Ahh yes, former Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean, proven (once again) he's a jackass and a liar - the very qualities that made him a *perfect* leader of the Left during the Bush years - willing to spread any falsehood that leaps into that totally delusional ever-burning yee-haw brain of his, and all because his super-gullible pea-brained "progressive" supporters will believe anything he says - anything! - as long as it starts with the words FOX News.
Tell me, people: how would the Bush years have gone if the "progressives" had known (or cared) about the truth? Would we have heard, repeatedly, that it was Dick Cheney and/or Scooter Libby (either one would do for this particular lie) that leaked Valerie Plames' name to the press - when it was really a Democrat?
Oh, never mind. They're too stupid to care. Integrity means nothing to them. And I've been down this road too many times before.
They've got their black version of Bozo in office, and we're all suffering now, and really - really - isn't that all that matters?
Hat Tip: NewsBusters
I know you've got your agenda, but your 'strength' lies in pushing ahead with negative comments about Obama even when the facts deny you:
ReplyDeletejob loss rates have reversed under Obama.
government spending is less under Obama than Bush.
And your "strength" lies in changing the subject.
ReplyDeleteDid Howard Dean lie or not?
Actually I was responding to:
ReplyDelete"They've got their black version of Bozo in office, and we're all suffering now, and really - really - isn't that all that matters?"
So we're all 'suffering' under a government that has managed to both reverse job loss and spending (despite the conservative claim that the administration was only able to create jobs by spending more). We should all have such black bozos.
I just find your priorities rather odd, to say the least.
Factchecker? More like
ReplyDeleteFactFornicator. And a lazy one at that.
Providing a link to some other person's comments that clearly seek to cherry pick news articles to support a preordained outcome is not fact checking.
Likewise, providing a link to the “Chart of the Day” from NANCY PELOSI’S OFFICE makes you a moron. It seems you think that the proof of a claim is the claim itself. Nice touch.
Now I know you’re very busy spending your days filling those little bags with french fries and your nights waiting for the government folks to show up and feed you, burp you, and wipe your ass for you, so I’ll get right to the obvious:
Claim 1: You are stupid.
Claim 2: For proof you are stupid, see Claim 1.
Ah but nobody is as lazy or as stupid as you, JRN. Well, there doubtless are, but you try hard to be number one.
ReplyDeleteProof: you accuse me of being lazy yet provide absolutely nothing in the way of refuting the chart that shows reversal of job loss patterns. Neither do you demonstrate in any way whatsoever that Obama's spending patterns come close to Bush's.
In other words, you're useless to your cause because you prove to us that idle insults is all your trade. Come back when you have something interesting to say.
Hell, if you want, why not link to something that proves my links are wrong!! Of course that will be impossibly difficult to do since the Right are more interested in emotional rhetoric than actual facts and won't have bothered to even try this ploy.
Ha - spoken like someone who didn't even address my post but changed the subject.
ReplyDeleteJesus, Factchecker, are you really that stupid/dishonest/delusional?
Geez Factchucker, you’re proof that once you’ve stepped in a pile of Obama-Zombie, it’s really smelly scraping it off your shoe.
ReplyDeleteLet’s see if I can break this down for you: I have not, and will not, respond to your foolish claims or your bizarrely idiotic “proof” in your stupidly un-useful Bush v. Obama argument.
The reason, Factcrapper, is it just doesn’t matter. Bush has been gone for over a year and a half, and your comprehension of the economy, the government and critical thinking is at about the level of a cow gazing at a passing train.
In other words, Factfarter, any effort to engage your point is a waste of time and energy. But for fun, let’s say there is magic in the world (sorry CMC) and everyone on the planet concedes your argument. How does that help anythying? What difference does it make? Who really cares other then those, like you, who have jumped aboard the blame Bush train. For what useful purpose? Is all this for your third grade debating class or just to soothe your lack of psychological integrity?
And you still don’t get the most important lesson brought up by your very stupid argument: The proof of a claim can never be the claim itself.
Now, go out behind the outhouse and kneecap yourself.
Okay, spoken like a true retard. Surely the only proof that is required is to measure the number of jobs during Bush and the number now?
ReplyDeleteRefer to the relevant agency that does not change the statistics to suit the administration but measures them by a strict set of standards i.e. what constitutes a "job" (part-time, full-time, unpaid, volunteer, paid but with unpaid overtime) There's no need to reinvent the wheel here.
The same goes for government expenditure; only it's less rubbery and comes down to dollars and cents.
What difference does it make? Well it answers (for people in the real world) whether you are better or worse off under Obama than Bush. Pretty fucking simple, I would have thought.
Crack, it addresses whether you are suffering now more or less than you were under Bush (unless the amount of money the US is losing and how many people are out of work doesn't concern you)
Moo!
You've highjacked the post to change the subject. That, in itself, is dishonest. Which is what the post was about:
ReplyDeleteThe dishonesty of Democrats.
"Tell me, people: how would the Bush years have gone if the "progressives" had known (or cared) about the truth?"
ReplyDeleteWhereas Republicans insist upon the truth at every juncture, with all the charts and graphs to back up their argument, hmm? I'm just demonstrating that you are highly selective when it comes to what truths you embrace.
I think if you asked most progressives what they considered the biggest issue, Plame blame would be very very low on the agenda. What matters to the grassroots out there is job security, housing, and so forth. What truths could they have embraced: 'the war will be over in three years', 'there are weapons of mass destruction' 'Saddam is involved with 9/11'? You don't give them a whole lot to be going on with there.
And look at how JRN is rushing to paper things over. Man, don't compare this administration with the last one, that's history. Well, how else can you measure how well or how poorly they are doing?! This is disingenuous to the hilt.
If progressives are so keen to hide the truth and dodge accountability then why can't I remember Bush's facebook account inviting positive and negative comments alike? Where were the consensus forums allowing the Democrats to have input? Whose was judged (by an insider) as 'more secretive than the Nixon administration'. Seems you've got things a bit back to front there.
Sorry for "hijacking" your thread.
Factfeces says “Tell me people”, and the people respond: .
ReplyDeleteFacebook, Factfogger? Facebook? Really? Just when I think you’re at the bottom of the stupid hole, you dig it deeper.
The fact that arguing with YOU is a waste of time and that YOU are of no consequence doesn’t mean I’ve papered over anything. YOU are not the keeper of facts. YOU are not the keeper of the truth. YOU are not the historian for the people. Nobody needs YOUR biased guidance.
YOU are, Factfellatio, a self important, dishonest “progressive” projectile crap spewer who has been smoking far too many of Pelosi’s tampons.
And since you’ve allegedly apologized to Crack for hijacking his thread (a thread I doubt you even read), at least answer the question he directly asked you:
Did Howard Dean lie or not?
Oh dear, once more into the breach:
ReplyDeleteI'm not self-important. I'm using a nondescript nom de plume to state my case. Sure I'm of vastly superior intellect to you, but that's not difficult.
Why am I dishonest? I see no evidence for that assertion.
I didn't address Crack's main point about Howard Dean (talk about your relevance factor - Howard Dean!) but I quoted and addressed two paragraphs of his post whereas you have addressed exactly nothing, other than pretending to be clever with my pseudonym, Just Really Negative/Just Ridiculous Noise/Jumped-up Reactionary Nob.
You see, it isn't about me or about my commentary. You can test the empirical evidence: did Howard Dean lie? is life under Obama better or worse than under Bush? is it better to spend money you get back or money you will never get back? Why? These questions don't need an agent. Anyone will do, preferably someone who cares about the truth more than you do.
I see we’ve arrived at the comedy portion of Factfubar’s “Stupid Can Be Fun” show.
ReplyDeleteSuperior intellect! Empirical evidence! You had me rolling in the aisles! You really should look up these words before you attempt to use them.
It’s clear you are ready to take your Pelosi’s Prevaricating Lemmings act on the road, beginning with 4,000 nights in Venezuela, where you’ll really be appreciated. And don’t worry about us. We’ll just have to hobble along without your deep insights and guiding wisdom.
Well done, Factfabricator, well done.
Factscratcher,
ReplyDeleteWill you please shut up now?