehave, just that they fail to get caught, and get more and more brazen until the misbehavior is practically hitting people over the head with a shovel.

I don’t want that. I hate to be embarrassed, especially when I stick up for people. I can understand the hesitation on sex scandals like this. The Republican sex scandals bother me more because Republicans act like they can lecture the rest of us on these matters. But to quote Steve Benen:

On the Political Sex Scandal Richter Scale, I’m still not altogether sure why this even registers at all. Given what we know, Weiner shared adult content with women he met online. They were adults and the interactions were consensual. He didn’t commit adultery (Ensign), he didn’t hire prostitutes (Vitter, Spitzer), he didn’t solicit anyone in an airport bathroom (Craig), he didn’t pretend to be someone else in order to try to pick up women (Lee), he didn’t abandon his office for a rendezvous with his lover (Sanford), he didn’t leave his first two wives after they got sick (Gingrich), he didn’t have a child with his housekeeper (Schwarzenegger), there’s no sex tape (Edwards), and no interns were involved (Clinton). He’s not even a hypocrite — Weiner has never championed conservative “family values,” condemning others for their “moral failings.”*

If a person wants to make a mess of their lives, they’re free to.

My problem comes when the make messes of the rest of our lives with their behavior as elected officials. That’s where it stops being a private matter, and starts becoming the Public’s business.

Wearie Willie-
I know I already responded to you earlier, but I don’t think it was Gingrich’s repeated affairs that landed him in the doghouse with most Republicans. Republicans have been just as willing to forgive, if not more. I mean Eliot Spitzer does news now, and David Vitter still has his job.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 6, 2011 10:28 PM
Comment #324106

As I stated in SD’s previous post; you will never hear an apology for anything he says:

“On the Fine Art of Being Wrong In the Right Way

There are two things you’re going to expect from me, and one of them you will not get.

I will not apologize for having pursued the case against Rep. Anthony Weiner’s accusers, nor will I apologize to Breitbart for doubting him. He’s not only been wrong before, he’s pushed outright untrue material. In the short term he will gain more credibility, but my bet is, Breitbart will squander that before long….”

This has to be some of the most disgusting drivel double talk I have ever heard. Stephen knows the weiner lied and that Breitbart was accurate in his reporting, and yet he cannot bring himself to do what is right. In my opinion, judging from his statements and drivel, Mr. Daugherty has absolutely no business writing anything on WB. He can be nothing more than a mouthpiece for the left, with the goal of protecting every low life scum pervert who holds democratic political office. His drivel goes on to say:

“But I’m not angry. Not at him, not at myself. For one thing, I’m not fit to judge him. There have been times that I failed to deal with or keep in check problems I knew I had, where I pursued the thrill of something to the detriment of the rest of my life. Sometimes even posting here can be that kind of problem for me! One reason I’ve never really smoked, drank, or did drugs is that I could never be confident that I would resist my impulse.”

Yes, I guess you do have some problems posting on WB. Especially since your comments have no credibility. So Mr. Daugherty, you are not fit to judge? I assume you mean judging a pervert liberal; because you have had NO problem judging a litany of conservative leaders and politicians. Your comments are a joke.

You have a real problem with Breitbart discovering the truth; but you have no problem with the MSM glossing over any information about liberals.

I stated in SD’s last post that it wouldn’t be long before the left would be throwing the weiner under the bus. Well, here is queen Pelosi’s latest:

“I am deeply disappointed and saddened about this situation; for Anthony’s wife, Huma, his family, his staff and his constituents,” Pelosi said in a statement released on Monday night. “I am calling for an Ethics Committee investigation to determine whether any official resources were used or any other violation of House rules occurred.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/56365.html#ixzz1OYGR80xA

Then of course we have Chris Matthews, who is of the same mind set as SD:

“MSNBC’s Chris Matthews believes Rep. Anthony Weiner’s wife may be “partly responsible” for his sexual misconduct because the Congressman said she was aware of his behavior before they were married. Transcript below:
CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC: “Yeah, but he says his wife knew. He laid it out on her.”

JOHN FEEHERY, Republican strategist: “Which is a terrible, terrible mistake.”

MATTHEWS: “Well, maybe she’s partly responsible if she knew about it?”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/06/06/chris_matthews_on_weiners_wife_maybe_shes_partly_responsible.html

I have a suggestion Stephen, why don’t you start blaming the wieners wife too? In true liberal fascist thinking; save the politician by destroying someone else. Pelosi is sorry for the weiner’s wife and at the same time Matthews blames her.

I say the marriage is finished (because it’s not all out yet), and I say his career is finished. But he can always go into business with the other liberal perverts, Bill Clinton and Spitzer. Perhaps one of the MSM channels will give him a job too.

I also commented that Mr. Daugherty would write an essay, explain why he was right in his first post. I hate it when I right all the time. Mr. Daugherty can be read like a book. Mr. Daugherty was in total shock that the weiner lied, even though he refused to say it was not his crotch in the picture and refused to involve the FBI. That was a giveaway Stephen. But I would have been totally shocked if Mr. Daugherty had come back and done the right thing by apologizing to those he wronged. But it takes a man to admit he is wrong.

Oh, by the way, would the weiner have stopped being a pervert if he had not gotten caught?

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 6, 2011 10:49 PM
Comment #324107

CT

The weenie can get a job on WB. TeeHee.

Posted by: tom humes at June 6, 2011 11:12 PM
Comment #324108
Stephen Daugherty wrote: I’m not cynical, but I’m not stupid either. I expect the politicians in Washington and elsewhere to dance a little dance when it comes to telling us the truth. And I expect people like us to keep the leashes taut on them, and the press to inquire factually into these matters.


The press *WAS* inquiring FACTUALLY into this matter.

The press repeatedly asked Weiner if HE sent the photo. Weiner lied and said he didn’t.

The press repeatedly asked Weiner if it was HIM in the photo. Weiner lied and said he didn’t know.

The press asked Weiner repeatedly if the message to the girl in Seattle was an isolated incident. Weiner lied and said it was.

The press asked repeatedly if he had any other similar lewd photos. Weiner lied and said he did not.

Now, today, the press is reporting ACCURATELY that they were asking all the right questions and Weiner lied every time he answered.

Just because you don’t like how the press makes your golden boy look like an a**shole by hammering him with facts doesn’t mean he isn’t an a**shole.

And you’re being one by perpetuating this pathetic defense.

Posted by: Gary St. Lawrence at June 7, 2011 12:17 AM
Comment #324109

j2t2

“Weiner tried to cover up his foolishness, he committed no crimes.”

not unless like kap said any of those girls were under age, or he used a gov’t computer or resourse to carry out one of his activities. until there is eviidence he did i will give him the benefit of the doubt. at this point it doesn’t appear he did anything illegal.

” Why should we care what pictures he takes and sends you prudes, if no laws were violated?”

because he put himself in a position where he could be blackmailed, and because his conduct was unbecomming a US congressman. his personal conduct does matter.

Posted by: dbs at June 7, 2011 5:29 AM
Comment #324111

Just as with John Edwards, people seem most upset with the lying, covering up. But in the history of affairs or embarassing sexual behavior (of which there are many more than we know) has there ever been a case where the behavior was not at-least initially denied? Probably not even one. It’s inconceivable. But people are endlessly stunned about the lie every time. It’s amazing.

Posted by: Schwamp at June 7, 2011 7:39 AM
Comment #324112

Conservativethinker-
I believe that you follow facts, not the innuendo of people who manipulate them for political benefit. Breitbart got this right. But how was his batting average to this point?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 7, 2011 9:01 AM
Comment #324113

What we have here is a clearcut double standard. The liberal press is now begun the process of the cover-up for the golden boy. It was his wife’s fault, it was not breaking any laws, it was not on government computers, or it wasn’t real sex. He violated House ethics rules, placed himself in a compromising situation, and endangered the country with blackmail. If this had been a republican, he word have already been gone. This guy is a has been and will have to step down.

Oh, by the way, the info just came out; Weiner talked sex with one of the women from an outgoing congressional phone line. That is a violation of House rules.

The best thing was when Weiner called for a press conference and Breitbart happened to be in the same building and was asked by the press to answer questions about Weiner, from the very mics the Weiner was to use. Can’t get any better than that. Thank God for watchdogs like Breitbart, who are willing to investigate…

Posted by: Mike at June 7, 2011 9:09 AM
Comment #324114

SD, I believe this is the briefest answer you have ever given. I believe you are dumbfounded on this one. You can’t defend this pervert, so you stick to your attacks on Breitbart. Breitbart’s record is not on trial here; by your own statement he was right on his investigation of the weiner. Ye, you can’t bring yourself to apologizing to Breitbart for you previous post of accusations. Until you can write fairly, your posts mean nothing. What you did was perpetuate a lie that had spread through the ranks of the liberal bloggers and press. I have said many times that SD’s posts are simply the rehash of liberal talking points, and I believe I have been vindicated in this one.

Even after 2 1/2 years, when the questions of a poor economy are brought up to Obama and his admin, the answer is always to blame the previous president; and now we find the left doing the same thing is the case of the weiner. There is a pattern of blaming taking place. You say weenie was wrong, BUT it is Breitbart’s fault for finding out the truth. Stephen, the more I read your crap, the less respect I have for you and it can’t get much lower. You defend the indefensible; weenie couldn’t answer whether these women were 12 years old or 50 years old. For all he knew, he was sending crotch pics of himself to fudgepackers in SF, CA.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 7, 2011 9:23 AM
Comment #324116

Stephen, This isn’t about Breitbart, It’s about Weiner. Don’t blame someone else for the stupidity of one of your own.

Posted by: KAP at June 7, 2011 11:19 AM
Comment #324117


Stephen, you make an excellent point about facts vs innuendo, but the facts are out and by today’s standards, this guy is a pervert and needs to go. Thirty years from now, what Weiner did may be considered blase, but this isn’t thirty years from now.

By all accounts, Larry Craig represented the conservatives of Idaho quite well, but he had to be a liar and a hypocrite (a closet queen) about his homosexuality to have the opportunity to serve those conservatives. His homosexuality labeled him as an inferior, not the equal of those he served.

Weiner has forfeited his ability to serve his constituents. He either resigns or he becomes a poster boy for the Breitbart’s.

The time for Weiner to fess up was when he was running for office, by the way folks, I like to send crotch shots and sexually explicit messages to women on Facebook. He embarrassed himself, the Democratic party, and most of all, he embarrassed and humiliated his constituents.

Getting rid of the deviants allows the rest of Congress to pretend that they are moral.

Posted by: jlw at June 7, 2011 12:39 PM
Comment #324118

KAP-
I missed the part where I blamed Breitbart for Weiner’s misconduct. That wasn’t Breitbart’s schlong doing his thinking for him in that twitter pic.

Similarly, it Wasn’t the Congressman’s little soldier who led Breitbart to make fundamental errors in this stories and stories before.

Let me make this clear: Weiner will suffer the consequences of his actions, as he deserves to. Why not Breitbart, too, if he’s acted incorrectly? I don’t want people to forget what kind of a person Breitbart is, or give him credibility his track record doesn’t merit. I don’t want a double standard in either direction.

If you are as sincere as you say you are about the notion that both sides are equally bad, why not recognize that Breitbart has his own share of sins to account for, even as you would the Congressman’s against him?

If you feel my partisan sentiments are all that supports this, feel free to look up all the articles showing what distortions the videos and claims he’s distributed are.

Gary St. Lawrence-
Golden boy?

Nothing like that. You think you’re less naive than me, but the reverse is actually true.

I defended him because he seemed to be a man under unfair, partisan attack, designed not merely to right any wrong he committed, but to tar and feather the causes he was attached to.

You just don’t see it, do you? Breitbart isn’t neutral. He didn’t report on this because it was uniquely newsworthy. He sought this out because he wanted to counter the damage from a Republican’s own fall from grace. Just as he sought out Shirley Sherrod’s video to punish the NAACP for suggesting the Tea Party was racist. Just as he sought out NPR to knee-cap the organization at a time where it was very vulnerable, and Planned Parenthood as well. Just as they attacked ACORN, in order to disparage the President.

This is about drumming up the support, often on false pretenses, for their political movement and its goals. If you can’t see that, if all you can see is the ****ing **** in the Congressman’s underwear, then you are the one who has been terribly naive.

Weiner made himself a victim of Breitbart. But that’s not true of most of Breitbart’s victims. Most were just people trying to do their jobs who found their names drug through the mud in the name of Breitbart’s political agenda, often with no better justification than a deceptive edit.

Wake up! This isn’t meant to malign just him. You and your policies are his targets just as much as Weiner was. Why do you think he calls his site “BigGovernment?” Weiner isn’t a golden boy. He’s simply Breitbart’s proxy for any Liberal who supported him, for Progressives everywhere. He’s a visible symbol, an example to be made to chill the discourse and stifle any countermovement to his own right-wing agenda.

So, as long as I believed I had the facts on my side, I fought him. Weiner really wasn’t the person I was fighting for. I was fighting for all the liberals who would suffer for the success of an unfair maligning of the Representative. I was fighting for the cause of good government, which he often fought for.

I was fighting for a media where facts, not conjecture, not rumor, not sensationalism, determined the quality of the story. Just because those bits of information can sometime be true, doesn’t mean we should give them the full credibility only solid fact can give. Breitbart propagandizes to realize his dreams of a politic agenda. He’s been doing it since the Clinton era.

If you want to be manipulated, if you want to help Breitbart pull his strategic media assaults, be my guest. I’m going to fight for something better than that.

mike-
If he broke the rules, he should be punished.

As for endangering the country, etc.?

David Vitter remains a US Senator despite his Baby Huey activities with prostitutes. If that is your party’s standard— well, it doesn’t get any more blackmailable than that. Really, mike, have you been following the news on your own people? After Clinton and all that salacious detail, nobody’s that shocked anymore. My biggest shock wasn’t the other stuff that got revealed, it was that the twitpic in question was real! And that was for technical reasons, actually.

Ah, but really. If it has affected his judgment at various times, it does need to be addressed, but I’m not going to buy your moral high dudgeon on this.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 7, 2011 1:06 PM
Comment #324119

jlw-
I’m not interested in prudery in the interest of maintaining hypocrisy. Why should we pretend that Weiner was any worse than many of the constituents he represents? Maybe they’ll reject him for his lies, and if they do so, I don’t really have an argument against them.

Conservativethinker-

I believe you are dumbfounded on this one.

Nope. I was just leaving for work. :-)

You assume so much about me. Here’s my simple philosophy-

1) Readers and commenters are free to challenge me on what I have written, and confront me on what I’ve gotten wrong. I prefer that, actually, to having some ideologue browbeat me in a vain attempt to have me declare myself in total error.

2) I actually prefer that kind of argument. I prefer arguments where there is at least a space of possibilities that contain a solution, where there are options that can be objectively examined and tested.

3) Breitbart won this round because he had facts on his side, and a witness who was going to the press as well. There simply wasn’t another effective way to see it, and Weiner’s own admission made the plausible theory that my people followed a moot point. Yes, we reproduced the result, but admittedly, many of us missed the obvious option.

4) I’m not naive, though, about where you’re going with all this, and I’m not that interested in leaving myself utterly vulnerable to you, especially when I don’t think, like you do, that I was wrong on everything.

5) Your style of commenting and Breitbart’s represent a failing approach to politics. Ideology cannot drive things forever. Look at the Birthers, and look at the folks who pushed the yFrog exploit explanation. We could suppose that Weiner got Blackmailed into making the admission, and then run this thing on forever, but that’d just be pathetic.

I’m proud enough to admit error. My politics do not distort my judgment to such a degree that I’m willing to tolerate that level of discrediting error.

Weiner will suffer for what he did. I don’t feel like piling on, though.

I feel that at this point, our nation’s biggest problem is not the erection straining at the Congressman’s underpants. Take your pick: a slowing economy, a debt ceiling that’s putting a strain on our nation’s full faith and credit, incredible disasters, heat waves, global warming…

There are more important things to discuss, and we should discuss them if we want a country worth living in.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 7, 2011 1:22 PM
Comment #324120

Stephen, Your the one who keeps bringing up Breitbart, and your the one attacking him because he found out your boy is a pervert. It wasn’t Breitbart sending those pictures, I admit he blew it on the Sherrod thing but he was dead on, on this one. Stephen I don’t care what party a person represents if he acts like a pervert he needs to go, and if the people of the district he/she represents, or state in the case of senators, wants to keep the SOB then they get what they deserve. IMO both parties have their share of pervs and it’s time to get rid of the lot.

Posted by: KAP at June 7, 2011 1:29 PM
Comment #324121

Weiner lied to the news reporters which happens nearly every day by many politicians. Bill Clinton lied under oath, which doesn’t happen every day, and was impeached.

Personally, I would like to see Weiner resign. Bob Beckel, a democrat spokesman I really like, suggested that since NY must eliminate two congressional districts because of the census that they eliminate Weiner’s district. I like his logical thinking.

http://www.newsday.com/news/new-york/new-york-growth-ebbs-to-lose-2-seats-in-congress-1.2557518

We expect our elected representatives to exercise caution in their personal behavior. Scandalous behavior, if known by those who would use it for nefarious reasons, could use blackmail to buy the representatives vote. In that manner, such behavior represents a threat to the entire nation.

The suggestion that our elected representatives private lives is none of our business is simply wrong. We don’t need to be in their bedrooms or baths, but…if such behavior could affect how they do their job, then it is our business.

The mainstream media doesn’t do a very good job of investigative reporting today as compared to the past. It may be that the mainstream media has been in bed too long with those they are charged with watching. In any event, I welcome reporting by those outside the mainstream while acknowledging that they may as often be right as wrong and may have an agenda beyond reporting the truth. But, isn’t that also true of our mainstream media?

SD would like us to believe that his comments are fact-filled. Really? From where does he get his facts that are the unvarnished truth? Unless he assembles his facts from scratch, he is relying upon someone other than himself. And, if that is true, he is just as likely to be wrong as right.

I read many government reports. Some are factual and many are not. We see government figures being updated, revised, and changed with some regular frequency. So, merely because one cites a government report doesn’t necessarily make it a fact.

I prefer to gather information from many different sources, sift that information through my brain, and reach logical conclusions. I am not always right…no one ever is…but I much prefer my method to one that assumes something they read is fact.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 7, 2011 2:03 PM
Comment #324122

What the weenie did is inexcusable. We all know that.

What Charlie Rangle did is inexcusable. We all know that.

Charlie is still in congress. The weenie will have ketchup, mustard and relish on his buns(pun intended)and keep his job.

How pathetic and immoral our congress is.

Those of course are only two examples. There are another couple of hundred. And the majority of the members of congress are lawyers. How is that for an All-American Criminal Team. All-Stars at passing laws that allow them to be criminals away from the halls of congress, but while pretending to be servants of the people carry the weaponry to destroy their masters.

It is way past the time for Americans to educate themselves about who is in congress and why they should go or stay. Then get active to do the right thing.

Posted by: tom humes at June 7, 2011 2:07 PM
Comment #324124

KAP-
I’m less concerned with people who have wierd sex lives, and more concerned with those who are endangering this nation’s currency and ability to borrow.

Royal Flush-

Bob Beckel, a democrat spokesman I really like, suggested that since NY must eliminate two congressional districts because of the census that they eliminate Weiner’s district. I like his logical thinking.

So, your solution to the problem of a legislator who embarrasses himself in a sex scandal is to punish his constituents by taking their district away.

Me, I think Anthony should suffer for what he’s done, not his constituents. In fact, it should be his constituents who have the chance to forgive him or cast him out.

As for private lives? You know, this would be less of a problem if Republicans stopped trying to socially engineer the fifties back into existence, and just accept that the country has moved on from the old Victorian/Edwardian mores.

Or, put another way, privatize morality and religion! It works for the best, anyways, because our civil liberties more or less prevent people from getting too intrusive anyways. Stop employing government for a purpose that it’s ill-equipped to handle anyways.

There are obvious limits, of course, consenting adults and all that, but beyond that, we don’t need government in the bedroom.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 7, 2011 2:32 PM
Comment #324126

Stephen, those perverts already have endangered our currency and ability to borrow so your statement is foolish to say the least. W#e have printed more money which has devalued our dollar and our credit rating is in danger.

Posted by: KAP at June 7, 2011 2:49 PM
Comment #324127

SD wrote; “So, your solution to the problem of a legislator who embarrasses himself in a sex scandal is to punish his constituents by taking their district away.”

Typical “fact” ignoring. NY state is losing two congressional districts. Regardless of whose district is eliminated, voters will still have a representative. The “fact” is SD, two congressional representatives in NY state will be eliminated.

And again, Mr. “Facts”, in his comments, can’t seem to wrap his brain around a situation where an elected representative’s personal life could be used to subvert his/her vote. And, in such an event, affect the entire nation.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 7, 2011 2:53 PM
Comment #324128

RF

new york is controlled by democrats. there’s no doubt they will try to absorb 2 republican districts into multiple dem districts to dilute them. IMO there’s an ice cubes chance in hell weiners district will be cut. his is solid red, they’ll just force him out, and replace him in a special election.

Posted by: dbs at June 7, 2011 3:14 PM
Comment #324129

“W#e have printed more money which has devalued our dollar and our credit rating is in danger.”

Our credit rating is in danger if we don’t raise the debt limit. On that point the credit rating agencies are clear.

We also haven’t printed more money. The Federal Reserve swapped federal reserve notes for existing treasury bonds in the private sector. A ten billion dollar existing bond was essentially exchanged for cash. Sort of like a company calling in its outstanding bonds from holders for the cash value. No net change in assets. The idea was that assets tied up in treasury bonds would be invested in more risky assets by the private sector inflating those asset values. The result was a surge of money into commodities and stocks with the intended result of inflating those markets.

Posted by: Rich at June 7, 2011 3:49 PM
Comment #324131

The result was a surge of money into commodities and stocks with the intended result of inflating those markets. A ten billion dollar existing bond was essentially exchanged for cash.

Posted by: Rich at June 7, 2011 03:49 PM

A “surge of money” implies what…printed money. Bonds exchanged for “cash”…printed money.

Who is authorized to print and distribute money Rich? And, isn’t an excess of printed money many times a cause for inflation? More dollars chasing existing goods and services is inflation.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 7, 2011 4:06 PM
Comment #324132

Rich writes; “Our credit rating is in danger if we don’t raise the debt limit. On that point the credit rating agencies are clear.”

That is obviously a false statement. Our credit rating is in danger of being lowered by the rating agencies only if they determine a greater likelihood of the US defaulting on its debt obligations. Raising the debt limit is one way and reducing spending is another. Either way provides money for paying debt.

It is likely that rating agencies are more impressed with countries living within their means than by countries continuing to increase their national debt. They and most of us know that at some point, there is a limit to borrowing and printing money.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 7, 2011 4:25 PM
Comment #324133

Royal Flush said:

“SD would like us to believe that his comments are fact-filled. Really? From where does he get his facts that are the unvarnished truth? Unless he assembles his facts from scratch, he is relying upon someone other than himself. And, if that is true, he is just as likely to be wrong as right.”

Stephen’s original post attacking Breitbart had no facts in it. It was all make believe liberal talking points. I believe Stephen owes everyone on WB an apology for posting lies…

SD says:

“KAP-
I’m less concerned with people who have wierd sex lives, and more concerned with those who are endangering this nation’s currency and ability to borrow.”

Certainly Stephen, let’s try to get back to the liberal talking points; sorry old boy, but as long as weenie is in the news it will never happen. This is why the dems will throw him under the bus…

“Royal Flush-
Bob Beckel, a democrat spokesman I really like, suggested that since NY must eliminate two congressional districts because of the census that they eliminate Weiner’s district. I like his logical thinking.

So, your solution to the problem of a legislator who embarrasses himself in a sex scandal is to punish his constituents by taking their district away.”

Hey, Bob Beckel is a dem, and this was a dem idea to do away with weenie’s district.

“Me, I think Anthony should suffer for what he’s done, not his constituents. In fact, it should be his constituents who have the chance to forgive him or cast him out.”

Well, all the weiner has to do is resign and he will be respecting his constituents and saving his district.

“As for private lives? You know, this would be less of a problem if Republicans stopped trying to socially engineer the fifties back into existence, and just accept that the country has moved on from the old Victorian/Edwardian mores.”

So Stephen, are we back to blaming the republicans for the problems of weenie?

“Or, put another way, privatize morality and religion! It works for the best, anyways, because our civil liberties more or less prevent people from getting too intrusive anyways. Stop employing government for a purpose that it’s ill-equipped to handle anyways.”

Sorry Stephen, when you work for the public; your life becomes public.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 7, 2011 5:05 PM
Comment #324134

Royal Flush-
Forgive me. I considered a sex scandal a petty cause for changing the representation of hundred of thousands of New Yorkers who had no part in his foolishness. I was dumb enough to think that it might be better to use considerations like whether his district represented a cohesive community, and allowed sufficient representation to minorities and other groups to make sure they had a voice in congress.

Really, I should debase all criteria I consider to the service of your political goals, including the destruction of political enemies of the right.

As for inflation, core inflation is crap. There isn’t enough economic activity to spur inflation. The only thing driving real price inflation in food or fuel are the high gas prices, and that sir is a direct result of the Republican energy policies, which they haven’t been polite enough to stop filibustering changes to.

That is obviously a false statement. Our credit rating is in danger of being lowered by the rating agencies only if they determine a greater likelihood of the US defaulting on its debt obligations. Raising the debt limit is one way and reducing spending is another. Either way provides money for paying debt.

Well, if we reduce spending by that amount, there goes a significant percentage of the GDP.

Technical term for a long term drop in GDP is a recession.

Continuing to authorize the Treasury to finance the debt prevents a recession altogether.

There’s no contest here: raise the debt ceiling.

It is likely that rating agencies are more impressed with countries living within their means than by countries continuing to increase their national debt. They and most of us know that at some point, there is a limit to borrowing and printing money.

Credit works not necessarily on how much debt you have, but the likelihood of you repaying. Until now, nobody’s even thought of provoking a deliberate default, or attempting to go cold turkey on deficit spending.

And with good reason. Economies don’t behave linearly when they accelerate or slow down too fast. We lost maybe six points of GDP in one quarter, and we’re still feeling and looking like we got the **** kicked out of us.

This, one way or another, the way you’re willing to play it, will be even worse.

You pose a theory that says that this money will be compensated for by an explosion of economic activity, but you’ll probably only have Reagan’s first term to point to, and that is confounded by the fact that we eased interest rates at that point, increasing the ability of people to borrow money cheaply.

Care to point out where we have room on the interests rates to go further down?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 7, 2011 5:40 PM
Comment #324136

SD,

Just admit that you were wrong and move on. There are far bigger fish to fry than the people who obsesses over the Weiner hoopla. This is an issue for New York’s 9th congressional district and Rep Weiner to sort out on their own. Pelosi is correct to ask for an investigation to make certain that government resources weren’t used. Obviously, David Vitter and Mark Sanford have gotten away with transgressions which were far worse, so I don’t know how this will turn out.

Everyone,
Let’s drop this issue and move on to the real issues, the economy, the deficit, our troops overseas, energy policy, etc.

Posted by: Warped Reality at June 7, 2011 5:50 PM
Comment #324137

Conservativethinker-
I believe you owe me an apology for calling me a liar, among other things. You don’t get to define the other sides rhetorical points as lies, simply based on your personal opinion.

To answer Royal Flush’s argument, who here doesn’t get their political information secondhand? How does he get his information, insight granted from the hand of God?

No, he reads his stuff from somebody else, just like everybody else here.

Certainly Stephen, let’s try to get back to the liberal talking points; sorry old boy, but as long as weenie is in the news it will never happen. This is why the dems will throw him under the bus…

Contempt for the opinion of others does not constitute an victory of your claims over there.

Apparently, it’s worthless to try and make deals with Republicans these days. We agreed to spend such and such an amount of money back in March or April. That spending is what has us bumping up against the debt limit, and now you want to re-negotiate the budget once again. Or… Or what?

Or you take us over the cliff into sovereign default. If it wasn’t real, the threat wouldn’t matter. Gee, please tell me, if we, say, put this off until November 2012, what will that do to the economy?

If nothing else, can you answer that? It doesn’t seem like you want to do much else but spout rhetoric which can’t be tested by real world policy results.

Simple thing: can America default on its debts, not pay people back on time, and maintain low rates for borrowing, the value of its currency, and still maintain a growing economy?

I find it monstrous that a political party of people sworn to the duty of upholding the constitution would even consider this. I mean, it would be one thing to put the President’s favorite programs on the chopping block, and extract concessions that way, because if you do go through with the threat, the damage is limited to the country as a whole.

Instead, you’re putting the whole economy in danger. This is like holding people hostage by wearing a ****ing suicide bomber vest. You think people will just overlook the role Republicans played in this debacle? You think it will just slip their mind?

The GOP’s gone nuts. It’s gotten cabin fever by dwelling too long in a place where only the opinion of those on the far right mattered.

It’s time to stop thinking about yourselves, and put the country first for once.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 7, 2011 6:08 PM
Comment #324138

SD writes; “I was dumb enough to think that it might be better to use considerations like whether his district represented a cohesive community, and allowed sufficient representation to minorities and other groups to make sure they had a voice in congress.”

Agreed about the “dumb”. They will still have representation donchathink?

SD writes; “As for inflation, core inflation is crap. There isn’t enough economic activity to spur inflation.”

Some folks will never get it…or at least admit that they do. Printing more money is causing our money to devalue. Oil and most commodities are priced in dollars. It takes more of our dollars to purchase commodities. If not inflation, what then? Perhaps SD never purchases commodities and doesn’t know about price increases. Perhaps he just lives in a bubble being fed info that agrees with his theories.

SD writes; “We lost maybe six points of GDP in one quarter, and we’re still feeling and looking like we got the **** kicked out of us.”

Yup…and you still think the Irishman o’bama is a great leader?

SD writes; “You pose a theory that says that this money will be compensated for by an explosion of economic activity…”

Really? Cite the “pose” you refer to please. We were talking about only two avenues of avoiding a credit rating drop…increase debt limit or reduce spending to pay government obligations. Since you can’t factually or logically deny that, you simply change the subject. You are a very poor debater and even worse in picking horses to back.


Posted by: Royal Flush at June 7, 2011 6:09 PM
Comment #324142

stephen

“There isn’t enough economic activity to spur inflation.””

are you kidding? do you get out at all? it’s already happening in a big way. all you have to do is go out and be a consumer, and see things have increased drasticly in price. consumer goods, groceries, gasoline, gold, corn, coffee. you name it it is increasing in price, all while the value of the dollar drops.

do you still live at home or something, because that’s the only way you could not see what is happening.
obamanomics = disaster. gasoline has increased more than a dollar a gallon in 8 months. this is all being driven predominately by the devaluation of the dollar.

Posted by: dbs at June 7, 2011 8:29 PM
Comment #324144

“Everyone,
Let’s drop this issue and move on to the real issues, the economy, the deficit, our troops overseas, energy policy, etc.”

Posted by: Warped Reality at June 7, 2011 05:50 PM

But Warped, it was SD who not only wrote one post condemning Breitbart for false reporting and denying the weiner’s perversion; but also had to write a second post condemning Breitbart for reporting the truth and at the same time defending the weiner. Yes, I said defending.

Warped, I doubt that even your appeal will cause SD to apologize for his falsehoods.

SD said:

“Conservativethinker-
I believe you owe me an apology for calling me a liar, among other things. You don’t get to define the other sides rhetorical points as lies, simply based on your personal opinion.”

Stephen, only a socialist liberal could defend false material as not being a lie. Everything you said in your first post, concerning the weiner and Breitbart was a falsehood. If I am wrong, then I pray you tell me where?

I might add Stephen; your cries of wolf are getting old. This country WILL NOT default if the debt ceiling is not raised. This is another lie perpetuated by the liberal socialist talking points. To the left, everything is a crisis.

“Certainly Stephen, let’s try to get back to the liberal talking points; sorry old boy, but as long as weenie is in the news it will never happen. This is why the dems will throw him under the bus…
Contempt for the opinion of others does not constitute an victory of your claims over there.”

Is that true Stephen?

“WASHINGTON — Fellow Democrats pointedly refused to defend Rep. Anthony Weiner on Tuesday, telegraphing an unmistakable eagerness for him to resign after he admitted sending a lewd photo of himself to a woman via Twitter and lying about it…In fact, there is little that party leaders can do to force an errant lawmaker to quit, although House Republicans have moved decisively in the past year to purge their ranks of two men who wound up in embarrassing situations.
Most Democrats maintained an uncomfortable silence about Weiner’s future, part of what several senior congressional officials described as a hope that over a few days, Weiner would reconsider his refusal to resign. If not, several noted pointedly, his district might be eliminated when lines are adjusted before the 2012 elections to account for a population shift that will cost New York two House seats.
But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid broke the silence.
“I wish there were some way that I can defend him, but I can’t,” the Nevada Democrat told reporters. Asked what he would do if Weiner called for advice, he replied he would tell him “call somebody else.”

http://www.rr.com/news/topic/article/rr/9001/43106994/Democrats_decline_to_defend_Weiner_after_scandal

“It’s time to stop thinking about yourselves, and put the country first for once.”

I don’t guess the dems are putting themselves first by throwing the weenie under the bus, do you? Or perhaps they are CYA for the 2012 elections…

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 7, 2011 8:55 PM
Comment #324145

Royal Flush-
There can be other causes for rising prices.

This is not a simple matter of a supply being offered to meet a demand. Folks are playing games.

Rather than being short on oil, it seems like we’ve got too much accumulating in the market that’s being deliberately held off the market.

I keep my eyes and my ears open.

SD writes; “We lost maybe six points of GDP in one quarter, and we’re still feeling and looking like we got the **** kicked out of us.”

Yup…and you still think the Irishman o’bama is a great leader?

He’s Irish now? You were telling me he was Kenyan the other day. Make up your mind.

Seriously, though, are you aware that I was referring to Fourth Quarter 2008? Obama wasn’t even elected until a third of the way through that quarter, inaugurated until a third of the way through the next quarter, with the stimulus passed about halfway through.

So why is he getting the blame for the 6.1% drop? Did Obama invent the time machine?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 7, 2011 9:12 PM
Comment #324147

Warped

“Let’s drop this issue and move on to the real issues, the economy, the deficit, our troops overseas, energy policy, etc.”

I figure Obama supporters would want to stay away from these subjects. It must be painful for Obama folks to have their hopes so cruelly crushed by the reality of the weak economy and the even weaker Democratic leadership.

Posted by: C&J at June 7, 2011 9:25 PM
Comment #324148

Stephen

You are again falling into that moral relativism when you say, “Weiner obviously failed, and he indulged impulses the rest of us would be too scared to indulge in our own circumstances.” No. I don’t do this because I don’t want to and don’t think it is right. I am not just scared not to.

You are right that we are all sinners. But some are worse than others.

I will repeat again that what the little creep did was his own business. But when he lied about it and made the serious charge that his (a congressman’s) computer had been hacked, it became the public’s business.

Posted by: C&J at June 7, 2011 9:34 PM
Comment #324150

Conservativethinker-
Okay, I say that he is guilty of what he was accused of, and which he has now confessed to.

But you say, I’m a defender.

I say that he should suffer the consequences of his actions, in terms of congressional disciplinary and ethics proceedings, and in terms of possibly losing the election if his support drops low enough for that to happen.

But you say, I’m a defender.

I agree with actions taken by Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats to punish him politically, and investigate him for misconduct.

And you tell me, as you accuse me of being a defender that I’m throwing him under the BUS!

Is it just me, or are you simply throwing whatever argument or insult that comes to your mind, and simply sorting out the relative inconsistencies later?

This is what makes arguing with you frustrating. Like the Republican media in general, the point of what you say is not to offer consistent critique or analysis, but pervasive negativity, regardless of what facts you have to contradict, or whether you step on your own arguments in the rush to throw everything at the wall.

Stephen, only a socialist liberal could defend false material as not being a lie. Everything you said in your first post, concerning the weiner and Breitbart was a falsehood. If I am wrong, then I pray you tell me where?

You really like to make these broad claims. Everything was a lie!

Well, no, it wasn’t. The exploit was real, and prompted the people at yFrog to discontinue the service. So that was true. Also true is that Breitbart is being sued for defamation, among other things, by ACORN employees and by Shirley Sherrod in particular, who was in fact vindicated of the charge of racism that came with Breitbarts report on her. You accuse me of being the boy who cried Wolf, but I can document for you a whole series of discrepancies and outright dishonesties that showed up in vidoes that Breitbart distributed.

Good journalists are supposed to be careful about what they release, because only truth is a defense for libel. If you say, show somebody jovial at the prospect of somebody spreading sharia law, That had better not be a clever edit instead of an actual response.

Such deceptive editing showed up in other videos Breitbart released. Ah, but didn’t they release the whole video after that?

You know, that’s sort of like closing the barn door after the cows have gotten out. When you edit a video, the shots together give people a sense of things. If that sense of things is misleading at the start, if you hype up the whole thing, and then post that particular video, then really, you are sending the message you intended to send right there, and anything afterwards is simply covering your but.

There is a such thing as editing down for length, for clarity, and for salience. But the point would be to preserve the gist of what they were saying, and all too many times, the gist not only wasn’t preserved, but was distorted, even cut out entirely from the original, and likely most watched video document.

So, I distrusted Breitbart based on a provable set of previous falsehoods, including the Shirley Sherrod case, where the part of her speech that exonerated her was cut out.

I was wrong about Representative Weiner. I make no bones about that. But I had good reason to believe that any time Breitbart stirred up a controversy, a good part of it was likely false. In fact, perhaps the most crucial part. I did not want to be Breitbart’s fool, and I still don’t.

So, that’s why he’s not getting an apology from me, because he has, in the past either recklessly disregard the truth, or actively concealed it.

I take comfort, though, in his lack of humility. Like Weiner who just thought himself too powerful, too clever to to get caught, Breitbart probably thinks right now that he can get away with anything.

Nobody can. And now, he has higher to fall from.

C&J-
No, I’m not being morally relativistic, just realistic. There are many people who don’t do things because they think they’ll get caught, or turned down. People with power and money learn that they get turned down less, and thus do things ordinary people wouldn’t.

But of course, there are people who are not so corruptible by power, who resist such temptations, and do the right thing anyways.

I think there are certain times and ways where we don’t simply follow the lead of our instincts, where our rational mind properly developed, helps us keep our behavior in check. Yes, we are all sinners, but some of us learn to be better than our natures.

But really, you got to sit down at some point and think about it, not just rush on with assumptions.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 7, 2011 9:59 PM
Comment #324152

Stephen

I saw on TV today that Koss instructed everybody to try to make this about Breitbart instead of little Weiner. Did you get that memo?

Re doing things just cuz you won’t get caught - Some things are not really wrong. For example, I would probably speed on the road if I didn’t fear getting caught.

Other things are wrong. Even if I thought I could get away with it, I would not cheat on my wife or betray friends, or if I did I would understand that it was wrong, whether or not I got caught. It is not in my “instinct.”

Still other things are pruriently silly. I would just not do them. Weiner’s act was like that. He shows a seriously flawed character.

Your defense of the man is misguided. He has shown himself to be a little creep with “issues”. I don’t think we need to attack him, but we can never trust his judgment again. Who is stupid enough to do such things? Since he obviously is not stupid, he must have monumental self-control/judgment problems.

So what exactly are you defending? Do you not think he is what we all see? Do you still think he was “set up”?

From the Republican point of view, I think it is a good thing for Weiner to hang around. Every time he shows up, no matter what the subject, everybody will think “weiner”. The Democrats will be unable to bring up any serious subject with Weiner showing himself.

Posted by: C&J at June 7, 2011 10:46 PM
Comment #324165

I thought he was the victim of a hacker, too. I was completely wrong.

What Weiner did was completely stupid. The fact that he lied and tried to cover it up is what REALLY pisses me off. All he had to do was own it in the beginning. “Yes, I sent it. I’m an idiot. I’m sorry. Now I have to apologize to who I really hurt - my wife.” Had he done this last week, I’m pretty sure it would have blown over by now.

But he didn’t. He lied and tried to keep it all under wraps. He might not have a choice whether or not to resign. It depends on the outcome of the ethics investigation. He deserves whatever is coming to him.

It’s a damn shame too. He really was a great progressive. Now, all he will be remembered for is the guy who Tweeted is weiner.

Posted by: Spinny Liberal at June 8, 2011 1:34 AM
Comment #324168

Stephen said:

“Conservativethinker-
Okay, I say that he is guilty of what he was accused of, and which he has now confessed to.
But you say, I’m a defender.
I say that he should suffer the consequences of his actions, in terms of congressional disciplinary and ethics proceedings, and in terms of possibly losing the election if his support drops low enough for that to happen.
But you say, I’m a defender.
I agree with actions taken by Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats to punish him politically, and investigate him for misconduct.
And you tell me, as you accuse me of being a defender that I’m throwing him under the BUS!”

Stephen, what I said was that democrat politicians are throwing the weenie under the bus and only to protect their agenda; but you continue to defend him, even though you say what he did was wrong. I suspect you think it is wrong, only because he was caught.

I say you are defending him just as C&J has made the same case that you are defending him in comments #324148 and #324152.

Spiney Liberal said:

“I thought he was the victim of a hacker, too. I was completely wrong.

What Weiner did was completely stupid. The fact that he lied and tried to cover it up is what REALLY pisses me off. All he had to do was own it in the beginning. “Yes, I sent it. I’m an idiot. I’m sorry. Now I have to apologize to who I really hurt - my wife.” Had he done this last week, I’m pretty sure it would have blown over by now.

But he didn’t. He lied and tried to keep it all under wraps. He might not have a choice whether or not to resign. It depends on the outcome of the ethics investigation. He deserves whatever is coming to him.

It’s a damn shame too. He really was a great progressive. Now, all he will be remembered for is the guy who Tweeted is weiner.”
Posted by: Spinny Liberal at June 8, 2011 01:34 AM

Why would you think he was the victim of a hacker? It didn’t a brain surgeon to question why he would not file a case with the FBI (it turns out that it would be a crime to file a false criminal report), or the fact that he would not deny the perv pictures were of him (why would he have perv pics of himself on his phone of computer).

He tried to keep it under wraps because he thought he could. It is the old liberal ideology that the rules are for everyone else, but not for me.

Yes he was a great progressive; in fact he was the epitome of a progressive: the rules are for everyone else and not me, I will always have the MSM to CMA, and of course we can’t forget the arrogance factor (he is possible the most arrogant SOB that ever held a seat in the House). “Be sure your sins will find you out”. I personally love to see the embarrassment and fall of this arrogant little bastard. He is worthy of whatever evil that befalls him. The only shame is that he would still be doing the same thing, if he hadn’t been caught. His humble confession and tears is only that he got caught.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 8, 2011 8:01 AM
Comment #324174


“what I said was that Democratic politicians are throwing the weenie under the bus”

“It is the old liberal ideology that the rules are for everyone else”

No contradiction there.

Hi, I’m David Vitters and I am a whore monger, so vote for me conservatives, especially you evangelical conservatives.
They did. A doubly saved whore monger is better than liberal any day of the week.

Congressional polling shows that the people have little respect for the politicians of either party and we could do something about that if not for the partisans.

Posted by: jlw at June 8, 2011 10:48 AM
Comment #324177

Why would you think he was the victim of a hacker?

The vulnerability of yFrog. I am not a technical person, but I read blogs that said it’s possible. And yes, they were liberal blogs.

It is the old liberal ideology that the rules are for everyone else, but not for me.

No party owns that. It’s obviously been done before by both sides.

The only shame is that he would still be doing the same thing, if he hadn’t been caught.

I agree that he would still be doing it. It’s not the only shame. He lied and let a lot of people down. That is shameful.

Posted by: Spinny Liberal at June 8, 2011 11:11 AM
Comment #324191

C&J-
There wasn’t a memo. Let an actual Kossack explain.

First, let’s remember that Daily Kos is a community site, so that means that many people are posting ideas about things. In times past, we had exposes on the deceptive edits, so many of us knew firsthand why Breitbart was not to be trusted.

So, when the first photo came up, it was pretty much community consensus that he was set up, and a lot of the evidence was convincing. You had the skeeviness of the sources themselves, one of whom moderated a porn forum, you had an actual yFrog exploit that demonstrated that his account could have been compromised from outside, and then you had details about what the sources did to harrass their targets beforehand.

I guess it would come under the heading of “We had a great theory, supported by plenty of facts, but some of the most crucial facts were wrong, and so the good theory was still an incorrect one.”

I think that’s something we have to learn, that there’s two sides to logic: the facts that support the conclusion and the inference that leads to it, and the inference that tries to explain the facts and draw the conclusion.

I mean, if you got a report about Romney from Dan Rather, you’d check the facts, wouldn’t you? You’d look for alternate explanations, wouldn’t you? And if it made enough sense, you’d probably find it more convincing than the theory that seems implausible.

But if the facts were different, especially if Romney came out and confirmed it, you’d either have to accept the facts, or indulge in Conspiracy Theory thinking to deny them.

I still think it’s right to refuse Breitbart the benefit of the doubt. I’ve seen too many examples of his dishonesty to take anything he claims at face value.

I don’t advocate people doing things simply because they won’t get caught. It doesn’t do much good for my party, now does it? Nor does it do good for others.

But our preference for self-motivated morality doesn’t mean that people necessarily exercise it. That’s why I don’t favor too much deference to the rich and the powerful, because sometimes the let their impulses, the instinct-motivated behavior, get out of control.

We cannot write laws or organize society according to the realities we would prefer, we must do them according to the realities that are.

That’s why I favor pushing Democrats who stray from the straight and narrow through the guantlet of accountability. But you know what? I don’t want the Democratic Party or the White House, or anybody else to Jump when Breitbart goes Ribbit. I want my people to take a deep breath, consider the merits, and then give those people a chance to defend themselves.

We reacted the way we did with Weiner because we did not want to make him another Shirley Sherrod, victim of a cruel technological hoax, victim of Breitbart’s ideological refusal to adhere to good journalistic standards. And although we’re on a weaker footing now after Weiner’s immolation, I’d recommend the same thing the next time, because I am simply not convinced that Breitbart, based on his past record, is not going to bend the truth to get what he wants.

And as before, I will look to the facts to see when it’s time to give up. I will not let him push us around, nor peddle myths that push us to destroy our own needlessly.

I’ve explicitly said that I no longer think Weiner was set up. I’d just say, though, that I wouldn’t put it past Breitbart to do that next time, like he did With Shirley Sherrod and others.

Conservativethinker-

Stephen, what I said was that democrat politicians are throwing the weenie under the bus and only to protect their agenda; but you continue to defend him, even though you say what he did was wrong. I suspect you think it is wrong, only because he was caught.

If he had confessed immediately, perhaps. But I think it was wrong for him to put the rest of us, who supported him in good faith, through the ordeal of fighting for him, only to end up having the rug pulled out from under us.

I personally don’t have any deep or abiding desire to post nude pictures of myself to the net (What is that voice on the breeze, a whole nation going “Thank God!”?) but if folks want to do it, it’s a free country. They just have to live with the consequences.

Weiner’s photo would have been a joke for a little while, but a lot of people on the left would have been less angry with him. I suspected he thought that nobody would have noticed, and he was wrong. He was caught.

You can say I’m defending him, but I think his actions were all around foolish, from posting the picture, to lying about it, and then to waiting for Breitbart to reveal the truth, rather than denying him his brutal, unquestionable smackdown of Weiner’s fake story.

What’s to defend? He lied to me, to everybody, put a lot of people and himself to shame, etc.

His best option at this point is to lie low and do good work, and hope that a career of good work matters more to people than the anger and distrust his stupidity generated.

And no, Breitbart’s not to blame for this. If Breitbart had been wrong, he would have been, because there would have been no controversy but for his posting of it.

But Weiner was at fault, so the controversy itself is his fault.

I thought you would have understood that as my position by now, but you’re too busy trying to argue that I think he was framed, when actually I think now that he shot his own damn self in the foot.

But I’m not going to be party to Breitbart’s attack on the next person, failing to give them the benefit of the doubt they deserve, merely because Weiner made himself a collossally easy target.

I’m also waiting for Breitbart to overstep his bounds, so I can have the satisfaction of seeing him brought down. It’s not entirely virtuous of me to to say so, but Breitbart’s behavior is so transparently arrogant, I can’t help myself. He’ll destroy himself before the end, if for no other reason that he cannot conceive of getting caught. I’ll bet he’s more like Weiner, in many ways, than he cares to admit.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 8, 2011 3:07 PM
Comment #324192

So Mr. Daugherty, are you willing to go on record and say the weenie should resign? That would really prove your disgust in him.

Don’t hold your breath on Breitbart screwing up and destroying his business. I surprised that a compassionate liberal would find joy in waiting for someone to fail…

I am also assuming Spinny Liberal would also like to see the weenie resign. Top democrats are beginning to call for Weiner’s resignation:

“Tim Kaine, who headed the Democratic National Committee and now is running for Senate in Virginia, said it’s time for Rep. Anthony Weiner to resign, according to new reports.

Kaine is the first top Democrat to call for the New York congressman to step aside after his sexting scandal.”

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/top_democrat_calls_for_weiner_to_ly5WgFJJfTMpozII4sVsMK?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME=

My question is, what other reason could democrats have for calling for the weenie to step down, if not for 2012 election problems.

I just watched Juan Williams, on Fox news, call for the weenie to step down. Republicans don’t have to do anything. They simply need to just set back and watch.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 8, 2011 3:32 PM
Comment #324195

SD writes; “I guess it would come under the heading of “We had a great theory, supported by plenty of facts, but some of the most crucial facts were wrong, and so the good theory was still an incorrect one.”

Finally…I understand what SD refers to as “facts” and I thank him for making it crystal clear.

There apparently are just plain “facts” and then there are “crucial facts”.

SD states that…”Facts” can be wrong! Wikipedia defines a “fact” as “A thing that is indisputably the case.”

From this point forward I will consider SD’s use of “facts” in an entirely new light. No longer will I incorrectly assume that his facts are indisputably the case. I will consider his “facts” to be nothing more than his current assumptions, subject to change, because they are not really facts at all.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 8, 2011 4:15 PM
Comment #324201

Stephen Daugherty’s facts are “Kyl facts.” They’re not intended to be accepted as factual statements.

Basically, the idea is “This is a fact (because it supports my agenda and opinion) even when it isn’t true.”

Posted by: Gary St. Lawrence at June 8, 2011 5:19 PM
Comment #324202

I am also assuming Spinny Liberal would also like to see the weenie resign.

Good assumption.

Posted by: Spinny Liberal at June 8, 2011 5:21 PM
Comment #324204

At Baylor I am sure they teach the difference between facts and non-facts. Some students have difficulty learning that concept. Yet, they still get a degree is something. Maybe that is why they call it a BS degree.

Posted by: tom humes at June 8, 2011 5:27 PM
Comment #324206

Conservativethinker-
I’m not committed one way or another. I would like to see him rehabilitate himself, but if he feels the pressure to resign is too high, I won’t begrudge him that.

The thing is, with society the way it is, with the changes that are already occuring, the mores of politics right now are unrealistic. I mean the Republican Senator from Massachussetts posed nude for a magazine, and the Republican Senator from Lousiana got away with sleeping with prostitutes and having them change his diapers.

The current generation is undoubtedly going to be filled with plenty of folks whose youthful indiscretions are going to fit in this category, so the question becomes, will people forever fall apart in hysterics over this?

I don’t think so. The desire to have society function will overcome people’s shock, and eventually, the media, especially the conservative media will make people sick of this being a big deal. I think this scandal has the advantage of novelty today, but beyond that, the half-life will be short.

I won’t call for his resignation. I don’t see the point. I think the Democrats who’re asking him to resign are entitled to their opinion, but personally, I think it makes us look like the biggest hypocrites in the world. We’re practically drenched in this sort of stuff, your free market pushes it on us at every turn, yet when it comes to the private lives of politicians, it just gets ridiculous, and the media acts like we’re two or three decades behind the times.

Let’s stop rolling out the fainting couches and admit the sexual revolution did happen, and people see sex, pornography and other things differently now.

Hell, lets admit that people really don’t function all that well in our society if their private lives are subject to such scrutiny, and that we really don’t get folks who are all that much moral for all the persecution. Instead, we get Republicans in the toe-tapping closet, the President impeached for a blowjob, and a Representative who may be forced out over private correspondence with a consenting adult who he never had sex with.

We’re getting the illusion of sexual morality, rather than the reality. Let’s just let the tabloids fill their spaces over this, and talk about the real important stuff, shall we?

Royal Flush-
So you’re telling me that you’re going to squirm out of anything I tell you, right?

Look, we found an alternate way through which it was possible for somebody else to post a picture to somebody’s twitterfeed. That was INDISPUTABLY THE CASE. Sorry for the capitals, but I don’t want you to get confused.

But even if that was indisputably the case, it didn’t require that the picture be posted by somebody else than him.

Or put another way, that such a thing was possible does not make it true. It only makes it more likely to be true, if we don’t have information that excludes it as a possibility.

Another possibility was that the twittered pic was a fake, but the other pictures, the one he sent to those women, weren’t.

Ah, but then we get Weiner confessing, and with his confession, we get two new facts, and barring some silly idea that he was coerced into taking the fall falsely, we have to take him at his word that 1) the picture was not faked, and 2) He did share pictures with those women.

So, any theory whose plausibility, whose possibility of being true depended on there not being a definite factual answer on Weiner’s guilt are knocked into the trash can.

The crucial fact, which remained uncertain until his confession, was whether he tweeted the pic or not. You could argue either way. Now, though, there is no such ambiguity. He did. End of argument, end of story, crucial fact in place, even the plausible theory and the factually correct mode of faking the picture out of the question now.

Do you get it? This is how I think. The facts permit and deny certain kinds of conclusions, make others more or less likely. I prefer to be more than just the guy with the good argument, but also the guy with the well founded one. That’s why I’m always nailing things down. Sometimes I nail things down wrong, though.

But look how fast I pivot. Why? Because I’m not counting on reality to always flatter what I believe to be true. The facts rule what is wrong and right, not my opinion, however dearly I hold them. For you, it’s the other way around. For you, your dogma tells you all you need to know about what the facts are, and the rest is just a distraction, a muddling of a clearer truth underneath.

I can admit that I couldn’t see what was right, and that is a gift. Those who think the truth is always within their grasp have to deal with the stress of trying to fit their square-peg imagination into the pigeonhole that reality is.

Gary St. Lawrence-
I’m just human. I try my best to rely on good facts and come to good conclusions. Everybody has their illusions. The illusion for many cynics is that they truly know things better than others. But they can be as deluded as anybody else.

I was wrong. I admitted it. I had a good theory, but facts emerged that made that theory irrelevant to the real world in this case. I accepted that immediately.

Immediately. You don’t see me constructing big conspiracy theories like some yahoos who thought the birth certificate was a fake anyways. You don’t see me analyzing video to see whether Weiner’s body language shows coercion.

No! Because I’ve heard what I needed to hear to resolve what was true, and what was not. Your criticism is bitter to me, because I do my best to make sure that conclusions like yours are erroneous. I don’t like situations like this, so I do my best to be better informed than the people I argue against. When they cite growth numbers, I go to the BEA and pull up the quarterly reports on GDP. When the talk about unemployment, I go to the BLS. When they make a claim, I google it, and I see whether they’re right, and who they’re getting their information is from.

I don’t rely on rhetoric to bear the load on everything. Rhetoric will tie you in knots if its all your argument’s about. I use facts because facts clarify things, take all the emotional BS out of the equation, all the feelings based mostly on what people want to be true.

tom humes-
Mine is a Bachelor of Arts. Yes, they teach us the difference between facts and non-facts. They also teach us that facts can be true or untrue, and that logic helps us determine that truth value more reliably.

You’re not dependent on facts. You simply run with whatever the day’s favorite slur against Democrats is. And your side has proceeded with such enormous self-confidence through its worst policy decade in several decades, if not forever. I don’t think its unconnected. I think you believe you don’t need to learn the truth. I think you believe you already know it. But nobody’s that fortunate, nobody’s that good. Everybody’s got to let the facts wear away at the bad arguments they have, before they open their mouths to make them, and when they don’t turn to have the facts right, they’ve got to let their old beliefs go.

It was a pain in the ass to admit what I did above, but I’m glad I did. I like being part of the reality-based community. I like having a tradition that allows me to adapt, rather than sentencing me to forever remain at odds with my reality. Keep on assuming you have the truth. Keep on assuming that until the truth overwhelms you and bring you to grief, if that is what you want to happen. I will have the peace of being able to change my mind to adapt to the real world.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 8, 2011 6:36 PM
Comment #324209

SD wrote; “the President impeached for a blowjob…” That is not a fact. The fact, and you can verify it nearly anywhere on the web, is that Clinton was impeached for lying under oath.

SD wrote; “Do you get it? This is how I think. The facts permit and deny certain kinds of conclusions, make others more or less likely.”

I get it now. SD is confusing “facts” with “information”. Facts are always true or they are not a fact. Information can be true, false, or somewhere in between.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 8, 2011 7:01 PM
Comment #324218

Royal Flush-
President Clinton was manuevered into a deposition in a case where a cavalcade of women were brought forward as witnesses about his sex life, at the same time that Kenneth Starr was pushing his investigation as to what was happening with Monica Lewinsky.

Strange, isn’t it? So much effort focused into discovering whether or not the President had sex with Monica Lewinsky on the Congressional side. Then this court case, kept alive by right-wing foundations, lawyered up by right-wing lawyers, and trying to establish a sexual history for the President, and then calling him to testify about one particular young woman, as part of this generalized fishing expedition that had little to do with the direct facts of what happened to Paula Jones.

Was getting a blowjob sexual relations, or something more minor? That was the question that meant the difference between purjury and truth. Even if he wasn’t impeached directly for the blowjob, he was most definite impeached because of it, because of what it meant.

And it meant so much because Republicans pounded the matter every night, made Clinton’s immorality the issue every night. Hell, it even got to the point where when he bombed Sudan because of suspected chemical weapons, or an al-Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan, he was accused of trying to distract from the Lewinsky Scandal.

And all this, while many of them carried on their own adulterous love affairs.

Yeah, they impeached him on account of a blowjob. The perjury charges were merely the barb on the hook they set into his jaw. If he hadn’t taken their bait, if he hadn’t gone after Monica Lewinsky, He’d have been better off, but President Clinton’s wrongs don’t redeem cynical political manuevering, blatant hypocrisy, and moralizing about sexual mores they violated, too.

People wonder why I don’t get too bent out of shape. Simple. I’ve read American history. I’ve read history, period. Great men, Good men, great teachers, have had other sides than just the politically correct, morally astute ones we’d like to think all great men had.

So, I care less about private lives, just so long as they make the public’s lives better. It’s a shame when these men fall short, when they don’t live all around good lives, but we should take a moment and look at ourselves before we start breaking out the torches and pitchforks. We’re just as fallible as they are, in no small part because they’re just like us.

SD wrote; “Do you get it? This is how I think. The facts permit and deny certain kinds of conclusions, make others more or less likely.”

I get it now. SD is confusing “facts” with “information”. Facts are always true or they are not a fact. Information can be true, false, or somewhere in between.

Facts, by necessity, are information.

We can argue about dictionary definitions, but my training puts things this way: facts in an argument are the verifiable information, the information you can put to the test. You hope, of course, that you have the facts right, that they represent a proper perception of the truth.

That’s why we have whole disciplines for verifying factual knowledge, for making sure it’s true. There can be true facts, and false facts, and uncertain facts.

THAT fact excuses nobody from seeking true facts to be the foundation of their arguments. But it also poses a problem for anybody trying to determine the reality of a situation. Some situations are just beyond easy provability. There we get into the land of opinion, hypothesis, where we either infer our way from the truest, most reliable facts we can find to discover other facts, facts that are hidden or represent truths that cannot be observed directly.

And there we get into our debates. The trouble is, the facts for some arguments, some opinions are just not transferable or generalizeable. Your taste in music might not appeal to your wife, your parents, or your family members, and the reasons why you like those things might just be too close to your individual experience to be easily argued for or against.

But other opinions are more verifiable, more testable. Say, a strategy for balancing the budget. Reagan tried to balance the budget while he issued big tax cuts, so did Bush. Both failed. We can argue other factors confounded them, but that, too, can be measured and verified to a certain extent.

Of course, real life has its wide variety of situations, and real people are a mess of different opinions and beliefs. Those always compete, and being social animals, people contend together.

Government is what people developed to deal with that. Whether it was a tribal elder that decided disputes, or a King who held court, the idea was to have somebody with the knowledge or wisdom to discern the truth and the proper response to it.

Of course, then you get into a problem of qualification, of self-determination. For centuries we had disputes over whether folks like us had the wherewithal to govern ourselves.

I believe that people, to be ultimately adaptable, must embrace critical thinking, and the examination of the facts, as best as they can find them. It won’t make them perfect, but it will make them harder to deceive, harder to sway with lame appeals that shouldn’t succeed.

I don’t believe in lying to people. What else is that than just preparing yourself to be distrusted and disbelieved?

You’ll probably do the predictable thing, and say that is exactly what happens, but I think people should discount that, because you more or less argue the character of the person arguing, rather than the facts at hand. You and Conservativethinker.

I take it as a challenge, to defeat emotional appeals and ad hominem BS with fact. But it doesn’t always mean I come out on top. Sometimes the blind squirrels find the nut, and the hour comes where the broken clock is right.

But I can’t always be right myself. The difference between you and I, is you think you’re already where you need to be. I don’t. You often believe the facts and truths are clear where I have no such belief. You’re waiting for the world to vindicate you. I’m not.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 8, 2011 9:52 PM
Comment #324227

SD

“You’re not dependent on facts. You simply run with whatever the day’s favorite slur against Democrats is.”

Such arrogance. You are so full of crap your eyes are brown.

You try to give the impression that you know me. You have no concept of me, physically, mentally, or spiritually. You do not know my values. You need a ton of humility.

You employed one of the most favorite Marxist ploys. Accuse the enemy of what you are guilty of and do it often enough to give it the appearance of truth.

All of what you printed above is so much snobbery and elitism. Telling myself and others we don’t know right from wrong. I’m sitting here typing and laughing at what a fool you are. You accept fiction and call it fact or truth. How long are you going to carry on this facade of having knowledge and knowing nothing. You are wise in your own conceit.

Posted by: tom humes at June 9, 2011 12:13 AM
Comment #324234

Rather than deal with the topic written in HIS post, Mr. Daugherty wants to change the topic. He is still trying to tell us that the attacks on Breitbart were good in theory, even though his good information was based upon incorrect facts. And for all the horror and shock he felt about the perverted little weenie, he now wants to justify the weenies actions as acceptable in today’s modern free sex society (I wonder if the weenie’s wife feels the same way). Then to top it off, no matter how much the weenie lied or placed America in jeopardy by his blackmailable actions, Mr. Daugherty still cannot bring himself to call for the weenie’s resignation, even though the democratic leadership is beginning to do it. If the weiner resigned, the Congress would lose and arrogant little bastard who has spent his whole life attacking conservatives; and this is exactly why Mr. Daugherty still defends the weenie.

Mr. Daugherty is no more than a defender of evil; if evil is used to attack American values, freedom, and the Constitution.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 9, 2011 8:36 AM
Comment #324238

Royal Flush-

“You’re not dependent on facts. You simply run with whatever the day’s favorite slur against Democrats is.”

Such arrogance. You are so full of crap your eyes are brown.

Temper, temper. Don’t let yourself get so angry you start making my points for me.

You try to give the impression that you know me. You have no concept of me, physically, mentally, or spiritually. You do not know my values. You need a ton of humility.

You write, and you communicate. If you don’t like the impression you’ve given me, then you should have started out more respectfully. If you want to be seen as a good person, translate your ordinary, everyday character into how you deal with people on this site.

You employed one of the most favorite Marxist ploys. Accuse the enemy of what you are guilty of and do it often enough to give it the appearance of truth.

Hmm. What was that point I was making about favorite slurs?

You’ve been caught up in a movement that is trying to fight back against a more liberalized economic policy by essentially painting anything that doesn’t satisfy its definition of free market economics as if it were practically communist. But it doesn’t work that way. The definition of capitalism is not that narrow, of communism not so broad.

And really, what party spent a decade making a deficit and the national debt worse, only to blame the whole problem on Democrats and liberals? Republicans are trying to project and scapegoat their failures onto us, but it’s an exercise in futility.

If your party doesn’t shape up, it carries the seeds of its failure with it, and even if you win, especially if you win, people will get the impression that it was no accident that the failures occured as they did. You can’t dump your sins on us forever, and still screw things up.

All of what you printed above is so much snobbery and elitism.

Wait… if you’re calling me a snob and an elitist, then you’re trying to make a socioeconomic distinction of some kind, trying to turn people against me.

Class warfare!!!!! Class Warfare!!!!!

Oh, dear. Am I accusing you of something you’re accusing me of? Or are you accusing me of something you’re doing yourself?

All this rhetoric just gets so confusing.

Telling myself and others we don’t know right from wrong.

Nobody knows that perfectly. We have to struggle to figure out what’s going on, and then struggle to figure out what the right way to handle things. And of course, with imperfect perceptions and imperfect solutions, everybody makes mistakes. The question is, do you mine those mistakes for meaning, or discount them as meaningless.

Do you learn from your mistakes, or just consider them flukes? I’m not suggesting you’re incapable of figuring things out. I’m suggesting you’re capable, but your movement encourages a certain failure to adapt, in the name of applying dearly held principles against all resistance.

You accept fiction and call it fact or truth. How long are you going to carry on this facade of having knowledge and knowing nothing. You are wise in your own conceit.

No, I don’t. Or at least I try not to. The challenge for people is sorting out what’s real and what’s a misinterpretation of what’s real. We have to have a certain feedback with the real world, a certain attention to the implications of what we believe that allows us to test what we believe, and then discard our faulty versions of the facts when they don’t measure up.

We can only approximate what we believe to the real world. The challenge is getting that approximation as close as possible to reality.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 9, 2011 12:13 PM
Comment #324239

Conservativethinker-
I have the benefit of being able to think and speak as a civilian and private citizen, so I don’t have to engage in the political manuevering they do in Washington. I think the Republican’s willingness to lock themselves so tightly to their folks’s political machinations is unfortunate. There is value in being clear-headed enough to remind Washington politicians of what is important.

If being confrontational with Republicans is evil… Well, what’s the point in getting trapped in this odd little world with you?

You expect me to acknowledge all you claim to be true, without even the benefit of a decent explanation.

Seriously, sex scandals aren’t what they used to be, and neither is your party. Your people had one right after another, and evidence indicated your folks continuously hid the infidelities and perversions on your side, until you got caught

And seriously, most Americans could care less. So what’s the value of blackmail? I mean, in this climate, if somebody threatened to reveal that a Democratic Senator or representative was gay, the person would probably take the opportunity to out themselves and call the police on them. Ah, but Republicans? They could be blackmailed.

If we held the politicians in Washington to the standards of civil society, if we were more mature about it, the blackmail potential would be zero. Folks get divorced nowadays, folks come out of the closet, and for the most part, the younger generations don’t give a ****.

As for this?

Mr. Daugherty is no more than a defender of evil; if evil is used to attack American values, freedom, and the Constitution.

You should write bad comic books for a living with those kinds of howlers. If your theory is that anybody who doesn’t agree with your vision is an enemy, a subversive, well then I, and whole mess of other people, are going to get cast as the bad guys.

But as your side gets ever more overheated, they’re ending up attacking each other. Your side’s not tolerating people who don’t toe the tea-party line, but many of the politicians who have the best chance and the best name recognition made their names as centrists, so they’re all having to pretend their something they’re not, rather than opening up the centrist market for conservatives.

So step out of comic book land, and start realizing that in America, people are free to disagree, and that doesn’t make them evil, your enemy, or unbelievers in what makes America great. Ironically, your insistence on such a manichean picture of politics is turning out to be your party’s undoing, weakening it even as it tries to recover.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 9, 2011 12:30 PM
Comment #324240

SD wrote; “Facts, by necessity, are information.

We can argue about dictionary definitions, but my training puts things this way: facts in an argument are the verifiable information, the information you can put to the test. You hope, of course, that you have the facts right, that they represent a proper perception of the truth.

That’s why we have whole disciplines for verifying factual knowledge, for making sure it’s true. There can be true facts, and false facts, and uncertain facts.”

Facts are information…true. Information is fact…not true.

By changing the definition of the word “fact” SD allows himself great latitude in his arguments. Since he believes that “facts” can be true, false, or uncertain, I will view his use of “facts” in the same manner, as simply information he prefers to use to support an argument.

When SD writes…”The fact is”…we should all know that what he is saying is actually, “The information I prefer to believe is”.

SD has accredited quotes in one of his comments above to me incorrectly. I wish he would be more careful.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 9, 2011 12:48 PM
Comment #324244

Royal Flush-
How come you’re always telling me how you’ll relativistically treat my facts from this point forward?

My process is to verify information presented as fact, to make sure it’s actually reliable information before acting on it.

In other words, your response is to muddled the debate on what the facts are to suit your point of view, while mine is to try and sharpen the perspective to ensure its correctness.

As for the quotations? I got the quote right, just not the formatting. I’ve gone and fixed it. I included your quote of my quote for the sake of context.

You can’t hide your logical sloppiness behind my occasional mistake, or your constant insistence on your opinion as truth. Your arguments will have to stand on their own two feet.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 9, 2011 2:01 PM
Comment #324246

SD asks; “How come you’re always telling me how you’ll relativistically treat my facts from this point forward?”

Simple, because some readers may not understand that you consider information you agree with to be fact. Since you have a proclivity of presenting information as fact, when I respond to your comments I want those who read what I write to know why I consider your facts as just information you accept as true.

When I present my opinion I state it as opinion. Your comments are rife with opinion presented as fact.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 9, 2011 2:20 PM
Comment #324253

RF

You have presented an argument to a deaf man. CT and I have done likewise.

Stephen has his dictionary of the left to rely on.

I should not need to apologize to you, but I’m sorry SD had identification problems earlier. My apologies.

Posted by: tom humes at June 9, 2011 4:11 PM
Comment #324255

Thanks Tom. SD’s shortcomings are no reflection upon you.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 9, 2011 5:29 PM
Comment #324256

tom humes,

“You try to give the impression that you know me. You have no concept of me, physically, mentally, or spiritually. You do not know my values.”

There was a time when I thought I had a glimpse of you, and I applauded you for it, even as you seemed confused that I would.

However, that said, lately I just don’t know.
You deny that Stephen might have a clue about you, yet you claim to know him to a tee.
Your religious screeds read more like those of a chest thumping, self righteous Pharisee, than those of a humble Christian.

I have been posting here for quite a few years, though not much lately. I’ve seen writers come and go. Stephen, for whatever perceived faults he has been accused of has been totally consistent over the years I have been reading his posts.
I am dismayed that watchblog has become a breeding ground for bullies who make make it more about the writer than what has been written.

Hell, I truly miss even Eric’s weird rants.

So who are you Tom?

Are you the guy I applauded, or not?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at June 9, 2011 5:54 PM
Comment #324259

Rocky, many of us who have been in here for years, have brought attention to some of the newer posters who seem to thrive on bullying. The site manager is not so much a stickler as DR was, so the bullies have just dug in deeper, and as a result, some of our old-time contributors are here only rarely now. Too bad! Such are the winds of change…..

Posted by: jane doe at June 9, 2011 6:53 PM
Comment #324260

I am dismayed that watchblog has become a breeding ground for bullies who make make it more about the writer than what has been written.

As a new gal, I wondered about this - particularly, Stephen Daugherty. The reply threads (in any post from any column) morphs into this weird, “SD sucks” every time he comments. ??

Posted by: Spinny Liberal at June 9, 2011 7:06 PM
Comment #324264

Spinny, it’s simple. Liberals love liberals and what you perceive as us ganging up on SD lives only in your mind. His comments leave him wide open for critical disagreement. His “facts” are merely information that he agrees with. He writes long and boring comments and repeats himself on a regular basis. Rarely do I find any original thinking in his comments.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 9, 2011 7:46 PM
Comment #324265

Liberals love liberals and what you perceive as us ganging up on SD lives only in your mind.

Or on the page I’m reading?

- Until you can write fairly, your posts mean nothing.

- You are a very poor debater and even worse in picking horses to back.

- At Baylor I am sure they teach the difference between facts and non-facts. Some students have difficulty learning that concept.

- SD’s shortcomings are no reflection upon you.

I mean, is all this necessary to prove your points? And Liberals love Conservatives too. Spinny’s mom and dad are ultra religious Conservatives. =)


Posted by: Spinny Liberal at June 9, 2011 7:57 PM
Comment #324273

Royal Flush,

“His “facts” are merely information that he agrees with. He writes long and boring comments and repeats himself on a regular basis. Rarely do I find any original thinking in his comments.”

OK, great, then refute them with actual facts of your own. I find little original in most of the right wing writers here. I see a lot of Rush, and Hannity, and Savage, and Hewitt, et al.

Oh and BTW, if you find his writing boring, why read it or respond to it.

I mean, jeepers, I would hate for you to waste your precious time reading something only a liberal would love.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at June 9, 2011 9:56 PM
Comment #324282

tom humes-
Your posts are always brief, and nearly always potshots at me, my party, and those on the left. I don’t cooperate in my own defamation. Sorry.

Royal Flush-
Just call me a liar and quit with the bull**** semantics. I made it very clear that it’s not simply a matter with my agreement with something, nor did I express a desired to want to be wrong on the facts.

You, meanwhile, seem to want to refute what I say by muddying the water on its factuality before I even offer any facts. And there’s your problem, and my problem with the way you and other conservatives support your arguments.

You haven’t bothered to refute anything, really, put anything to a real factual test. Instead, you basically say, “Stephen was wrong on this, therefore, anything else he says is unreliable.” Or, “Stephen acknowledges the imperfection of the human understanding of facts, therefore he’ll use unreliable information instead of real facts in order to make his argument.”

But what an astute observer will notice about your argument, is that it’s not dependent on any content to be true. It’s stated as self-evident.

You’re more or less treating an opinion about the trustworthiness of my argument, an opinion unmoderated by factual premises at that, as if it were fact itself.

This is the deceptiveness of your argument. Instead of building a case yourself, with facts of your own (surely mine aren’t the only ones out there), you instead just count me out of any serious consideration, just on the basis of your feelings.

You critique me and my style because your style of argument isn’t built with actually arguing factual arguments. It’s a common right-wing style whose main purpose is to spread propaganda, to beat up on and discourage critics, and to turn the arguments into emotional matchups you can win with willpower alone, rather than factual arguments you can actually lose even if you don’t quit.

The problem is, the world tests our opinions and what we consider facts, the way a properly done logical argument tests a conclusion. Now, sometimes, a person like me, who adheres to proving things based on the facts, will be ignorant of a fact that just destroys his or her argument. Sad to say, that’s happened here. But it also means that I’ll be less likely to stampede with my party into an absolute nightmare of bad policy like the last ten years have been.

You and your people were so intent on defending that, because of how indispensible you all think it is, that your people failed to perceive both how public sentiment could turn against it, and how your plans could fail, and rather than confront that failure, you defended your party against its critics, often with the same tactics you use now.

And what has it bought you? A party that people are going to see as dangerous in its policies, as unable to restrain itself from doing what people don’t want it to do.

Let me frank here about what I think: the success of the Democrats in the last several years owes less to a political strengthening of the party (though that has happened to a certain extent) and more to an increasing level of policy and political failure on the Republican’s part that has made their leadership more intolerable to the average American.

By employing a system of ideology that doesn’t admit its error easily, that takes any loss in an argument to be an ideological weakness, you put yourself in a position where the internal logic of your party isn’t keeping the crackpot ideas and impractical solutions out. And when these things do go in, your people often end up having to double down on them, despite the problems. At best, you’re perpetuating bad policy that will come back to haunt you. At worst, it blows up in your face right then and there.

I like having a politics where the main question is, how do we get things done, and done right, because ideology is all in people’s heads, and what is right and wrong in ideology often morphs and shifts and gets tied in logical knots by the clever.

Pragmatic fact-based policies provide their own moderation, their own safeguard against policy and politics going off the deep end. It’s not always as compelling or thrilling as ideologically-based politics is, but at the end of the day, one is doomed to skew towards the absurd and the incompetent, while the other can be kept to what is right and workable. You can argue anything in your politics, but in the end, you end up having to argue everything, as your policies become unrealistic and extreme.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 10, 2011 10:32 AM
Comment #324286

Rocky writes; “OK, great, then refute them with actual facts of your own. I find little original in most of the right wing writers here.”

Let me explain why I write what I write. I don’t use “facts” with most of my writing, and instead, prefer my own original thought emanating from, and the result of, reading many different authors, data from many sources, and polls of all sorts. Once I have assimilated all the information I desire, I form an opinion and write about that opinion. “Facts” (as they are generally used on Watchblog) are usually just information or someone elses opinion and citing it becomes simply posting something with which the writer agrees.

I may find some bit of information that I would like to consider fact, but until I have done an exhaustive search, it is difficult to nail down anything as fact. Some facts are well known and agreed upon generally. For example, it is a fact that in my lifetime the sun has always risen in the East on planet Earth. For me, it is a fact that the force of gravity exists on planet Earth.

Rocky, if I present something on Watchblog as fact, it means that it is absolutely true, all the time, and everywhere. Since such “facts” are rare, I don’t often call anything I post a fact.

When someone agrees or disagrees with me they aren’t disputing “facts”. They are simply aligned or misaligned with my opinion.

By writing my opinion I am giving of myself and not just parroting what I have read and passed along. I believe that is what good debate should be. Presenting and defending opinions is much more difficult that merely posting “facts” with which there can not be any debate.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 10, 2011 2:56 PM
Comment #324288

SD

Your writings are your contribution to your own defamation.

RF

Question. Do you also read the “other side” to help form your opinion. I do exactly what you do or I will cite where the quote came from.

BTW- I watched Hannity last evening. That was a rare occasion. I wanted to see his interview with Mark Foley. I felt the interview was a very good one. Foley acknowledged that it was his fault totally for the mess he got into. He did not play the blame game. If only that was the attitude of others in public life who make a mess of things. Even some bloggers.

Posted by: tom humes at June 10, 2011 3:13 PM
Comment #324290

Yes Tom, I do read all comments carefully if I wish to comment myself. Some I don’t bother to read fully as there is simply no interest by me in the subject. I respond frequently to SD as his “facts” are rarely that. I am trying to help SD become a better writer and to share opinions not “facts”.

I missed Hannity but it sounds like a good interview. Frankly, I can’t stand Hannity’s radio show any more. He invites folks to call in and then doesn’t let them talk. And his monologue is monotonous and predictable. His TV show is much better and he does have interesting guests. I particularly like Bob Beckel when he is on. I don’t always agree with Bob, but he makes good arguments based upon his years of experience in the political world. Beckel is a compassionate man, not because he is a dem, but because that is who he really is. When he speaks, I listen carefully as many times I learn something.

Someone should tell Hannity to get rid of the football routine, it just looks juvenile.

I like Michael Savage’s radio show quite a bit. He is such an interesting man with a background and experience in many fields. He also talks about the life lessons he has learned thru his or others experiences. Rarely is he boring and his show is only about 50% political. He makes me laugh a lot when talking about his experiences growing up and his wanderings all over the world.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 10, 2011 5:10 PM
Comment #324294

I like to listen to Rush Limbaugh, but I don’t get to very often. I love it when he plays recordings of things he said in the past, including the left’s response, and then shows how it came about exactly as he said it would. Rush’s grandfather was a judge and I’m not sure about his dad, but I do know they pushed him to attend college. The college never took and unlike SD, he was not concerned with the number of degrees hanging on his wall. Yet, he is a self educated man and very intelligent. Liberals love to brag about their education and lord it over the less educated red necks, haha.

I’m not crazy about Hannity and rarely listen to GB, unless I know it wil be interesting. I do love to read the Drudge Report. He posts up to date news before it ever hits the MSM, if ever.

Latest on the weenie; police investigate his communications on twitter with a 17 year old girl….Don’t get any better…

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 10, 2011 7:23 PM
Comment #324311

SD said
“You haven’t bothered to refute anything, really, put anything to a real factual test. Instead, you basically say, “Stephen was wrong on this, therefore, anything else he says is unreliable.” Or, “Stephen acknowledges the imperfection of the human understanding of facts, therefore he’ll use unreliable information instead of real facts in order to make his argument.”

Kind of what you accuse Brightbart of isn’t it? Seems you wrote an entire post about it.

Posted by: tdobson at June 11, 2011 7:40 AM
Comment #324447

Royal Flush-

I respond frequently to SD as his “facts” are rarely that. I am trying to help SD become a better writer and to share opinions not “facts”.

I wasn’t surprised, but I was disappointed to see how flexible your sense of what fact is. I’m not so flexible. I don’t even like anonymously sourced articles. I want to be able to pull out and examine the premises of the argument or opinion that I’m using as support for my own arguments and opinions.

Now you critique me as not admitting this, but really, it should be blindingly obvious to anybody. After all, everything is divided up and labelled appropriately, between the different parties and factions.

I take an approach I learned in college. I use sources so people can see that my opinion has support beyond just myself, or my party. I use the best logic and grounds I can find so that my rivals have less legitimate wiggle room for contradicting my point.

If your only response is to apply such a ridiculously strict standard that just about anything I say, short of a Newtonian law, becomes disputeable and deniable, then you’re essentially making every response to me dependent on an argument from ignorance.

I pick my sources deliberately and strategically, so you and others I’m arguing against end up having to go to more absurd lengths not to concede. I pass along the source’s information so that people can see that I’ve got my opinion’s feet on the ground, that there is something in the way of real fact constraining my argument, binding it to something in the real world. You withhold that same information, believing that your own opinion has primacy, that you should not have to deign to explain to people why you take the attitude you do.

Opinions about political matters are opinions about practical matters. The need to constrain policy to respond to real issues, by effective means, is real. Your attitude takes you to a place where alignment and misalignment of people with your opinion matters most. My attitude challenges me to keep my arguments founded on the real world.

Opinions can go in just about any direction the human imagination can take it. People can believe that the inside of the Earth is hollow, and that people live inside it. But a person like me can’t accept that, because Seismic surveys indicate a solid/liquid core. A person who didn’t want to accept that could attack the credibility of seismologist and geologists (especially geophysicists), they could create some sort of hand-waving theory to explain it, or they could claim it was some kind of evil conspiracy to cover it up, but could they ever really prove their theory themselves?

tom humes-
He just spent years abusing his authority as a Congressman to engage in predatory behavior with underaged pages, all while promoting homophobia and comparing other homosexuals to predators.

The Republicans helped him cover it up, keep it quiet.

Weiner, meanwhile, also confessed and acknowledged his responsibility. He didn’t say that he was just so patriotic that he overworked himself and couldn’t resist this sort of behavior.

Meanwhile, David Vitter broke the law, but instead of resigning like Elliot Spitzer did under similar circumstances, he continues to serve in the Senate.

Conservativethinker-
Limbaugh labels himself an entertainer. You know why? Because entertainers aren’t required to keep their facts straight.

I think your attitudes are encapsulated in your resentful rhetoric. You see a college degree as something to lord over others with, while your hero is a self-made man. Me, I see seeking out an education as a critical part of being self-made. Getting that college degree meant I was exposed to all kinds of different information, and got to learn so many things from so many people.

I love learning. I love expanding my world, understanding things better for myself. The very act of seeking the answers for questions, to me, is a defiant act of individuality, of equality, of personal sovereignty. I think there’s little point in using our equality as a license for mediocrity. The whole point of the equality our system, our nation gives us, is to give us the opportunity to excel to the best of our abilities, not wallow in ignorance and incompetence, cursing those who ask better of us.

tdobson-
I can point to several instances where at the very least, Breitbart should have been able to request the full videos, and review them for their factual correctness. Hell, on the NAACP video, he should have just asked for the entire video outright.

He didn’t. He either ran with the NAACP video before he knew everything that she said, or he knew, and ran it anyway. He should have been more careful if his intentions were honest, if his intentions were good.

I catalogued the inaccuracies, the splices, the other kinds of deliberate rearrangments of his videos in a previous post. While I was wrong about disbelieving Breitbart, I think there’s still good reason to be skeptical, not to take what he distributes at face value.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 14, 2011 1:16 PM
Comment #330907

warm,and the the artificial leatherjordan sneakers on the surface will keep your feet dry and comfortable.girls tend to wear less in winter,because the heavy clothes will cover their good figure.The tall upper new jordan sneakersof these UGG Fashion Boots will protect your leg from frostbite.We have

Posted by: tyujik at October 22, 2011 4:26 AM
Post a comment