Jeeeeez. It’s like trying to get a jackass to comprehend trigonometry—bit of a waste of effort.

No matter how many times I tell you to address the way you treated me in the Lanos_Greenspan thread (#292), you will not do it—because it shows how blatantly in the wrong you are. Greenspan on Late Edition (#381) proved how right I was and how wrong you were about him.

In this thread, the last thing richg says is at 9:22 pm. You respond to him using his name at 9:25. But then, 34 posts and one hour 31 minutes later (#92 @ 10:56) you say “Now as I was saying to the troll..”. You had been having some disagreement with RemoveBush during those 34 posts and 1:31, leading some to feel you were calling RB a troll.

In #99, you are telling RemoveBush that he is wrong in saying “Bill Clinton got those people killed”. But RB most definitely never said this. He would never say this. RB is a progressive in favor of impeaching Bush and Cheney. You said RB obscured, helped the trolls, and muddied the waters.

#102 RemoveBush asks you “what the hell you talking about Clinton for?????”.

#105, you say RemoveBush was trying to shootdown your response to richg. This was definitely not true.

#106, TripMasterMonkey asks who you were calling a troll @10:56.

#109, RemoveBush says Clinton had nothing to do with the Gulf Wars.

#110, you tell people to put down the booze.

#112, Koko the gorilla says you misunderstood RemoveBush

#114, TripMasterMonkey says you are copping an attitude when he asked a simple question.

#120, you accuse others of being stoned.

#125, you say RemoveBush is talking horseshit and drinking booze.

#127, TripMasterMonkey says he only asked a simple question and did not deserve to be treated this way—it’s not the way friends act.

#128, you tell RemoveBush “kiss my ass, boy”.

#131, you call RemoveBush “moron” and “Einstein”.

#136, you tell RemoveBush he is dumber than any troll.

#138, I explain what started the confusion.

#140, You call RemoveBush, “Mr Re-elect Bush”.

#175, you say to RemoveBush, “clearly you weren’t old enough to remember the Gulf War.” The truth is he was in the military then.

#213, you say “when I need your opinion, asswipe, I’ll give it to you”.

You then proceed to call fellow progressives: shithead, moron, half a brain, DickMasterMonkey, jackass, bullshit, dickhead, bonehead, etc.

#230 Zooey tells you that you have certainly done your part to exacerbate the problem.

#242, Zooey tells you that you are being absolutely vicious.

#275 you say that TripMasterMonkey sounds more like a woman than a guy.

IF I am wrong about what started the argument—I’m not researching the whole thing again. You still responded in the way you always do:

saying how ignorant other people are compared to you. Instantly attacking everyone around you. Personal insults like shithead, dickhead, bonehead, moron, etc. Calling longtime TP progressives right-wing trolls. Saying RemoveBush is pro-Bush and anti-Clinton, etc. Saying all this is sarcasm that others are too stupid to see. Saying others are at fault for not realizing that’s the way you are.

You are still not mentioning the Lantos-Greenspan thread (#292) in which you keep telling me how superior intellectually you are to me for seeing Greenspan as such a great convert. You are the one who fails to comprehend, because you called me a right-wing troll using an alias.

Your attack on me (see #292 above) began when you thought I could not conprehend what a great convert to our cause Greenspan was, and I should not criticize him. Below is what Greenspan said on CNN’s Late Edition today:

GREENSPAN: He (Saddam) invaded Iran. He invaded Kuwait. He was threatening Saudi Arabia. And it was very clear to me, watching him for 30 years that where he was going was to try to control the flow of Middle East oil through the Straits of Hormuz, which, if you were able to do that, which is 18 million barrels a day out of 65 million — out of 85 million barrels a day, he could have shut down a substantial part of world production. And the effect would have been devastating.

He would have — I was fearful that he would do that if he could gain control, that is, purchase some nuclear device. And I have always been wondering with the problems of the — when the Cold War ended, and there was very serious questions at that time whether or not the Soviet arms had been protected, I had always assumed that a lot of them flowed out. And I must admit, I’m very surprised they haven’t shown up.

BLITZER: At this point. But do you still see oil as being a major factor, if not the major factor in driving U.S. policy toward Iraq right now?

GREENSPAN: Well, actually, I’m talking about my view in there. In other words, what the real economics of the dangers are. As far as the administration is concerned, I have no reason to disbelieve what they have been saying, namely that there were weapons of mass destruction. I thought there were weapons of mass destruction because of the way Saddam was behaving: What’s he hiding?

You said I must provide proof of what you said to me that resulted in hard feelings. Well, I did. It is #292. I would like a response from you apologizing.

You started the troubles on this thread by saying something to a troll (richg ?) one hour and forty minutes after he left without referring to anyone by name and giving everyone the impression that you were addressing RemoveBush. Then in your usual fashion, everyone in the world other than you was wrong. You called people shithead, dickhead, morons, boneheads, and quite a few more. You said RemoveBush was a right-wing troll Bush-supporter and Clinton-hater.

You call this sarcasm and say they are at fault for not recognizing sarcasm. You say you did nothing wrong and others are to blame for not realizing that’s “the way I am”.

You have done this many times on many threads that become the “It’s All About Bartlebee Show”. It’s time for you to stop this and to start issuing apologies.

Democrats 49
Republicans 34
Both (vol.) 3
Neither (vol.) 11
Unsure 3
Comment by RUCerious — October 6, 2007 @ 12:51 pm

If the Democrats could convince the 11%’ers and the 3%’ers that they can actually handle the situation, they would have a 63% majority going into the 2008. In the most recent Democratic presidential debates, the front runners didn’t convince me. Also, the Democratic Party’s treatment of Kucinich and Richardson, whom I believe CAN handle it, doesn’t reassure me about the Party’s “handling it” abilities!

Nope, barfly – make that TWO! For a long while, when MSNBC was putting out those “tag team wrestling matches” as political comment, Chris Matthews, the original Media Putz would pit himself and two orther Clinton-hating, NeoCon knuckle draggers against some progressive (or even someone whose progressive credentials could use some improvement), and call it “fair.”

Comment by Wilco — October 6, 2007 @ 12:01 pm

3800 U.S. armed men and women would disagree, if a politician’s LIE hadn’t gotten them KILLED.

Moreover, when a politician lies it has much more sweeping implications than if a doctor lies to a patient. If a doctor lies to one patient about one procedure, one person might die. If a politician lies about one piece of legislation, thousands to millions might be injured or killed.

Sorry, you may think that lying is par for the course for politicians, but it should never be ACCEPTABLE. Too many LIVES are on the line. There are too many repercussions on our lives. If one bill displaced 1% of the national income, moving it from the bottom to the top, you severely negatively impact millions of lives, to the benefit of a literal handful of lives. If that bill was based on LIES, then LIES caused actual, real-world damages to millions of individuals.

Sorry, but lies that reach a certain level of impact , with the intent to trick someone or large groups to support an initiative they would not if presented with the facts is FRAUD, not merely “a lie”. Fraud is lying to such a degree that it is criminal.

fraud
–noun
1. deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.
2. a particular instance of such deceit or trickery: mail fraud; election frauds.
3. any deception, trickery, or humbug: That diet book is a fraud and a waste of time.
4. a person who makes deceitful pretenses; sham; poseur.

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Sept. 27-30, 2007. N=1,114 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults). Fieldwork by TNS.

“Which political party — the Democrats or the Republicans — do you trust to do a better job handling the situation in Iraq?”

Democrats 49
Republicans 34
Both (vol.) 3
Neither (vol.) 11
Unsure 3

l o l …

exactly my thought, if that’s the guy i saw “debating” obama’s guy during a break at one of the dem “debates”…
more of a goon though… mafia type… a real sweety… NOT.
.

The way to fight lies is with the truth. Don’t trust the courts to determine the truth about political matters.

I’m probably the only one here who believes that re-imposing the Fairness Doctrine is a good idea. I’ve heard all the arguments against, but none of them deals with the present situation.

Comment by koko the talking gorilla —

This presupposes a world in which republican-friendly corporate media does not exist. Your assertions might be valid in a classroom – but they fall horribly short in real-world politics.

I can’t believe you typed that without laughing.

Bush lied – you know the rest.

“Second, it’s not the ruling that “poisons the well of democracy,” it’s the lies themselves.”

And no accountability for telling lies sets the bar so low, there is in effect NO standard. Politicians are public figures, and cannot prove libel or slander without expending considerably more effort and resources than common citizens would require to defend themselves from similar charges. This ruling (if upheld by the Supreme Court) would make it all but impossible to prove one’s case. It’s not a slippery-slope argument I make – it’s a “greased skid” one, that frees pols to say whatever they think they can get away with, as long as the “news” orgs don’t pay attention.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1028-01.htm

He was thinking about invading Iraq before he was president.