Third Party & Independents Archives

Comment #347475

I have to agree with the SCOTUS on this one. It’s a matter of free speech, and free speech means putting up with some stuff that can be really horrible. I’m not insensitive to the concerns of military people, I served myself, and I swore to uphold the Constitution. That includes free speech- all free speech, short of incitement to violence. Is pretending to serve, and claim to have won medals, or been wounded, or whatever, is that dishonorable? Unquestionably. Is it low? Vile? Absolutely? Is a person free to do that? Is a person free to lie? Unfortunately, yes.

Posted by: phx8 at June 29, 2012 12:14 PM
Comment #347519


It’s simply a matter of head versus heart.

Of course I know you’re right that these lowlife scumbags are allowed to lie and it’s perfectly Constitutional.

But the 9-year Army veteran of Grenada and Honduras can’t easily restrain my fervent desire to rip their head of and sh*t down their lying neck.

Why is it a felony to impersonate a police officer, federal agent, or a paramedic - and even a member of Congress - but not so to impersonate a member of the military or a veteran?

It certainly seems like the Supreme Court is ruling far too frequently against the best interests of the country, which is embodied by the Constitution. Clearly, our Constitution is an imperfect document. Rulings like this one, and the piss-poorly named “Citizens United,” are fast on the road to making it functionally worthless.

Posted by: Gary St. Lawrence at June 29, 2012 9:02 PM
Comment #347541

As a 20 year Vietnam veteran every time I here some scumbag that just by listening to him I know hasn’t even talked to a recruiter much less served run his mouth about what kind of hero he is I want to do just like Gary and rip his stupid head off a take a long dump down his idiot neck.
While I find it in very poor taste to claim to be a veteran when you aint, it has never been against the law to do it. But it has always been against the law is say you are in the military when you aint.
I have just about as much use for these low life’s as I do a child molester. And I’m willing to bet that no other veteran has any use for them either.

Posted by: Ron Brown at June 30, 2012 12:43 AM
Comment #347542


“Why is it a felony to impersonate a police officer, federal agent, or a paramedic…”

These people are supposed to engender trust imediately.

Camo, unfortunately, is now a fashion statement.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at June 30, 2012 12:56 AM
Comment #347549

The law can’t simply tell people “you can’t falsely boast about military service”, because being a lying bastard is constitutionally protected. I wouldn’t be surprised to find there’s a law against impersonating an active duty military officer, and obviously it’s against the law to impersonate somebody who has people’s lives in their hands, or the enforcement of law as their duty.

The thing here is that if it’s just them lying about it, it’s one thing. The angle I think we should take as a country on this matter is to hit it at the angle of materially benefiting from this lie. It’s one thing if some pathetic jackass wants to look like the big man he’s not. It’s quite another if their deception is meant to get them a job or separate somebody from money or something else. And clearly, if they’re trying to get benefits on the basis of that falsehood, that should be illegal if it isn’t already.

Simply lying their asses off is constitutionally protected, but fraud and lying on your application? Not so much. The law was poorly written by folks who should have known better on the constitutionality of it. The key here is being smart about writing the law so you’re not going after protected speech.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 30, 2012 9:43 AM
Comment #347563

So why was it a crime for Roger Clemens to lie; if he had claimed he was a war hero before the Congress, it would have been okay?

Posted by: Billinflorida at June 30, 2012 5:15 PM
Comment #347564

Lying is wrong and it makes no difference whether it is a little white lie or perjury.

I never served in the military. But I hold the military up to very high esteem.

Lying should disqualify one for any public service job as well as any position which requires someone to be above reproach in dealing with the public. The person who impersonates another should be required to do community service work equal to 40 hours a month at a facility that deals with the military whether it is tied to the military or not. For instance, they should have to, out of site of the public, handle body bags of returning service men. The reason for not appearing in public is that there are service men who will honor and respect the one in the body bag. The other is a scumbag and is not capable of giving honor and respect to one of our fallen.

Gary, I think the Supremes blew it on this one. I’m not sure what the vote was, but sure would like to know it.


Posted by: tom humes at June 30, 2012 6:28 PM
Comment #347565

Tom Humes, I think a politician who would lie about military service should never be elected; but that will never happen, as liberals already disdain the military and would have no moral problem electing a liar.

Then, we always have Lizzy Warren, the Indian wannabe. By all rights the libs should cast her out; but what the heck, she’s only lying and the left have proven that lying don’t mean anything. Clinton lied and they loved him. When Obama opens his mouth, he is lying and the left loves him even more

Posted by: Billinflorida at June 30, 2012 6:40 PM
Comment #347568

Leave it to Billinflorida and tom humes to make this a partisan issue.

My grandfather was buried in uniform with a flag-draped coffin. They played taps at his funeral. I have absolutely no sympathy for those who falsely claim military service.

But that is not the same as looking at the issue and forgetting the constitutional constraints. People are free to lie about their service. Others are free to tell the truth about it, lay the proper scorn on them.

But don’t they deserve worse? Sure. There’s a lot of times when the system doesn’t give us the emotional cloture we want. I don’t have much sympathy with flag-burning, either, but freedom means nothing if we sacrifice it simply because we don’t like the message people are giving.

My attitude is, though, that we can at least make it illegal, or more severely punishable to use such false claims to profit, to con people into giving them things. Free speech doesn’t cover what you tell people to defraud them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 30, 2012 7:48 PM
Comment #347576

So Stephen, would you vote for a Democrat who lied about being in the military? Or would you vote for Lizzy Warren who lied about being an Indian? It’s 2 simple questions and I look forward to something less than an essay to answer them.

Posted by: Billinflorida at June 30, 2012 11:43 PM
Comment #347578

Really. As if what I said didn’t tell you what contempt I hold folks who fake military honors in.

She IS 1/32nd Cherokee, and that makes her as Cherokee as the current Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation. Warren did not go out of her way to identify herself as native American, which kind of contradicts your narrative.

If you want to call people liars, make sure they’re wrong first. Otherwise you’re the one who’s mistaken at best.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 1, 2012 12:19 AM
Comment #347580

The Cherokee Nation says she is not Cherokee. That makes her a liar.

Posted by: tom humes at July 1, 2012 8:58 AM
Comment #347584

tom humes-
Only if a) She’s wrong, and b) She knew she was wrong, and pushed the story anyway.

Indeed, the records may not be as reliable as some might think, and some of her ancestors, looking to avoid the discrimination coming from white Americans at the time, might have understated or simply not spoken of their ancestry.

The claim could be perfectly true, though technicalities wouldn’t allow her to claim Cherokee Citizenship, despite the lack of documentary evidence. But also, and I think your partisan bias, you fail to address this: Warren was brought up with this a part of family lore.

Let’s say that two generations from now, my grandchildren talk about how my Grandfather fought in WWII. They might have images of him rushing acrosse the battlefield, or crawling through the trenches with a knife in his teeth. But in reality, my Grandfather mainly worked on the radio communications, being a part of signal corps. He had something of an adventure after being misdropped with many other Airborne soldiers after D-Day, but mostly he was behind the lines, maintaining the lines of communications for those he was fighting with.

But if that information is left out when I tell my kids in passing about it, or records are destroyed by some eventuality, and they talk to their kids about how my Grandfather was a Parachuting, Nazi-killing badass, rather than the rather grounded signal corpsman he was (his original national guard unit was cavalry, or something similar) would they be lying?

I assumed for a long time that my paternal grandfather did not serve, when in fact he did, stationed at the Panama Canal. If I had said before that only Richard Nerf, Sr. had done military service, would that have made me a liar?

We would like to believe that information gets passed perfectly down the chain of generations. It does not. Family histories can be flawed. Documentary evidence can sometimes only tell half the story, especially when what people write down isn’t entirely the truth.

Long story short, you should differentiate between intentional dishonesties and facts people mistakenly believe are true, or have a hard time proving because documentation and evidence are lacking or contradictory. People can be wrong for other reasons than dishonesty.

I would say the likely reason you insist she’s a liar, is that simply saying you believe she’s mistaken might honestly settle the matter, but it won’t make people hate her like you need them to.

Besides, the subject here was those who claim military honors illegitimately, folks who can’t even be said to be passing on family lore, which might be unreliable, but who are making claims they know for a fact aren’t true, because they deal with their own experiences.

You’ve kicked us onto a political tangent, because my views are plainly not the evil, immoral views you need people to believe I have in order not to listen to me, or other liberals like me. I quite reasonably and quite personally do not have any sympathy for those who choose to lie about their military service, or lack of same.

So, where else do you have to go, other than onto an unrelated tangent?

If you recognized that others who don’t share your full beliefs can agree on matters like these, you could exercise more influence with them, as you found common ground with them. But since you don’t really want to find common ground, since you want to cut those people out who don’t share your right thinking, you doom yourself to pointless disagreements with people you could have persuaded.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 1, 2012 11:06 AM
Comment #347591

If a person lies about his service in the military and the decorations recieved, he schould be branded a lier and documented as such. The same goes for a politician if he or she lies about service or heritage also should be documented as such no matter what their party affiliation. It is more so for a politician because he/she should be above board.

Posted by: KAP at July 1, 2012 12:51 PM
Comment #347592

Also anyone who would vote for a politician who lied about service connection or heritage deserves what they get a COMMON LIER.

Posted by: KAP at July 1, 2012 12:53 PM
Comment #347594

Really. As if what I said didn’t tell you what contempt I hold folks who fake military honors in.
She IS 1/32nd Cherokee, and that makes her as Cherokee as the current Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation. Warren did not go out of her way to identify herself as native American, which kind of contradicts your narrative.
If you want to call people liars, make sure they’re wrong first. Otherwise you’re the one who’s mistaken at best.”
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 1, 2012 12:19 AM

Stephen Daugherty, once again, you are a piece of work. She lied about her Indian heritage for the purpose of gaining favor in college and the work force. She lied, the Indians know she lied, and Stephen you know she lied. But like Clinton, it depends on what “is is”. You can’t help yourself Stephen; you would defend this ignorant lying slut to your last breath. Why, because that’s what you do. You have no rhyme or reason for anything you do Stephen. For once, I wish it were possible for you to actually be credible. So Stephen, I ask you again the same questions;

“So Stephen, would you vote for a Democrat who lied about being in the military? Or would you vote for Lizzy Warren who lied about being an Indian? It’s 2 simple questions and I look forward to something less than an essay to answer them.”

Answer the questions…

“What, exactly, makes someone American Indian? Even Indians themselves don’t agree as they debate the case of Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren, whose disputed claim of Native American identity is shining a rare spotlight on the malleable nature of Indian heritage and the long history of murky claims to such ancestry.

Warren, a Harvard Law School professor and Democrat who is running in Massachusetts against Republican incumbent Sen. Scott Brown, was listed as Native American in several law school directories. Warren has said that her “family lore” described Indian ancestors, and the New England Genealogy Association said it found indications - but not proof - that Warren had a Cherokee great-great-great grandmother, which would make her 1/32 Indian.

“I’m proud of my heritage,” Warren said Thursday. Asked how she knew it included Native Americans, she replied, “Because my mother told me so.”

Her opponents question whether Warren chose this heritage to gain advantages available to Indians and other underrepresented groups in academia.

“Warren has zero evidence that she is at all Native American,” said Brown’s campaign manager, Jim Barnett. The genealogy association acknowledges that it found only secondary references to Cherokee family members, not primary sources such as marriage, birth or census records.”

“She left Texas for the University of Pennsylvania Law School, where a report on minority faculty listed Warren’s name. Her ethnicity became a campaign issue when the Boston Herald reported that Harvard Law, which hired Warren in 1995, listed her as a minority when the school was under pressure to diversify the faculty.”

“Embattled Massachusetts senate candidate Elizabeth Warren has argued over the last several weeks that she didn’t know Harvard has been promoting her as a Native American minority.
But in a damaging Friday front-page story in the Boston Globe, the newspaper cites documents and sources showing that Harvard not only listed her that way for six years, but the school likely obtained that information from Warren herself.
The paper reported that “for at least six straight years during Warren’s tenure, Harvard University reported in federally mandated diversity statistics that it had a Native American woman in its senior ranks at the law school. According to both Harvard officials and federal guidelines, those statistics are almost always based on the way employees describe themselves.”
It was revealed about four weeks ago that Warren — at an early stage of her career —was listed as an American-Indian minority in legal publications. She has admitted to describing herself as Native American in certain situations to meet others of the heritage, but has denied knowledge of Harvard using that information to promote her.
Warren has also struggled to prove her claims of American Indian ancestry, other than saying she knows of it through family lore. Critics have accused her of claiming minority status in the past to gain an unfair advantage when applying for jobs.”

Read more:

Posted by: Billinflorida at July 1, 2012 1:15 PM
Comment #347595

One more ignorant statement from Stephen Daugherty:

“The claim could be perfectly true, though technicalities wouldn’t allow her to claim Cherokee Citizenship, despite the lack of documentary evidence. But also, and I think your partisan bias, you fail to address this: Warren was brought up with this a part of family lore.”

In Stephen’s pea brained warped mind, ignorance of the law only counts with conservatives. Democrat liars are justified to lie, because they were ignorant of the law.

By Stephen’s warped opinion of the law, I guess we could all claim Indian heritage, based on something our dead grandparents supposedly said, allowing us to gain profits from casino gambling.

Stephen, you have absolutly no credibility on WB pertaining to any subject. You are a liberal hack whose sole purpose is to defend other liberal hacks.

Posted by: Billinflorida at July 1, 2012 1:25 PM
Comment #347598


I agree with Billinflorida that you have no credibility on WB.

You will give a pass, allow lying, protect liberal democrats to the end of the world. It makes not one iota of difference whether they are telling the truth. It only matters that they cause the efforts of the left wing, and extreme at that, to promulgate their cause hell or high water. You have nothing to work with. This is not just the Warren issue, it is an ongoing problem you have. You would support Chairman Mao, dead or alive, to be the president after your dear, devoted, highly respected, Muslim president, Obama.

Posted by: tom humes at July 1, 2012 3:04 PM
Comment #347602


“…Muslim president”

Yeah, and your credibility is perfectly intact with your birther, and Muslim comments.

Thanks for the laugh.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 1, 2012 4:32 PM
Comment #347603

Regardless of a persons station in life, I believe that we have all lied at some point. Either intentionally, by ommission of facts or unknowingly through a belief in false information.

Whether to curry favor or to avoid punishment doesn’t matter, it is a measure of a persons integrity and morallity if they can be trusted by others. It is a sad day when you lose the trust of the people around you. It may never be regained.

For those who have gotten benefits that were not earned or needed through false pretenses, they should be held accountable. Fraud is punishable and in some cases misrepresenting a group can be as well.

As far as voting time - remember who are the most trustworthy and will do the best for this country instead of voting a party line. That will be the only way to start correcting the mess we have now. Look at who is ‘buying’ the special interests - Do we really want Corporations running our Reps and Senators as well as the FDA and all the other places the Execs move around in? Board hopping as it were. Maybe some additional unknowns will help shake things up some more and allow more time spent on important matters instead of renaming Post Offices and other Federal Buildings….. - What a waste of our tax dollars.

Party beliefs are fine - but don’t let them hinder good judgement of a persons character and ability to do a job well and with integrity. Please…..

Posted by: Kathryn C at July 1, 2012 5:08 PM
Comment #347608

Kathyrn C, I agree, but Stephen Daugherty, the nastier and the more corrupt the politician, the more worthy he is to be called a liberal democrat and worthy of SD’s vote.

I feel the same way about politicians who leave office for one reason or another and end up as lobbyist with close connections to lawmakers. JMHO

Posted by: Billinflorida at July 1, 2012 6:02 PM
Comment #347641

Wow isn’t this special, Bill in Fla and Tom Humes talking about credibility on WB. If that isn’t the pot calling the kettle black….

You losers wouldn’t know credible if it jumped up and bit you on the ass. What kind of arrogance would make you two think you can judge credible? What a laugh.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 2, 2012 9:22 AM
Comment #347646

Credibility is the only argument they really know how to use. They’re not used to dealing with things in terms of evidence-tested conclusions. They have a conclusion they want others to reach, and they attack the credibility of those who dissent from that conclusion.

That’s what we have a free press for. I’ve seen several politicians and quite a number of private citizens crash and burn over their lies.

Let’s start my critique with some simple math:


That’s 32 by multiple of two, 2^5. One generation back is your parents. You’ve got 2. Two generations, grandparents, of which you have 4. Three generations back, great-grandparents, of which you have 8. Four generations back, great-great grandparents, of which you have 16. Finally, five generations back, great-great-great grandparents, of which you have 32.

Name them all. Then have all your friends name all theirs.

It helps to get some perspective doesn’t it? How many of us are ever asked to precisely document heritage that far back?

For the most part, such questions of heritage are pretty informal, and records going that far back are thin on the ground If every generation is roughtly twenty-five years apart (My Father, Grandfather and I were born roughtly thirty years apart) then you’re talking something 100-150 years back. How many people take the time, effort and expense to research their heritage that long ago?

There’s little evidence that Ms. Warren went out of her way to benefit from her claimed heritage. It was more curiosity, cultural interest than it was a crutch she relied upon.

More importantly, how often was it actually mentioned before Republicans brought it up?

That’s the thing, really. This is almost literally the last thing she would be known for. She’s built a considerable career on her own two feet, gaining fame for her insightful book “The Two-Income Trap”, and later for her advocacy on Bankruptcy, Consumer finance laws, and other subjects of interest to the American people.

Your people brought it up, made it a controversy, called her a liar over it.

But how many of us really have our pedigree confirmed that far back? Most of us aren’t royalty or nobility. If we simply claim it at some point, just based on what we hear from the family, are we really engaging in dishonesty?

More to the point, you haven’t proved that it isn’t absolutely true. The articles I post create, so to speak, reasonable doubt that she’s even wrong to begin with. No, not everybody who is a Native American actually claimed themselves as one, when the time came, because of a large number of. Then you have the question, even if the heritage claim is provably false whether a reasonable person would actually be willing to investigate their family heritage far enough back (five generations) in order to to verify the claim rather than just simply taking it at face value.

If she simply assumed her people were telling her the truth, and she had little reason to doubt, then how is she a liar?

This is not ignorance of the law. This is ignorance of what amounts to formal family history of which most people are ignorant anyways.

By Stephen’s warped opinion of the law, I guess we could all claim Indian heritage, based on something our dead grandparents supposedly said, allowing us to gain profits from casino gambling. Stephen, you have absolutly no credibility on WB pertaining to any subject. You are a liberal hack whose sole purpose is to defend other liberal hacks.

Well, first and foremost, I don’t believe any of that. You’ve just decided to express my opinion for me, and failed miserably in the process.

Second, get a life. I’m a contributing editor here, and you’re not. As far as credibility goes, you are so obviously and over the top as a shrill, strident dittohead that you shouldn’t expect people to care much in the way of what you think is credible or not. The only people who will really trust what you say already dismiss everything I say out of hand, so nothing you allege will really hurt most people’s trust in what I say.

I will be here long after you’ve departed. And people will put what trust they do in what I say because I do more than assume that what I say is true, I back it, and with sources that aren’t just from places where people are obligated to back a point whether it’s right or not.

Tom Humes-
Ad hominem argument after ad hominem argument. One case of sticking words in my mouth after another. You’re not even content to critique what I actually say, you have to make it up, and criticize me for believing the made-up opinions!

That’s the racket around here. Your sides of the discussion rarely touch down in the world of facts, and if they do, they’re from right-wing sites where people are basically paid to continue the feedbacks of the right-wing echo chamber. You’re off in your own world, criticizing the bad B-Movie Bond Villains you claim Democrats to be.

I started out things basically agreeing with the notion that those who fake military credentials and honors are scumbag, but with a few modifications, those who fake a miltiary record for personal gain could be held liable. And what has replaced it? Arguments about my credibility, based on the fact that I’m not joining you in crucifying Elizabeth Warren for not having checked her pedigree back to the fifth generation and demanded documentary proof from all the people who told her she had Indian heritage as a kid.

You know, this is a debate site. That doesn’t mean that some people get to declare themselves judges of credibility. It means people have to demonstrate that credibility. That means you two, as well. But you don’t care to. You’re always attacking others for their opinions, then get the vapors when somebody confronts you on a point of fact. Get used to it. And if you want anybody else to believe what you say, get used to being called to accountability on the facts, on your sources.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 2, 2012 12:50 PM
Comment #347655
They have a conclusion they want others to reach, and they attack the credibility of those who dissent from that conclusion.

That doesn’t excuse them from taking such cheap shots at you personally instead of your comments. If they were the least bit honorable they would be able to confront your comments with something credible to discredit your comments, but they seem unable to do anything, more than take cheap shots at you.

It isn’t as if the conclusions they want others to reach are any better in and of themselves. Most if not all of the time their conclusions are half baked conspiracy theory or the latest misinformation half truths and outright lies spouted by conservative movement propagandist.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 2, 2012 3:08 PM
Comment #347675

Your right Stephen, I’ve seen them crash and burn to. The question is though do you vote for the lier, and if you do you are one stupid person. Seeing how Obama LIED do you vote for him?

Posted by: KAP at July 2, 2012 7:40 PM
Comment #347683

The SCOTUS has told us corporations are people. In order to uphold this nonsensical ruling and save face this same SCOTUS must allow real people to lie and use the same false advertising they have allowed the corporations to do. Every conservative that has gloated at the rulings over the years, the must recent being the “citizens united” ruling, that has given corporations personhood can stew in their own juices over this ruling that insults military members. You got what you deserved conservatives.

Every conservative that likes to post their ignorant crap about liberals disrespecting the military can now realize it is they that disrespect the military as they carry the conservatives banner into the land of extremism. Its the right of free speech to lie and defraud that our founding fathers intended right conservatives?

Posted by: j2t2 at July 2, 2012 9:02 PM
Comment #347739

There’s a gotcha mentality here that does you no favors. Go find me a politician who has never promised too much, who has never gone back on a promise that turned out to be untenable for some reason, who has never been contradicted by the evidence after saying something, etc.

Then I’ll ask you what color the unicorn I’m going to buy you will be.

If your problem is backing liars, what are your thoughts on Mitt Romney?

The question is whether we’re talking about minor inconsistencies, or people like Romney, who’d give you the wrong time of day even if you were standing in front of a clock. Warren’s not even really proved to have related what information she did in bad faith. By the logic of some commentators here, just being mistaken can make you a liar. Better have your pedigree filled out five generations back, or we’ll have your guns for garters!

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 3, 2012 2:46 PM
Comment #347740

Sorry. Guts for Garters. Admittedly, though, that kind of “gunbelt” would be uncomfortable.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 3, 2012 2:51 PM
Comment #347745

Stephen, You back the biggest lier in Obama. I’m not talking about campaign promises, we all know some kept some not. As farv as Romney goes, a lot of the crap Obama is spreading is half truths or outright lies supported by the Washington post and other sources. So the question remains Stephen, Would you vote for an outright lier?

Posted by: KAP at July 3, 2012 4:20 PM
Comment #347747

Try Fact Check.Org to Stephen. Obama LIES about Romney.

Posted by: KAP at July 3, 2012 4:24 PM
Comment #347772

No, Obama is not a liar.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 3, 2012 9:21 PM
Comment #347774

Vanity Fair, Is this the best you can come up with, Stephen. I would expect maybe N.Y. TIMES or some other MSM, but Vanity Fair,LOLOL

Posted by: KAP at July 3, 2012 9:51 PM
Comment #347775

SD just got off the boat, give him a break. He has trouble with the english language in the definition of lie and truth.


Posted by: tom humes at July 3, 2012 9:52 PM
Comment #347795

Don’t laugh KAP it was a writer for Vanity Fair that told us of the coming real estate collapse a year or so before it happened.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 4, 2012 8:57 AM
Comment #347798

j2t2, So that makes him an expert on Romney, try Obama is a lier. As I said you and Stephen can come up with something better than Vanity Fair which would be more credibal. So the writer on Vanity Fair parotted some economist, I heard on TV adds that someone predicted the houseing collapse a year before it happened so some hack writer at Vanity Fair picked upm on it. Try something else J2.

Posted by: KAP at July 4, 2012 11:25 AM
Comment #347800

So, that’s your response?

That’s very disappointing. I was expecting to have a discussion on the facts. But no, you’re going to dismiss the source sight unseen.

You talk of liars (that’s how the word’s spelled, with an “a”.) but you’re not even honest enough to object to the article on its contents. You talk of the material not being credible (That’s how it’s spelled, incredible without the “in”) but you betray no familiarity with the actual material.

You haven’t even bothered to link to a critique of the article.

No, we will discuss this, if I have to pull quotes to do it, and try and get you to respond.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 4, 2012 11:56 AM
Comment #347805

So we are back to the spelling contest. I thought SD had the upper hand on being SC (speller correct). Are you just upping the ante for the party or trying for one upmanship on yourself

Guess that was his best answer; to give a spelling lesson from professor emeritus of spelling to KAP


Posted by: tom humes at July 4, 2012 12:35 PM
Comment #347813

Well Stephen, An employee from 35 years ago tells me he may just be a disgrudled Democrat. I did give you a link all, you have to do is Google or don’t you know how. I’ll tell you how to do it if you don’t know how. If all you can do is correct someone’s spelling then that tells me you have no rebutal to Obama being a LI”A”R.

Posted by: KAP at July 4, 2012 3:23 PM
Comment #347877

Two more misspellings in your response, by the way.

Seriously, though, why do you assume he’s a Democrat? Because that’s the quickest way to claim it’s all just a put-up job?

Why is that your first instinct?

When I talk about Romney being dishonest, it’s because I have good reason to assume he knows the truth. That’s why I posted those two items, the video and the speech which have him plainly stating that the mandate was a penalty written into the tax code. You can’t say things like that, and say things now that contradict it without being a liar, because you should know what you said, especially if you said it repeatedly.

He implemented this policy as governor, sold it to other Republicans, defended it politically, so he shouldn’t have had the opportunity to simply forget what it was.

Obama, on the other hand, held the opinion that the commerce clause was a fundamental element of the mandate, and that it was mainly meant to be a penalty to free loaders. His position was remarkably similar to Romney’s original position.

Only after the fact did the Robert’s decision make the taxing power the sole justification. If Obama couldn’t have predicted that outcome, calling him a liar because he didn’t fall into agreement with Robert’s position earlier is dishonest. Same thing for Warren. If she made her claim without really knowing it was false, or if the claim wasn’t truly false, then calling her a liar for stating such things is disingenouous at best.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 5, 2012 5:18 PM
Comment #347880

Stephen, Most politicians are LIAR’s, they say things while campaghning that they will never come through on. I didn’t assume, I said “MAY BE” he was a Democrat, he could have been a pissed off employee for all we know. Stephen, Warren is old enough to have researched her heritage, she based it on high cheek bones and family hear say. As far as Roberts, he based his ruling on what the W.H. attorney claimed the penalty to be and that was a TAX. As far as Romney, his version was for a state and there is a whole lot of difference doing something for a state then there is for a whole comntry. By the way Obama is supposed to been a constitutionl law professor, he to should know better, but he is a lawyer and ,most lawyers LIE for their clients so it can be just a bad habit for them.

Posted by: KAP at July 5, 2012 5:57 PM
Comment #347886

Stephen, I’ve seen you misspell a few words also, so I wouldn’t be pointing fingers, we all screwup. Thank God for apell check, if you use it.

Posted by: KAP at July 5, 2012 7:48 PM
Post a comment