And Now for Something Completely Different

Hilarity Time

Posted Monday, September 13, 2010, at 11:46 AM

It is that time of year again. The leaves will soon be changing colors. College football and the NFL have started anew. Baseball will be ending soon. The political season is also just warming up. We stand at under two months before the mid-term elections. This one promises to be a doozy. Is the TEA Party being overplayed or underestimated. Time will only tell. I do not honestly believe as most of the media do, that the TEA Party will bring big changes to Congress if they are successful at the takeover (and they thought they would need guns to take over the government). The main reason for that is if you look at their "platform" it is not that different from the Republican Party's platform. Their ideas are not that far off from the GOP, they are just (at least on the outside) more conservative. Washington has a way of changing people though.

But it is the hilarity of the lies and misinformation oozing out on the screens everyday that has me laughing. If I thought they were actually serious in their ploys to get elected I would be scared. As a political junkie the one thing that I know for sure about politics is that any politician will do or say anything to get elected, very few will follow through on their promises.

Let us stick with President Obama for the best of the hijinks. There are still people out there that are trying to con you into believing that Obama has, in his two years, taken more vacations than any other President before him. It is not true, it is not even remotely true. It is not even the reality of true. They do not want you to know that, though. They want you stuck in the haze, or the cloud (that they themselves proclaim themselves above - no reference to you Fume Face, this is an entirely different kind of muck) of lies so that they can continue feeding it to you.

They also want you to believe (or they certainly allude to it as fact) that Obama is the first president to ever hold an invent to honor a person or a group of people, or that before Obama came to the White House college and pro teams that won their championships had never visited the president, ever. I used to think that these people were simply ill informed. I have changed that tune, however, these people know that the information they are peddling is absolutely false, but like I said they are trying to keep you in that dream like state so that they can continue lying without pause. The lame stream media (my thanks will never be enough for half term governor Palin for this line) for the most part let's them continue the lie. Let's take for instance the much beloved TEA Party (though most polled have a negative opinion on the group). Last night during my break for work I was watching CNN. It was the Situation Room. On it was a discussion about the affects that the TEA Party could have in November. There were two guests and both of whom have been involved and full support the TEA Party. Naturally they both think that the TEA Party is going to have a great affect on November. I digress.

The lies and distortions continue. There is John McCain who apparently thinks that if the tax cuts for the rich are not continued it is going to start a class warfare, because apparently there is not one going on already where the rich have over 90% of the wealth in this country and love to remind everyone of it and the poor are having to work two, sometimes, three jobs just to make sure they can stay under a roof for another month. Naturally when one tries to talk about the plight of the lower class these people do not want to hear anything about it and are just as apt to blame the lower class people for being in the situation they are in. Sticking with John McCain for a second, during the 2004 presidential election much was made about John Kerry's support then opposition to the Iraq War (apparently changing one's mind is now a big no-no in today's American). Well, ladies and gentlemen, I present you the King of Flip-floppers, John McCain. Over the last 20 years he has been for, then again, then for, then against, then for, then against campaign finance reform (can you guess when he was suddenly against it?). He was for illegal amnesty for almost a decade until it became clear that he could lose re-election on that issue in 2010 so now not only is he against amnesty, he also wants "the dang fence built" (as this would surely stop illegal immigration in it's steps, hilarity). He spent the majority of his career known as the Maverick, because he went his own way than that of the Republicans and would, from time to time, reach across the aisle to Democrats to get bills passed. Once again faced with losing re-election he has thrown away the moniker of the Maverick, then attempts to play dumb and claim that he never called himself a Maverick, even though he rode around on a really big bus with that name on it.

We have, on this blog, several times dispelled the lies about Obama's birth, Obama's faith, even Obama's patriotism. I can promise at least one post stating as fact that Obama WAS a Muslim in youth, without any proof, and then claiming that it does not matter. Here is my question, if it does not matter to you that Obama could have been a Muslim (or in this case was) when he was a child, then why bring it up? This is a classic ploy. Bring something up about someone that could be salacious to their name and then claim it does not matter to you. It is often brought up to foster to debate (that is the claim anyways) but if there is no proof behind the charge there really is no reason to bring it up anyways.

The best hilarity, though, that has been going on for the entire term of President Obama is the lie (it realy is not misinformation since it all has been debunked) that every single problem faced in America today did not happen until Obama became president. The deficit? There was no deficit (or at least no one cared about it) until January of 2008. The Great Recession? I did not start until January of 2008, despite the facts that it started much earlier. The bank bailout? Well of course Obama signed that into law, even though at the time he was only a Senator, apparently he could sign bills into law already. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Obama started them silly and they are solely his responsibility. Republicans voting no on every single bill that has come through Congress (even when they agreed with what the bill was for)? That was because the Democrats and Obama never reached across the aisle. This, even though, most amendments on most bills came from Republicans. The health care mandate that the TEA Party says is unconstitutional (even though car insurance is mandated and if you have none and are pulled over you get a hefty fine is perfectly constitutional, go figure) and are trying to sue against? That was a Republican idea that was passed through instead of the original Democratic idea that would have covered every American if they wanted with no mandate and no fine for not getting it (public option).

I have left quite a few others off, but you get the gist. I have to say this, the vast majority of Americans that align themselves with the TEA Party are being bamboozled. This is not about getting new ideas into Congress. This is about getting the old guard of the GOP back in power, even if it is indirect. There are no new ideas coming from the TEA Party. Sadly the lame stream media continues to push otherwise and as long as they keep pushing this narrative, a lot of people are going to be disappointed next January (if the Republicans gain power). For instance instead of talking economic recovery or job growth if they take power they are talking about never ending investigations.

Grab a bowl of popcorn, the next few months are going to be entertaining.

Comments

View 61 comments

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

Presidents have always taken a lot of vacations. They have always had sports stars, music stars and movie stars over to the White House for entertainment. They have always promised change and yes, they all lied too. You're right, Mike. This President is no different than any other President out there.

-- Posted by McCook1 on Mon, Sep 13, 2010, at 12:57 PM
I'm glad to see you say that President Obama is no different than any other President McCook. That is a rarity on this site.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Sep 13, 2010, at 11:06 PM
As per my post that the market was making a low at 1064 and I got a buy sign - the buy is still on. This is going to be a minimum 30 day move that should take us to the first week of October. The next strong resistence is 1150.

Does anyone on this site invest in the stock market? My brother and I have used our system for about 15 years. We have followed every significant trend since about 1995.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Tue, Sep 14, 2010, at 10:14 AM
I am not a long term bull at this moment. My system is giving me an unconfirmed at the momemt near top signal. I fear that we will reach some sort of significant top between October and Feb 2011 then trend down until the end of 2012 thus completing a 5 year cycle that started with the market top in October 2007. To early to make that call yet but it is setting up.

However, at the moment, I am still very long the market.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Tue, Sep 14, 2010, at 10:17 AM
This is quite interesting and also flies in the face of the old and tired never going to change GOP line of "tax and spend Democrats". I believe this also flies in the face of several posters and a blogger on this site:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-13/budget-deficit-in-u-s-narrows-13-to-90-...

That's what Democrats and specifically Obama said would happen as well. It's not great improvement but it is improvement none-the-less.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Sep 14, 2010, at 10:46 AM
@GI It actually makes perfect sense. The way its setup now there isn't any massive manufacturing taking place. They are basically doing the same thing retailers do when they want to keep prices artificially high (Pardon the pun).

-- Posted by Damu on Tue, Sep 14, 2010, at 1:28 PM
Curious...

http://democratic-party.us/republican-minority-leader-john-boehner-explains-why-...

Also on the radar...

http://firedoglake.com/2010/09/13/sarah-palin-statue-of-liberty-was-warning-agai...

-- Posted by Damu on Tue, Sep 14, 2010, at 4:14 PM
I was watching some show about drugs and their history with the government. They made it sound like marijuana was technically legal if you had a stamp from the government to sell or transport it except the government just refuses to sell the stamps. It's been awhile but it was interesting.

-- Posted by McCook1 on Tue, Sep 14, 2010, at 4:25 PM
@Mccook1 That's just another thing they can charge you with. If your familiar with the Machine Gun tax it's the same thing. It predates the actual lame classification system started.

The history channel did a really good special on all the drugs a while back. Called Hooked Illegal drugs and how they got that way. Google around and you can find them. Very informative.

-- Posted by Damu on Tue, Sep 14, 2010, at 8:27 PM
I called Laud a Gay basher because he invited me to go drink some pops with my buddies at a gay bar.

That is Gay bashing.

I have invited Mike and Senior and Laud to come to Houston and bring a video camera and we will go the bar to prove it.

I have posted links of Houston gay bars and reviews of Houston bars.

Mike claims bar is not gay and therefore laud wasn't doing anything wrong.

GI calls me a coward because I am not going to let him shout me down.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Tue, Sep 14, 2010, at 8:42 PM
"I called Laud a Gay basher because he invited me to go drink some pops with my buddies at a gay bar.

That is Gay bashing."

This statement is an outright lie and you know it. He asked you and only you to go to Numbers, not you and your buddies to a gay bar.

"I have invited Mike and Senior and Laud to come to Houston and bring a video camera and we will go the bar to prove it."

This is also an outright lie as you never asked anyone to take a video camera to Numbers to prove it.

"I have posted links of Houston gay bars and reviews of Houston bars."

Yet another lie. You posted one link showing Numbers as a gay bar. I, Senior Loud, and GI posted several links for gay bars and Numbers did not show up on a single site. GI posted an email from the person that runs Numbers showing that it was simply a music club.

I thought that you were referring to Senior Loud as Laud but since you mentioned Senior and Laud in the same sentence I have no idea who this Laud person is.

Senior Loud was the single most defender of gay rights on this website. I have explained to you and everyone why asking you to go to Numbers is not gay bashing. Even if he had specifically asked you to go to a gay bar he still would not have been gay bashing, wallis.

I invite you to do some research and find the actual definition of gay bashing as you clearly do not know what it is.

"GI calls me a coward because I am not going to let him shout me down."

This is simply your opinion and clearly wrong. GI calls you a coward because you never admit that you are wrong, in fact when you are proven wrong you push it even harder. That is why he calls you a coward as far as I know. GI, though, will have to answer that charge for himself.

Wallis you are becoming simply transparent on this and other issues.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Sep 14, 2010, at 9:08 PM
If I were a coward I would not post under my real name.

Molly it is a gay bar and Senior was trying to knock me. Why else would he have randomly picked that bar? Of all the well known places in Houston Texas to pick, why that place?

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Wed, Sep 15, 2010, at 5:17 AM
http://www.gaybarmaps.com/bars/texas/houston

Again, numbers is on the gay bar map.

As long as you guys keep bringing this up I will repeat the same. Come here, bring a video camera and we will go.

Senior was attacking me. He attacks all people that do not agree with him and I do not agree with him. He would not make a sarcastic comment about a random place. His attack was obvious.

So I repeat, As long as you guys keep bringing this up I will respond.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Wed, Sep 15, 2010, at 5:22 AM
Wallis nothing on this website explicitly says that Numbers is a gay bar. For all we know this is a list of gay friendly places. The last time I checked I had never heard of deli's that exclusively catered to lesbians and homosexuals.

At the end of the day the fact remains that either you do not know the definition of gay bashing or you were just trolling trying to cause a distraction.

"If I were a coward I would not post under my real name."

Swing and a miss, again wallis. Despite GI telling you directly why he is calling you a coward you miss the point. Just because you post under your real name does not mean you are not a coward.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Sep 15, 2010, at 6:15 AM
Okay now for some more hilarity.

The GOP is running with the lie that raising taxes for those who make over $250,000 will hurt small businesses even though the only 2% will be affected by the tax increase and that the majority of those are lobbying firms.

Also, you would think that if they were so concerned for small businesses they would have voted en masse for the bill the other day specifically designed to help small businesses. Instead it took two Republicans voting with Democrats to kill the filibuster.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Sep 15, 2010, at 6:18 AM
In all seriousness I would like to suggest a question to you all. For two years now all I have been hearing and reading on this blog and from the TEA Parties is that why should we have to pay for those on welfare, or social security, ect. through taxes. So my question is, why should I have to pay with my taxes to ensure that people that already have plenty of money get to keep that money?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Sep 15, 2010, at 6:20 AM
Why do I have the feeling that in the next worthless, unneeded war our soldiers will be killed by more weapons produced by our country than any other.

We trained al Queda with our weapons and we see how that paid off. We can't really be this stupid can we? Then again at the start of the Soviet regime in the 20s it wasn't Russian companies financing their economy it was ours. Different year, more of the same.

I agree GI. From this moment on I no longer want taxes coming out of my paycheck to pay for tax cuts for the rich or for building weapons. My tax dollars can and should still go to the military to pay our men and women in the service and to keep them properly protected when they are sent into harms way. But no more to developing new weapons that will never be used or hardly be used (the stealth bomber) or so that subcontractors can build horrible buildings that electrocute our service men while they are showering.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Sep 15, 2010, at 12:06 PM
Quite a spread of responses on this blog. Start off with "lies" of non-liberals, move on to personal attacks, then end with protests of taxes not used for personal beliefs.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, Sep 15, 2010, at 1:06 PM
Mike,

"So my question is, why should I have to pay with my taxes to ensure that people that already have plenty of money get to keep that money?"

I'm not sure if I can answer this question, to what are you referring? Is there a specific issue or are you just asking a general hypothetical?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, Sep 15, 2010, at 1:08 PM
General hypothetical, SW.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Sep 15, 2010, at 1:25 PM
"Start off with "lies" of non-liberals"

I notice you didn't debunk any of the "lies", only put the word in quotation marks to make it seem like they weren't lies. Can you debunk any of what I blogged about SW?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Sep 15, 2010, at 1:28 PM
Mike,

No I don't think I can "debunk" any of your opinions in a way you would accept. You have already made your mind up about all things, and generally act as if you can't be wrong. I don't feel anything I could say would change your opinion. You seem to be like Wallis and the gay bar thing.

However I will address some of these "lies" if you'd like.

1. Who are these people saying Obama has taken more vacation than any president in history? Where do you see this oozing from your screen? I'm sure there are some nutjobs who might rant about this, but in your blog, you make it seem this is a generally supported perception. I haven't heard it explained like this from anyone but you.

2. Again who says Obama is the first president to host groups? I haven't seen this either. I'm not disallowing that it may occur but your spin is inappropriate in my view.

3. John McCain has his own issues and is not popular with anyone outside of Arizona, at least it seems to me. As long as he can convince the people of Arizona he can "lie" all he wants I suppose, eventually people will get tired of him and stop voting for him. Your attempt to link him and TEA Party people together seems laughable at best and dishonest at worst, from what I hear they don't like him much at all. BTW I like how you keep living in the past on the flip-flop issues, nice to bring up 2004 again. What's next, Bush "stole" the 2000 election so his presidency was invalid?

4. Speaking of the Obama is a Muslim debate, when I read the post you are referring to, I didn't get the impression the poster was saying that Obama WAS a Muslim, just that he could understand IF he was because children have little choice in which church their parents have them attend. The point is irrelevant anyway so bringing it up yet again here, just wastes time, thank you.

5. Yet again, who are these people you are addressing for stating every problem in America started when Obama was elected? I'd imagine some people may think that but again, you make it seem that is the generally held view. Interestingly, I feel one could make a decent argument that Obama doesn't take any responsibility for any problems in America but that is a separate argument.

To sum up my general point about the "lies" you find so funny is that I suppose they are false statements, but I don't see them being made by any except for a very few fringe types. In your blog you make it seem that these extreme views are held by any conservative or person who opposes the Administrations agenda in what I assume is an attempt to discredit anyone who is in opposition. You have never allowed that any rational person can hold an opposing view and lump them all together. I find the entire tenor of this blog to be dishonest by trying to distort the views of conservatives by indicating that they hold the ridiculous views stated above. Those views, as I have mentioned previously, I only see from you or other fringe types on these boards, never have I seen a legitimate source making these claims.

The contraposition to your "lies" would be for someone to cherry pick the most ridiculous statements by leftist then try to apply those to all non-conservatives.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, Sep 15, 2010, at 1:56 PM
Your previous question, I don't think I can respond to a hypothetical in any way that could do it justice. You apparently feel your taxes are used directly to ensure the rich keep their money, without a more direct statement, I see this only as your opinion. As we've discussed in the past, opinions not based on fact are almost impossible to change.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, Sep 15, 2010, at 1:58 PM
On the subject of personal attacks, why do you get so upset when you feel you are under attack and stick up for your like minded peers when you feel they are under attack, but have no problem and even join in when someone who disagrees with you is attacked. Is this not a hypocritical stance?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, Sep 15, 2010, at 2:01 PM
Just so I have this straight. You call them "lies" and when I ask if you can debunk them, instead of debunking them you tell me to prove it? Okay. take a gander at the other blog on this site. You will see what I am talking about. Check out other right-wing blogs and right-wing news networks and you will see what I am talking about.

"The contraposition to your "lies" would be for someone to cherry pick the most ridiculous statements by leftist then try to apply those to all non-conservatives."

These are your words not mine though I do understand why you are trying to turn them into my words. I never said that I was applying them to all non-liberals. So to jump to that conclusion with what I said is very dishonest of you.

"You have never allowed that any rational person can hold an opposing view and lump them all together. I find the entire tenor of this blog to be dishonest by trying to distort the views of conservatives by indicating that they hold the ridiculous views stated above."

That's a mouthful. You could have just called me a liar but you overextended yourself on one point:

"...trying to distort the views of conservatives by indicating that they hold the ridiculous views stated above." So is that why 34% of Conservatives believe (wrongly I might add) that Obama is a Muslim and only 33% believe him to be a Christian. I didn't just make this stuff up SW as you are so inclined to assert that I did.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11027568

"You apparently feel your taxes are used directly to ensure the rich keep their money ..." You came so close to understanding what I was saying it hurts. My point was that not all taxes are going to welfare or medicare or social security but that has not stopped some Conservatives from asserting that their taxes should not go to those programs. My point was if they can yell about where they don't want their taxes going then so can I.

Of course here is the point where you will act as if you have never heard that argument, in an attempt to derail my bigger point. Which I know you understand.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Sep 15, 2010, at 2:14 PM
Mike,

Your bigger point if I understand it is that conservatives are all bigots and liars. Is that correct?

I called them "lies" not because they are not false statement but because you are misrepresenting them as generally held beliefs. Didn't I make that clear enough? I also said nothing I could say would convince you to change your opinion, is this a "lie" as well? My point was not to say you are lying just to try to point out how unfair your comments were. I failed, as I indicated I would.

I don't think you understand how a statement works. You said: "These are your words not mine though I do understand why you are trying to turn them into my words."

I'm glad you understand that those are my words that's why I said them. I don't understand how you think my voicing an opinion is trying to put words in your mouth. Again I have to question how closely you read my comments.

I'm also glad you can now admit that you feel anyone who disagrees with you is incapable of rational thought. Recognizing a problem goes a long way towards solving it.

I don't think you are lying I think the tone of this blog is dishonest. I think you honestly believe the things you say, but that doesn't make them accurate.

Is 34% a vast majority? I don't assert you made up your opinions I said they weren't based on facts, there is a difference. They are based on your interpretation of facts. You see, I don't believe that 34% is a vast majority but you seem to think so.

If your point was that not all taxes goes to support welfare, how does that equate with your interpretation of my comment that I feel you said all of your taxes go to support the rich? My comment didn't imply that at all.

However, you are right, you can complain all you want about where your taxes go and in doing so you lump yourself in with the stupid conservatives who do the same.

Congratulations you have indicated that you think the same way as the conservatives you hate. And since I think the people who do that are stupid, I have no option but to think you are stupid in this case too. And here I tried so hard not to say anything negative and you went and said it for me, just not is so few words.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, Sep 15, 2010, at 2:53 PM
Mike,

I realized I didn't address one of you comments that was important.

I didn't ask you to prove it, I challenged you to think more broadly. All of the things you complained of I will gladly admit that there are stupid people who will espouse those beliefs. There are just as many idiots on the left that believe the stupid ideas some leftists espouse, do you disagree? Your blog made it seem like you believe a majority hold those beliefs.

Your implication that these are majority held beliefs makes your views and comments of these "lies" seem they are based on truthiness.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, Sep 15, 2010, at 3:00 PM
I love it SW, predictable as always. I call you on putting words and assertions to me where there are none and all you can do is question my intelligence.

You clearly are not fully understanding my tax statement, so I will just leave it alone. I have explained it in full twice now and you still have yourself convinced that I actually believe that way. But hey you brought up intelligience. Ad nauseum I might add. Every paragraph questioned mine, but if I did the same to you you would blow a gasket.

I don't know which is funnier that you are trying, unsuccessfully, trying to lump me into a group you believe I despise or that because you don't understand what I am saying automatically makes me the idiot.

Let's try this SW instead of everytime you address me you question my intelligence do some thinking of your own and you may just understand what I am talking about.

I never said ALL conservatives think this way and yet you continue to assert that not only do I believe that but at some point I made that statement. Yet you have yet to offer one instance where I said it, all you can muster up is assertions and allusions that you have dreamed up.

"I'm also glad you can now admit that you feel anyone who disagrees with you is incapable of rational thought."

Again at what point did I say this? Talk about lying. You are just making up statements left and right at this point. Can you even tell the truth? Or would just hurt your argument?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Sep 15, 2010, at 3:20 PM
"Your implication that these are majority held beliefs makes your views and comments of these "lies" seem they are based on truthiness."

All your rants about how I am making assertions, allusions, and implications about what people believe (which you can't even prove) and then you go and do the same with me. You are an amazing individual. But then again I can't forget that you are the one that makes up all these rules for how bloggers and posters are supposed to act and then you don't follow any of them.

Do you have any proof that I said or "implied" that a majority of conservatives believe a certain way?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Sep 15, 2010, at 3:25 PM
"Your implication that these are majority held beliefs makes your views and comments of these "lies" seem they are based on truthiness."

All your rants about how I am making assertions, allusions, and implications about what people believe (which you can't even prove) and then you go and do the same with me. You are an amazing individual. But then again I can't forget that you are the one that makes up all these rules for how bloggers and posters are supposed to act and then you don't follow any of them.

Do you have any proof that I said or "implied" that a majority of conservatives believe a certain way?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Sep 15, 2010, at 3:25 PM
Mike,

"I call you on putting words and assertions to me where there are none"

It's comments like this which cause me to question your intelligence. Can you please explain why you think my making a statment is putting words into your mouth. All you did was complain that I was picking on you then repeat the same thing that I asked about in a slightly different way, this is generally your response to my questions or challenges.

"I don't know which is funnier that you are trying, unsuccessfully, trying to lump me into a group you believe I despise"

Mea culpa, perhaps I was too harsh is saying you hate conservatives, but that is the impression I get from your constant attacks on them. But when you say: "My point was if they can yell about where they don't want their taxes going then so can I." You were the one that lumped yourself in with them, I just noted it and shared my disdain for people who do the thing that you and some conservatives do.

"'I'm also glad you can now admit that you feel anyone who disagrees with you is incapable of rational thought.'"

Again at what point did I say this? Talk about lying. You are just making up statements left and right at this point. Can you even tell the truth? Or would just hurt your argument?"

Let me try to make this simple so you can understand where you said this, please follow along.

You said: "That's a mouthful. You could have just called me a liar but you overextended yourself on one point"

If we take your statement at face value, you indicate that only one part of what I said was incorrect. The one point you described me as overextending and therefore being wrong about was not about the irrational behaviors of conservatives. Therefore it seemed to me that you agree that conservatives are incapable of rational thought. But mostly I was just poking you to see you squawk. Thank you.

You seem to be doing a lot of trying to discredit me as a person rather than addressing my arguments, what did you say about that earlier?

The truth of your implication is in my interpretation of what you said. I can be mistaken or be incorrect in my understanding of what you meant, but to do so doesn't invalidate my opinion any more than when you misinterpret what I mean or say, you are still allowed your opinion. I hope you are aware of this and mean to say what you imply. Serious question I really want answered time: do you write your blog only for and in response to the few extremists on this site?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, Sep 15, 2010, at 3:53 PM
All of your talk about truth and lies makes me realize something about you. You think truth and lies are objective. You think of them as facts to be proven or disproven, I think of them as beliefs. I think they are subjective. Truth and fact, while synonyms, do not mean the same thing. A person can be truthful about their beliefs and still be wrong, take yourself for example.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, Sep 15, 2010, at 3:56 PM
If you are telling the truth about something it is a fact, if you are lying about something it is not fact. It's hardly subjective. But that does explain a lot about you. You believe truth to be subjective which also means you believe the truth can be stretched.

Truth and truthful are two different things. I can be truthful about what I believe but it doesn't mean I am right. I can tell the truth about what happened in an accident and it is fact.

So much for going one post without questioning intelligence. Are you even capable of having a dialogue with another person you disagree with without questioning their intelligence simply because you disagree with them?

"'I'm also glad you can now admit that you feel anyone who disagrees with you is incapable of rational thought.'"

Again at what point did I say this? Talk about lying. You are just making up statements left and right at this point. Can you even tell the truth? Or would just hurt your argument?"

Let me try to make this simple so you can understand where you said this, please follow along.

You said: "That's a mouthful. You could have just called me a liar but you overextended yourself on one point"

If we take your statement at face value, you indicate that only one part of what I said was incorrect. The one point you described me as overextending and therefore being wrong about was not about the irrational behaviors of conservatives. Therefore it seemed to me that you agree that conservatives are incapable of rational thought."

Where is the disconnect here SW? I was talking specifically about you and yet you are still asserting that I am lumping all conservatives into the a category that you made up and then assigned as something I said. You are making connections here where there are none.

"You seem to be doing a lot of trying to discredit me as a person rather than addressing my arguments, what did you say about that earlier?"

Are you talking about me or yourself with this statement. I've addressed and answered every single argument you have addressed. All you want to do is question my intelligence with every single post. Who's trying to discredit here, SW? I answer all your questions and arguments to the best of my ability. You, instead of readdressing them only seem to care about character assassination in questioning my intelligence at every turn.

Seriously can you address me once without questioning my intelligence? If not there really isn't much more I can say to you. All you seem willing to do is lob bombs at me and then claim that I am evading or trying to discredit you. You are the one trying to discredit.

A few extremists on this site? I will leave that one alone for now, but as I have explained in the past (I guess you just keep missing it) I blog because it gives me a release, it allows me to speak my mind and rant about what's going on in the world today. If you have a problem with that no one is forcing you to stick around, SW. You want everyone to play by your rules while at the same time excusing yourself from those same rules and then you blow gaskets and start questioning people intelligence, or their seriousness, or changing what you have said when you are called out on your bs.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Sep 15, 2010, at 11:23 PM
By the way I am not going to let this go without a little more recognition. You have been all over me today because you felt I was assigning definitions or characteristics. Yet when I asked a question, tongue in cheek, about taxes, you turned right around and assigned to me a belief about taxes I never said I had.

I know this will be lost on you SW, but it's a pretty good case of hypocrisy.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Sep 15, 2010, at 11:25 PM
Here's a story I am pretty sure that Fox News will cover.

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/quran-burner-fired-his-job-nj-transit

I am sure they will naturally leave out this little nugget (especially O'Reilly who calls this group a terrorist group):

Chris Dunn of the New York Civil Liberties Union said that if Fenton was fired for his actions then his First Amendment rights may have been violated.

"The Supreme Court has recognized a constitutional right to burn the flag. As reprehensible as it may be, burning the Koran would be protected as well," he said.

That's odd because all I have ever heard about the ACLU from the lame stream media is that they attack the Constitution and specifically Christianity. Yet here they are coming to the defense of a guy that burned a Qur'an.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Sep 15, 2010, at 11:33 PM
I have asked several questions in the past few weeks to everyone and I have realized that I have yet to receive any answers and it struck me as odd so I will re-ask some of those questions now:

One of the rallying cries in opposing the stimulus plan and the health care reform was that it was going to cause huge increases in the deficit. The opposite has occurred as the deficit under Obama has now decreased by 13%. Is the belief still that Obama will cause the deficit more than any other President in history despite the deficit being cut?

In that same vein we heard an awful lot about how the national Republican Party wants to extend all the Bush-era tax cuts, even going so far as saying that they would filibuster any tax cut (specifically Obama's planned tax cuts for those making $250,000 and less and letting the tax cuts for those that make more expire). Yet the same deficit hawks from the previous debates seem to have no qualms about adding even more to the deficit just to keep tax cuts for the rich. Why would they be so opposed to increasing the deficit (though it hasn't) to kick-start the economy and ensure that all Americans are healthy but they have no issues increasing the deficit to give tax cuts to the rich?

I thought there was another but I am drawing a huge blank. If I think of it I will post it later.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Sep 16, 2010, at 9:49 AM
Mike,

"If you are telling the truth about something it is a fact, if you are lying about something it is not fact."

If I say I believe Arkansas is going to win the BCS title but they don't, was I lying? Or was I speaking the truth as I saw it, which happened to be innaccurate? You talk about being truthful so I think you understand what I'm saying. The people who say the "lies" you are throwing a fit about are being truthful, they believe what they say, they can be wrong but that doesn't make them liars. Again this is the difference between opinion and fact, which when it comes to you railing against people, I think you have difficulty telling the difference. The truth is stretched on a daily basis, do you understand how people work at all?

On the subject of lying:

"I've addressed and answered every single argument you have addressed."

I understand you believe this to be true but it is not. To name a single example, several posts back I asked you to explain why my expressing an opinion was "putting words in your mouth" to which you haven't replied, or if you have I'm sorry to have missed it. You are very selective in what you respond to or not. I think I mentioned it earlier that I try to respond to all questions if I am able, where you only pick the ones you want, and I assume ignore the ones you know you can't "win".

"So much for going one post without questioning intelligence"

I believe I went several posts before I felt you made it necessary to question your intelligence. Scroll back up and then apologize for your "lie" please. :)

"Yet when I asked a question, tongue in cheek, about taxes, you turned right around and assigned to me a belief about taxes I never said I had."

Actually I expressed what I think about your beliefs I allowed as I always do for the possibility I could be mistaken. Do you ever allow for the possibility you could be mistaken? If you do I haven't seen it.

Also your tongue in cheek response only served to lump you in with conservatives who cry about their taxes, a point I noticed you can't refudiate. :)

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Thu, Sep 16, 2010, at 12:37 PM
"Do you ever allow for the possibility you could be mistaken? If you do I haven't seen it."

Either you are outright lying about this part or you don't read what I type (funny since you constantly charge me with not reading what you type), because I have said on a great deal many of occasions that I could be wrong. I have even admitted when I have been wrong, made the correction, and then apologized for the correction.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Sep 16, 2010, at 6:09 PM
"If I say I believe Arkansas is going to win the BCS title but they don't, was I lying? Or was I speaking the truth as I saw it, which happened to be innaccurate?"

Again SW, and at this point I have no idea how you are not getting it, you are being truthful about your opinion. You are not speaking truth, mostly because of the action you are speaking of has not happened yet, therefor there is no fact to it. You are not speaking the truth as you see it, you are being truthful about your opinion.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Sep 16, 2010, at 6:11 PM
I do apologize SW you did not question my intelligence in all of your posts directed at me, just a majority.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Sep 16, 2010, at 6:14 PM
"Also your tongue in cheek response only served to lump you in with conservatives who cry about their taxes, a point I noticed you can't refudiate. :)"

I have repudiated it, you just choose to ignore it. Tongue in cheek was the repudiation. I was taking the argument about getting all upset about taxes going to the mythical black woman with seven children living off the government and extended it to the rich, GI then extended it to the military.

I am sorry that you are having issues understanding this. I have explained it on several occasions and yet you keep trying to assert that I was being truthful (notice truthful, not truth.) about it.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Sep 16, 2010, at 6:18 PM
Natso, every single one of those statements no matter what race, sex, religion, or political ideology you plug into the scenario are only truthful statements of someones beliefs.

They become statements of truth and fact only if you can then back them up with verifiable information.

At the end of the day truth and lies are objective and being truthful is subjective.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Sep 17, 2010, at 10:21 AM
Guillermo,

The point I have tried to make to Mike, and failed apparently, is that many if not most of the things he decried as "lie" were in fact differences of opinions and interpretations. The "lies" he complained of were the opinions of some and opinions can't be debunked.

You take Sam to task for speaking in generalizations, but give Mike a pass when he does so.

When Natso made his statements you say they are not true. If it is invalid for him to make those arguments as you claim, how do you justify when you make similar claims against other groups or when others who you agree with here do so? Or will you agree that those are only your opinion and are in fact, not true facts?

I believe that in order for someone to lie they must have intent to mislead. Do you agree or disagree?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Sep 17, 2010, at 11:36 AM
What were the lies I spoke of that you believe to be a difference of opinion?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Sep 17, 2010, at 11:39 AM
Mike,

The issues of Obama's faith and patriotism, the issues of John McCain strike me as the more obvious opinions.

As I mentioned earlier, I also think it is dishonest for you to portray the comments about Obama's vacation, being the first to honor sports teams, and every problem being Obama's fault as being anything other than an extreme fringe idea. I haven't heard those comments made anywhere else and honestly when you mentioned them it was the first I'd heard of them other than Sam's rant about Obama's vacation. I hardly think Sam's blogs count as a legitimate source for you to be citing as indicative of any large group of people's thought.

Why was my expressing an opinion putting words in your mouth? You still haven't addressed that.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Sep 17, 2010, at 12:10 PM
Mike,

I'll ask you as simply as possible the same question I asked Guillermo.

I think that in order for someone to lie they must have the intent to mislead or misrepresent. Do you agree or disagree?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Sep 17, 2010, at 12:12 PM
Guillermo,

"Mike is reasonable"

I find that debatable, and I have known Mike longer than you have. :)

If the choice to respond is what you respect then I could see a problem with Sam since he almost never responds. When I try to be reasonable and clarify something with Mike he usually misinterprets what I meant then repeats his same argument. That is of course when he actually responds to my questions instead of picking one line out of my post and going off on it, sometimes while taking it out of context. So I usually end up getting tired of it and decide to just mess with him so I can picture him spluttering behind the keyboard and chortle to myself. But as we've discussed, I'm kind of a jerk. Whenever I ask Sam something he almost never responds.

I find it more likely that Mike is respectful to you because you believe similarly. There is nothing wrong with it, just human nature.

To answer your such as question I will refer you to the various statements you make about Christians, Republicans, and Conservatives. You have made those types of comments many times and I think you know what I'm talking about, I'd rather not have to go back and pick quotes but will do so if you so require.

I have no disagreement on the regrettability of ignorance and stupidity. I see evidence of this on both sides of the political aisle.

My entire disagreement with Mike on this issue is his characterization of incorrect thought as lies. If he had used other terms to describe the thoughts I would not have had this issue. To use an example he throws about often: Obama's religion. If someone believes Obama is a secret Muslim while he is not, that person is not lying if they declare that belief, they can be incorrect, but if there was no intent to mislead then they didn't lie. The counter to that is to correct the information not call that person a liar. Mike's apparent inability to restrain himself from making hyperbolic statements leads me to question your supposition that he is reasonable.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Sep 17, 2010, at 2:54 PM
As a man thinketh: Man is made or unmade by himself,in th armour of thought. He forges the weapons by which he destroys himself. He also fashions the tools with which he builds for himself heavenly mansions of joy, strength and peace. By the right choice and true application of thought, man ascends to divine perfection. By the abuse and wrong application of thought, he descends below the level of the beast. Between these two are all the grades of character, and man is their maker and master of all their beautiful truths pertaining to the soil. None is more gladdening or fruitfull of divine promise and confidence than this, that man is the master of thought, the molder of charactor and the maker and shaper of condition,environment and destiny. Just thought that both sides of the political spectrum should read this.

-- Posted by Keda46 on Fri, Sep 17, 2010, at 3:42 PM
"The issues of Obama's faith and patriotism, the issues of John McCain strike me as the more obvious opinions."

So you are honestly questioning Obama's faith and patriotism?

The mention of John McCain isn't opinion but they are the Senator's own distortions. Everything I listed about the man came from his own mouth and actions over the past few years.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Sep 17, 2010, at 5:08 PM
"I think that in order for someone to lie they must have the intent to mislead or misrepresent. Do you agree or disagree?"

I completely disagree. Someone can unknowingly lie. If what they are saying is not the truth but they are posing it as the truth (whether they know it to be truth or not) is a lie.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Sep 17, 2010, at 5:09 PM
I am often more civil to GI, SW because typically when we do have a disagreement he respects me enough not to question my intelligence simply because we disagree. GI and I have had several arguments in the past. One of our first saw GI not post on my blog for several months, mostly because I was being bullheaded.

I will say this I do believe GI to have more intelligence than I do. Also, when we do have our disagreement it tends to be civil and when I have been wrong (which is most of the time in the case of GI) I apologize and move on.

It is clear SW that you do not respect me or my beliefs and that is why you spend so much time not only trying to discredit my ideas but also questioning my intelligence. You change your thought processes at a dizzying rate so that you can always appear on the right side of the argument. You make bold statements and then attach them to someone who has not made them in order to argue with them.

I will not question your intelligence. I do not know how smart you are, but I know your style of debate and that is what I question.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Sep 17, 2010, at 5:23 PM
"I think that in order for someone to lie they must have the intent to mislead or misrepresent. Do you agree or disagree?"

I completely disagree. Someone can unknowingly lie. If what they are saying is not the truth but they are posing it as the truth (whether they know it to be truth or not) is a lie.

Let me clarify this statement. If someone is putting out information that is false but they are claiming that it is fact, that is a lie.

If someone is unknowingly putting out information that is false but they claim that it is fact, they are mistaken.

If someone is putting out information in it that is mostly true but they are twisting the information to better suit themselves, they are misinforming.

Obama is a Christian and he is also very patriotic to his country. Those are undeniable facts. To claim that he is not a Christian or at some point was a Muslim (by his choice or not) without any evidence to support that is an outright lie. It's not misinformation, it's not being mistaken, it is a lie.

To claim that he is unpatriotic simply because you do not agree with his ideology is misinformation and distorting the truth. To claim that he is unpatriotic with no evidence to back that claim, it is a lie.

Most of the people who spread the bs about Obama (no matter what it is), if it is backed up by absolutely no facts, are lying pure and simple. Some (a very small minority) are unknowingly lying. The majority know better but feel better about themselves painting him as a boogeyman so they will make things up if they think it will discredit him.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Sep 17, 2010, at 5:29 PM
This is actually a serious question (actually all are my questions are for the most part serious):

What in the world is wrong with social justice? After all Jesus preached it.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Sep 17, 2010, at 6:02 PM
I believe that somewhere along the line social justice got entangled with the idea of wealth redistribution. Remember that social is part of the word socialism.

Most social justice can be done without having to go after taxes. But in today's society because social justice is put in the same category as socialism and wealth redistribution, all instances of social justices are equated with the so-called "welfare queen" and therefor it is all seen as bad (I mean even in Beckworld churches that practice a form of social justice are seen as socialist churches (which is very odd considering one of the tenets of socialism is about doing away with religion).

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Sep 17, 2010, at 6:37 PM
I do agree with that whole-heartedly. I remember in my time in McCook a measure came up to add a tax to build a new elementary school in McCook. It failed miserably. Less than a year later there was a vote to build a new center for the elderly, it passed overwhelmingly.

It depends on who you are and what you support. The bottom line is if you vote to increase taxes to build or improve something for a group of people that is social justice.

My main problem is that we as humans, more so than Americans, should always be willing and able to help those that are in need. Unfortunately we live in a society where those that are in need are looked down upon and blamed for our ills.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Sep 17, 2010, at 8:15 PM
I will admit though, you no longer irritate me as much as you once did Mike. I now pity you. Alot of your reactions that myself and others have labeled thin-skinned or crybabyish could be very wrong. Your world must be filled with anger and rage that I can't even begin to understand. That closeminded world view cannot allow anyone to have a different understanding than you. To think that anyone espousing a view on what they understand to be true cannot be proven mistaken only a liar? You must have a serious hate-on or dislike for a good number of people. I encourage you to really do some soul searching at the least, or get some professional, ethical counseling. -NatsoGouda

Take a good long look in mirror the next time you want to call someone closed-minded. That's all I have to say to that. If you want to actually have a conversation about something let me know. Judging others is not your strong suit.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, Sep 19, 2010, at 4:03 PM
Oh goody I am a zealot (I know I will regret saying this but I do miss some of the spell checkers that used to populate this blog) and on top of that I have driven you aways (again). This has turned into a pretty good day.

Again, Natso, don't speak of other people being open-minded until you give it a shot.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Sep 20, 2010, at 1:05 AM
SW, it has been four days since I have asked you if you honestly question President Obama's religion and patriotism after you posted this:

"The issues of Obama's faith and patriotism, the issues of John McCain strike me as the more obvious opinions."

I'll grant you that it was the weekend and you do spend time away from the blogs but it is time to own up to your statement.

Do you, despite what the President in his own words and actions, question whether he is a Christian or even more pointed is unpatriotic?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Sep 21, 2010, at 9:17 AM
"The issues of Obama's faith and patriotism, the issues of John McCain strike me as the more obvious opinions."

Posted by SW

Still waiting for an answer SW. Do you honestly question Obama's faith and more importantly his patriotism? You say that they are just opinions on my part. Is your opinion that Obama is unpatriotic?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Sep 22, 2010, at 11:32 AM
I see that you are back on the blogs SW so there is no reason not to answer the question. You stated:

"The issues of Obama's faith and patriotism, the issues of John McCain strike me as the more obvious opinions."

If you believe that the issue of Obama's patriotism is an opinion then are you questioning it?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Sep 22, 2010, at 4:15 PM
Odd that you would take me to task on one blog about avoiding questions and yet here on this blog a direct question at you has gone unanswered for nearly a week.

What say you SW? Do you question President Obama's Patriotism since you believe it only to be opinion to say that he is patriotic?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Sep 22, 2010, at 6:34 PM

Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration:

If you already have an account, follow this link to login
Otherwise, follow this link to register