Lol, you must be new here, iamheather

Yes actually, I am new here (fairly anyway). I have never deleted anyone's comments so far. Sorry to disappoint ya, St. Hubbins!

One wonders, you know! Most people have the sense to separate fact from fiction. The more vicious a person becomes, the more you have a right to distrust them, IMO. Since, we don't sit in the CIA's office or Presidents office we are subject to taking these people and their staff at their word. When something in their character shines through and gives us reason to distrust them, then we have a right too. I have not found sufficient reason to mistrust the President or his staff. I believe they have given us the best information they have in order to keep us informed.

There are other motives besides truth, that makes someone become overtaken with malice toward the President. That motive is scaresly veiled with it is filled with venomous words, like "Liar" ..etc., every few seconds, followed by little to no fact to support the accusation. If it has fact behind it, then "Liar" is a conclusion that can be gathered by the one who looks at the facts of the issue without another having to draw the conclusion for him/her. Otherwise, "Liar" is likely an attempt to persuade others by emotion, rather than fact. I don't put much stock in namecalling. Name calling is generally an overly defensive posture, though it is very revealing.

I ask you not just what you believe but justification why you believe so, and if the only fault for someone is faulty intelligence from intel agencies than who is to blame when the intelligence is sound but the person gives faulty information?
Is there justification for such idiosyncrasy in such a person?
How do you know what you know without being there to know what that person knows?
Sabbatismus maybe correct, than again Sabbatismus maybe incorrect, but what justification is there to support the incorrect...the faulty intel...the political leaning...or the reasoning of the individual who believes the person to be incorrect.
What guarantee do we have that the reasoning behind the assertion that Sabbatismus is incorrect is not incorrect in itself, and what criteria was established to provide for the proof, also how was the criteria established without proof to establish in the correct manner?

- Grim, Philosophical Skeptic
I do not claim knowledge is possible; I do not claim knowledge is impossible; I merely insist you convince me you can justify or prove what you claim to be true. And, of course, it's not my fault if you can't succeed in doing so.

scaresly veiled with it is filled with venomous words, like "Liar" ..etc., every few seconds, followed by little to no fact to support the accusation. If it has fact behind it, then "Liar" is a conclusion that can be gathered by the one who looks at the facts of the issue without another having to draw the conclusion for him/her. Otherwise, "Liar" is likely an attempt to persuade others by emotion, rather than fact. I don't put much stock in namecalling. Name calling is generally an overly defensive posture, though it is very revealing.

Yes I find most of the time name-calling is the last resort when all other arguments have been exhausted and disproven. Very interesting post, Sabbatismus.

I ask you not just what you believe but justification why you believe so, and if the only fault for someone is faulty intelligence from intel agencies than who is to blame when the intelligence is sound but the person gives faulty information? Is there justification for such idiosyncrasy in such a person? How do you know what you know without being there to know what that person knows? Sabbatismus maybe correct, than again Sabbatismus maybe incorrect, but what justification is there to support the incorrect...the faulty intel...the political leaning...or the reasoning of the individual who believes the person to be incorrect. What guarantee do we have that the reasoning behind the assertion that Sabbatismus is incorrect is not incorrect in itself, and what criteria was established to provide for the proof, also how was the criteria established without proof to establish in the correct manner? - Grim, Philosophical Skeptic

Uh, yeah...what he said. I think I agree with ya, Grim. I usually do. But I may be having a blonde moment.

Hey Iamheather, thanks for the not-unkind words and for posting this article. I must draw your attention to a remark you attributed towards me in another thread (Fiscal Sanity) that is now locked:

IMH: "St. Hubbins immediately jumped on Pell Grants. Don't cut that funding. Kids won't get a college degree.What about the environment? Global warming is a huge issue for some people.
And the low-income education programs? Well cut too much....you are a heartless Republican taking checks"

I never said this. It was TBone4Justice who discussed Pell grants, not me. I'm Canadian and have no idea what a Pell grant is. Now, I'm sure you've read what a nasty guy I am and stuff, but making up stuff and attributing it to me crosses my line and I'd appreciate it if you didn't do it.

I suppose it was an honest mistake, but it seems to happen quite often to me here and probably can be attributed to some of the ill feelings towards me. Again, I keep reading how awful a guy I am, yet all I do is post polite, civilized comments and get nothing but personal attacks and falsely attributed quotes in return. It makes you wonder who the toxic bloggers really are.

Kindest Regards,
David St. Hubbbins

I suppose it was an honest mistake, but it seems to happen quite often to me here and probably can be attributed to some of the ill feelings towards me.

You assumed correctly. I don't have any idea who you are and never heard of you beyond this article and the other. You are the one who brought up any ill feelings people may have about you. No one has told me anything. I don't feel anything for you, positive or negative. I am indifferent in your regards.

If you have any doubts that it was an honest mistake, check out some of my other comments. I have accidentally attributed things to the wrong person before in my comments. Once someone points it out, I always correct it with something like "ooops, credit where credit is due." Maybe I am dumb or easily confused...whatever. Don't give yourself so much credit to think that I would deliberately try to misquote or discredit you.

I apologize and would correct the error if I could.

What amazes me here is the fact that everybody gets riled up when someone says politicans and staff do not lie to the american public on a repeated basis. Well guess what folks...THEY DO!

Who are the real bigots? Right-wingers? Red state constituents? I think not. Below I have cited comments made by White House Bureau Chief Helen Thomas, now a syndicated columnist with Hearst.

At the risk of diverting the conversation back to the original topic (or maybe not...), I though Helen Thomas retired years ago. She's been around since what, Kennedy?

Sounds like it's time for her to go off and be a well respected former Bureau Chief, and if she just can't help herself, guest commentator somewhere. Maybe for CNN or CBS.

*edited to expand on the thought*

"I tell you, the women is a monster, a monster, a monster," ... "The lady is a goddamn liar," Thomas said, adding that such prevaricators were commonplace in the Bush White House.

Not exactly unbiased reporting, even if the charge of being a liar is true.

David -

Vice President Cheney made perhaps the single most egregious statement aboutIraq’s nuclear capabilities, claiming: “we know he has been absolutely devoted totrying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstitutednuclear weapons.”

Let's take a closer look at the above, which you cite as proof that Cheney lied.

..."we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons." That statement is true.

..."And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." That is a statement of belief, not a lie.

You can argue he snookered them, but you can't say he lied.

BTW, Sex Farm Woman was your best song ever, IMHO.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Back to the original topic of Helen:

She may be "highly-regarded" by the pack of hyenas she works with every day, but she has clearly decided that her age and job seniority entitle her to be as rude as she damn well pleases. She's a perfect example of what's wrong with mainstream reporters. That others on the White House beat regard her highly only confirms how bad things are. I haven't come lately to this conclusion, either - they've disgusted me since as far back as Nixon's first term, regardless of the party of the White House occupant.

Cheers,
Daiwa

She's a perfect example of what's wrong with mainstream reporters.

How true...how true!

What amazes me here is the fact that everybody gets riled up when someone says politicans and staff do not lie to the american public on a repeated basis. Well guess what folks...THEY DO!

Of that, I will not argue.  However, the debate is on the amount of lies told.  I think the public, after Clinton and his finger wagging, assume that everything said is a lie.  And that I will debate you on.

Just because the sleeze meister was a pathological liar, does not mean every politician lies all the time.  Just some of them.  And so far, no one has been able to catch Bush in anything but mangled speeches, and incorrect intel.  No lies.

think the public, after Clinton and his finger wagging, assume that everything said is a lie.

i can tell you the exact day when the american people began assuming everything said was a lie.  or i can let merle haggard tell you if youd prefer.  remember a song he recorded entitled 'are the good times really over' ? musta been in 80 or 81.   

I wish coke was still cola,
And a joint was a bad place to be.
And it was back before Nixon lied to us all on TV.

merle aint springsteen (and vice versa) and hes referring to the summer of 1973, specifically august 17, 1973.

merle aint springsteen (and vice versa) and hes referring to the summer of 1973, specifically august 17, 1973.

 

Not sure why you picked that date, but you are wrong.  We Believed both Carter and Ford in 76, and then again in 80 (with Reagan).  And to my knowledge, they did keep most of their promises, and did not lie to us.  Dont know where you were in 73, but I was in Germany.  On the Frankfurt Post.

oops  sorry that shoulda been august 15 73...the date of nixons 2nd watergate speech in which he assured the country

 I had no prior knowledge of the Watergate break-in; I neither took part in nor knew about any of the subsequent coverup activities; I neither authorized nor encouraged subordinates to engage in illegal or improper campaign tactics.

That was and that is the simple truth

you may have believed carter and reagan but summer of 73 is when the standards changed. the press no longer looked the other way, the cia was reeled in, the fbi stopped making enemies lists, etc etc