Shame
Shame on Joe Biden for his border policy and his "Parole" answer to letting some people in conditionally which illegally (or so say the lawyers I've heard/read talk about the topic) still denies asylum seekers from, you know, seeking asylum. I know that Biden and the Democrats are ham-strung by the GOP (and some Democrats) who won't create reasonable border policies that simply allow those escaping starvation and violence to enjoy the human right of self-determination. This must change.
Shame
On the GOP (and some Dems) in Congress for not doing better by our immigrant neighbors and asylum seekers. This must change and we need the GOP to be more welcoming to those seeking liberty and safety and the Democrats and the citizens of the US to apply more pressure to all our representatives to see this change. Again, this is a basic human rights issue.
"Imposing asylum bans, expulsions, or other punitive policies on people seeking asylum at the U.S. border is both a violation of U.S. refugee law and the Refugee Convention."
https://humanrightsfirst.org/library/biden-administration-use-and-expansion-of-trump-policy-to-ban-people-seeking-asylum-endangers-lives-tramples-human-rights/
Shame
Shame on the GOP. Shame, shame, shame. The silence in the face of recently elected George Santos and his completely fabricated "history" of "accomplishments is an embarrassment to a free republic. Santos is the ultimate outcome of the modern Trump-style GOP (although it began prior to Trump). He has out-trumped Trump in his complete disregard and attack on facts. His campaign and election is a mockery of a free republic.
But I'm not blaming Santos, not him alone. What he did was deplorable and I hope he gets some help. But he's one man. The GOP, on the other hand, have remained silent so far as I have seen. There certainly has not been an outcry from the GOP demanding that he step down.
This complete disregard of facts is an attack on facts and, by extension, our free republic. Santos, for his part, has denied that he's even done anything wrong. He says he just "embellished" his resume. Bullshit. That is nothing but vomitous bullshit. Saying, "I had about a 4.0 in college..." when you had a 3.4 is an embellishment. Saying you graduated from a college you didn't attend or that you worked at places you didn't work is a lie. I am at a loss as to what to do with the GOP that remains silent, indicating that power is more important than facts or doing the right thing.
And while I'm at it: SHAME on conservative churches/christians who, so far as I've seen, have remained silent about Santos. Lord, have mercy.
Finally...
Shame
Shame on Biden for having classified documents in the wrong place. This is, of course, wrong and should be investigated. BUT, by all evidence to emerge so far, it sounds very much like a simple oversight and mistake and, thus, not a crime at all.
So, Way to Go, Biden, for showing how to deal with these sorts of mistakes. He informed the authorities as soon as he heard about it, has cooperated entirely and has not, in anyway whatsoever, tried to defend it or demand that he owns these documents and they belong to him and otherwise obstructed justice.
And so,
SHAME
On those conservatives who try to make a false equivalence between Biden and Trump on this issue. There's no comparison and those who accuse Biden of hypocrisy while not condemning Trump are, themselves, showing themselves to be the hypocrites.
41 comments:
The president’s personal attorneys found the documents in November when packing files, the White House has said, and then the counsel’s office notified the National Archives and Records Administration. Biden’s lawyers provided the documents to the National Archives the day after they found them and are still cooperating in the matter being reviewed by the US attorney in Chicago, according to the White House.
The president said his attorneys “did what they should have done” by immediately calling the Archives.
“People know I take classified documents, classified information seriously,” Biden added, saying that the documents were found in “a box, locked cabinet – or at least a closet.”
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/10/politics/classified-documents-joe-biden/index.html
IF he took classified info seriously, they would not be "mistakenly" stored in a place with access by members of the CCP.
Congratulations on actually criticizing someone on the left for something, in real time. It's equivocal, and shows some degree of a double standard, but nonetheless, congratulations.
As if Craig has ever disowned each indicted Trump administration and advisor by name.
As if Craig has openly disowned Trump as a danger to democracy who has inflicted damage to our nation.
As if Craig is balanced.
Craig is as mischievous a rhetorical fraud as Santos is a GOP fraud.
Marshal thinks normal Presidents go through papers when the move out. As if they don’t have 60 people involved in boxing and moving their papers. Marshal thinks normal Presidents are like landscape company owners.
Marshal is as much an intellectual fraud as Santos is a sociopath. Birds of a feather.
If the modern GOP weren't such a shipwreck of immorality, amorality, lies and corruption, I'd have more time to call out Democrats and their wrongdoing/failure to live up to what we'd expect. There's only so much time to make political commentary and we, as a people, must deal with the most extreme of misdeeds and corruption.
We need to be clear-minded: Neither party is in any way represented by ideal people. I have many complaints about Democrats. But make no mistake, the GOP is far and away a whole other level of corruption and abandonment of human rights and free republic ideals. Look at the data: of the modern/in our lifetime presidents, there are something like hundreds of indictments and convictions amongst GOP administrations while there are less than a handful of indictments and convictions of Democrat administrations. Santos is just the latest signal of wholesale rejection of decency and trustworthiness.
I will have to say, kudos to the GOP folks who have finally began speaking out against Santos. But that is such a low bar. He lied about everything. He doesn't acknowledge the great depravity of his base lies. He says that such lies are typical "exaggerations" that everyone does on their resume. Like Trump and his dismissal of his rape-y language about women who said it's just "typical" locker room talk amongst men.
No. This is NOT acceptable. If it's normative in your circles, you have sick circles.
"If the modern GOP weren't such a shipwreck of immorality, amorality, lies and corruption, I'd have more time to call out Democrats and their wrongdoing/failure to live up to what we'd expect."
That's some world-class projection only a grace-embracing fake Christian progressive would dare take the time to type out as if it was true.
Who gets indicted has far less to do with how many in a given party are worthy of it than how many assholes make up the other side. You favor the assholes of today who are not beyond lying with abandon, while doing nothing to honestly deal with transgressions of their own. So cut the crap, liar.
My real response to your fantasies and falsehoods will be appearing at my blog soon. Maybe you can borrow a pair of testicles and pretend you can defend your bullshit over there, where you won't be deleted for the least little thing as what happens to visitors better than you over here.
Those who get indicted are an indication of proven criminality and corruption. You can't deny the 300+ convictions that happened in the real world under GOP presidents vs the THREE under Democratic administration's. That's objective, measurable data. And yes, it matters a great deal.
Or should.
And I don't favor ANY criminality under our presidents. If Biden is shown to have used the Whitehouse to criminally enrich himself, convict him.
That's the difference between rational progressives like me and Trump's GOP. That's a problem, and an embarrassment to conservatives. That kind of corruption is what led me away from modern conservatism. As the real world data shows.
Sorry. 300+ indictments.
Don't comment here further, Marshal, without answering this question.
(Those last two comments were me, of course.)
"Republican administrations have vastly more corruption than Democratic administrations. We provide new research on the numbers to make the case.
We compared 28 years each of Democratic and Republican administrations, 1961–2016, five Presidents from each party. During that period Republicans scored eighteen times more individuals and entities indicted, thirty-eight times more convictions, and thirty-nine times more individuals who had prison time."
https://medium.com/rantt/gop-admins-had-38-times-more-criminal-convictions-than-democrats-1961-2016-91ddb60b0697
Do you recognize that, just legally, factually speaking, that GOP administrations have had tremendously more convictions and indictments than Democrat administrations?
This is a demonstrable data point. Facts in the real world. Can you acknowledge that reality?
"Do you recognize that, just legally, factually speaking, that GOP administrations have had tremendously more convictions and indictments than Democrat administrations?"
Sure.
Now here's one for you:
Do you recognize that this list is meaningless without context...context which is required in order for the statistics to mean anything as regards my response above?
As is so common of you given your abject lack of honesty and integrity, I've no doubt you did nothing but copy/pasted the first article you could find which seems to validate your grace-embracing hatred for better people than you. And I say again, who gets indicted and how many has as much to do with who's seeking the indictment and how often indictments are sought.
If no one ever bothers to call you out on all your many lies, but I'm disparaged and demonized because I told but one, what does that say about the resulting stat indicating I was indicted and convicted of lying while you never were? It renders it meaningless as regards which of us is the real and more seriously pathological liar. It's clearly you despite the fact only I was held accountable. And that doesn't even speak to the severity of the lies, which is yet another factor for which your link does not account.
This is the problem with your link and your false belief that Santos is somehow typical of the GOP and their supporters. I have actual links to back up my position which render yours as even more impotent than my comments here have proven it to be.
“… false belief that Santos is somehow typical of the GOP and their supporters.”
Marshal thinks politicians are lone rangers. As if they do not get central GOO advice and money.
Marshal is ignorant. He slays chooses to be - in order to keep himself soothed.
“ Rep. George Santos’ lies were known to plugged-in Republicans before last year’s election but they did not act on them, according to a new report. Republicans alerted to Santos’ vulnerabilities before the election included Dan Conston, the head of a super PAC dedicated to winning a GOP majority in the House; and associates of Rep. Elise Stefanik, an upstate New York lawmaker, The New York Times reported Friday. Spokespeople for Conston and Stefanik declined to comment to the Times. Conston is a close ally of Speaker Kevin McCarthy of California, and Stefanik is the No. 4 Republican in the House.“
NOTE: Answer the bold questions below before making any further comments, Marshal.
Marshal...
"Do you recognize that this list is meaningless without context...context which is required in order for the statistics to mean anything as regards my response above?"
Context is always important. I rather doubt you have any significant context to explain the VAST dis-proportionality between the actual convictions of actual Republicans who actually doing the crimes they were accused of vs the relatively speaking boy scout behavior of Democrat administrations.
Indeed, the GOP has repeatedly conducted actual witch hunts (ie, evidence-less charges of crimes) against the Democrats and repeatedly and inevitably, the results were the same: There have been VERY few convict-able crimes committed by the Democrat administrations. The GOP witch hunts (which were not based on evidence, but partisanship) which continually came back "there's no evidence to support convictions for criminal behavior" only underscore the bad behavior on the part of the GOP.
So yes, context matters. It's just that you have nothing data-oriented to offer.
Santos is just more evidence that the GOP has been swallowed up by con artists who prey on people made simple-minded/gullible by their blind partisanship.
I wonder Marshal, now that we know how very rotten Santos is, are you willing to condemn him and call for his ouster? DO you have any credibility?
Marshal...
I say again, who gets indicted and how many has as much to do with who's seeking the indictment and how often indictments are sought.
If you're saying that the Democrats have committed more crimes than the GOP and indictments were just not sought: Prove it. This is an empty and stupidly false and unsupported claim. Prove it or retract it.
But prove it on your own blog. Hint: There is no secret cabal of lawyers, hollywood actors, Justice Department and FBI agents all plotting against the poor GOP. You all get convicted more regularly (and SHOULD be convicted even more) than the Democrats because, as the data shows, GOP administrations are more criminally corrupt than the Democrats.
And to be clear: This is not a blanket defense of all Democrats at all, nor a blanket condemnation of all GOP types. It's just acknowledging the real world data. Santos is just the latest deviant in GOP clothing.
SIOUX CITY, Iowa — The wife of a northwestern Iowa county supervisor has been charged with 52 counts of voter fraud after she allegedly filled out and cast absentee ballots in her husband's unsuccessful race for a Republican nomination to run for Congress in 2020, federal prosecutors said.
Kim Phuong Taylor, 49, was arrested Thursday and pleaded not guilty to the charges before being released on a personal recognizance bond, the Sioux City Journal reported. Her trial is scheduled to begin March 20.
Prosecutors allege in an indictment unsealed Thursday that Phuong Taylor filled out voter registration forms or delivered absentee ballots for people in Sioux City's Vietnamese community who had limited ability to read and understand English.
She filled out "dozens of voter registrations, absentee ballot request forms, and absentee ballots containing false information," and delivered absentee ballots, sometimes without the knowledge of the people whose names were used, according to the indictment.
Indeed. I suspect that part of the reason that many in the GOP are so confident that voter fraud is happening is that they are doing it themselves and presuming that Democrats are just as crooked as they are. Time after time, we see that those few instances of actual attempts at fraud (as opposed to a former prisoner who wasn't eligible to vote, attempting to vote because he thought he was... ie, making a mistake) seems to be overwhelmingly done by GOP sympathizers.
McCarthy begins to awkwardly waffle. Marshal’s theory of complete innocence blown up.
“House Speaker Kevin McCarthy insisted Monday that he "always" had some questions related to now-Rep. George Santos' resume amid ongoing revelations about the lies and embellishments by the freshman lawmaker from New York.
"I never knew all about his resume or not, but I always had a few questions about it," McCarthy, R-Calif., told reporters.”
It's so easy after the facts have been established for a month and you no longer need their vote. What a swamp dweller. Drain the swamp, indeed.
"A former Republican New Mexico House of Representatives candidate – who, police say, claimed election fraud after his defeat – was arrested by an Albuquerque SWAT team Monday in connection with a string of recent shootings that damaged homes of local Democratic elected leaders, city police said."
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/17/us/solomon-pena-arrested-new-mexico-shootings/index.html
GOP election denier elevates the attacks from an attack on democracy (which is what these election lies are) to actual potentially deadly physical attacks. Again.
Once you start down that road of attacking our free republic with these lies (or by defending the lies, or by ignoring those on your side who are promoting these lies), then you may be given over to even greater evil.
Right, Dan!
How unsurprising it is to us rational people that the raging Will to brutality - criminal brutality - is part of the modern Republican Party. Christians name, protest, and act against such brutality. Whiteness - like Marshal and Craig - dodge, deflect, divert, deny, lie, double down in the lie, and myth make as an escape from the discipline of their professed faith.
Marshal: “… false belief that Santos is somehow typical of the GOP and their supporters.”
He had national GOP advisors and major GOP donors and McCarthy and other top GOP leaders were informed of his lies, let him run anyway, and STILL! refuse to disown him.
And the GOP gets far, far worse.
Also, on this from Marshal...
Marshal: “… false belief that Santos is somehow typical of the GOP and their supporters.”
I have not said he is typical "of the GOP." I've noted that the GOP has chosen to embrace reprobate liars at the scale of a Trump or a Santos or a Taylor Green or Boebert or Gaetz and that this level of belief in dangerous conspiracy theories as acceptable to the voting majority in the GOP is demonstrable in the reality that these people were considered electable by a majority of GOP voters. This is a demonstrable fact. The average GOP voter may have "problems" with the vulgar lies and cons and beliefs in Q-anon and other conspiracies, but it's a line they're willing to cross to vote for what should be un-electable candidates.
For all their many problems, this level of anti-freedom/anti-human rights venom does not exist within the Democrats, again, looking at the evidence of who's running and who's getting elected or treated as a serious candidate.
Marshal: “NY GOP have come out against Santos' lies.”
Because NY GOP ARE gay and straight, black, brown, white, Jews, Muslims, and Christians and usually in their right minds - they hate Trump. But they slipped up and now are acting to correct their mistake. They will NOT let Santos enter any Long Island GOP meetings. Santos is BANNED.
But not by Trumpers in DC.
Marshal undoes himself by holding up NY Republicans. They hate what Marshal stands for.
NOTE: Answer the bold questions below before making any further comments, Marshal.
Also, don't bother with unsupported and stupidly false attacks on people you don't know. Ignorant hateful attacks will not stand.
"Also, don't bother with unsupported and stupidly false attacks on people you don't know."
I'm sorry. I forgot. Only you and your sidekick get to do that. Of course, I haven't done that. I haven't the need.
"NOTE: Answer the bold questions below before making any further comments, Marshal."
Look up above, grace-debaser. What can we see? We can see that on January 12, 2023 at 6:56 PM, you asked me: "Do you recognize that, just legally, factually speaking, that GOP administrations have had tremendously more convictions and indictments than Democrat administrations?"
Then, in my response on January 12, 2023 at 8:44 PM, I answered directly and unequivocally, then asked a question in response which you dodged with a non-answer as you tried to flip responsibility back to me while you stand pat on a link which provides no context for its premise. Typical. Agreeing with me about context is NOT a response. It's meaningless if you provide no context for your claims. Which you don't because you can't do so without validating my position.
"The GOP witch hunts (which were not based on evidence, but partisanship) which continually came back "there's no evidence to support convictions for criminal behavior" only underscore the bad behavior on the part of the GOP."
What rank hypocrisy!! The Jan 6 show trial was nothing BUT partisanship!!! It didn't even accomplish what it said was its purpose as it instead spent all its time trying to convince the general public Trump is evil. Evil Dems projecting again!!
So let's look at your questions:
"I wonder Marshal, now that we know how very rotten Santos is, are you willing to condemn him and call for his ouster? DO you have any credibility?"
First, it's hilarious that the likes of you dare speak of credibility!
Secondly, I can respond to this as you've responded to similar questions to you in the past on more than one occasion: He's not president or running for president so why should I care?
Thirdly, you have no legit basis for suggesting I would have no problem with a liar. Indeed, I'm expect far better from those on my side of the political divide than I've learned to expect from yours. So the question is bullshit.
Fourth, can you provide links to the posts you've done on the falsifying of autobiographies of Sydney "Stolen Valor" Blumenthal, Elizabeth "Fauxcahontas" Warren, Joe "Top Of My Class" Biden (among a host of other bullshit claims of his backstory) or the more recent Washington State Rep Clyde Shavers (another Stolen Valor asshole Dem)?
The following lists Biden's many lies about his personal history:
https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/12/democrats-get-reminded-that-before-george-santos-there-was-joe-biden/
If you peruse it as if you care about truth, you'll find an example of what I said above regarding how the left differs from the right. You'll find "MSNBC anchor Chris Hayes boiled Biden’s 50 years of lying down to “‘normal’ politican bs-ing,”" Yeah, that's what Trump's done. Biden flat out lies. Dems flat out lie. But should a right-winger do it, you lefties wet yourselves. Hypocrites is a word which just doesn't describe you people accurately enough.
You asked for examples of what I said in response to your crappy link of meaninglessness. Try actually reading what follows in depth before you delete it in cowardice:
https://amgreatness.com/2017/06/11/way-comey-hearing-gone-day-one/
https://amgreatness.com/2020/02/13/morning-greatness-democrats-media-ramp-up-hysteria-over-non-violent-process-criminal-roger-stone/
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2019/10/24/17-democrats-who-werent-held-accountable-for-scandals-by-their-constituents-n69901
https://spectator.org/republicans-go-to-jail-democrats-run-free/
https://ipatriot.com/openly-seditious-democrats-not-charged-sedition/
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/02/notice_how_democrats_are_never_indicted.html
https://pjmedia.com/columns/matt-margolis/2019/10/23/why-arent-democrats-held-accountable-despite-incontrovertible-evidence-of-their-guilt-n121522
https://clashdaily.com/2021/04/democrat-crimes-never-seem-to-be-prosecuted/
I doubt you'll read any of them. If you do, I more fully doubt you'll be able to mount a coherent and intelligent argument against any of it, writing it off as you so often do as if there's nothing there.
I would point to Michael Flynn as an example of what I'm saying: This guy did absolutely nothing wrong, but was hung out to dry, "admitting his guilt" only because of threats to involve family members. Like Roger Stone, he's one of many who have been "indicted" or found guilty of that which is either inconsequential or irrelevant to the investigation which led to it. In other words, it's no more than padding stats and in this way...among others...partisan hacks pretend the GOP is more corrupt.
One of the main reasons we see this disparity is because the Dems have no real argument of substance to defend what for them passes as positions on the issues most important to America. So instead, they seek to demonize the opposition by whatever means possible. And when they're in power, as we've seen over the past few years, it's "Katy, bar the door!!" because those abusers of power are coming after you. The GOP doesn't operate that way...at least they haven't thus far. But if they find the spine, they'll be able to bring the heat onto those who deserve to feel it...Dems all. Then we'll again see the excuse making, the minimizing and all other deceitful responses to the truth in which you so routinely engage.
Marshal evades addressing a GOP politician who is accused of arranging assassination attempts on Democratics.
Marshal is so repugnantly ugly.
His soulless abyss is bottomless.
Veteran Says George Santos Used Him And His Dying Dog For A Fundraising Scam
The New York congressman allegedly raised $3,000 for the service dog's surgery and disappeared, Patch reports
I haven't deleted your comments yet, Marshal, but answer the question if you want to comment here.
"I wonder Marshal, now that we know how very rotten Santos is, are you willing to condemn him and call for his ouster? DO you have any credibility?"
Saying "you don't need to answer" is literally not an answer.
Marshal...
I can respond to this as you've responded to similar questions to you in the past on more than one occasion: He's not president or running for president so why should I care?
Because your party has elected the single most corrupt and dishonest president in history and your party continues to elect people denying election results and thus, attacking our free republic AND because this guy is so over the top that it should be easy for you to condemn him and call for his ouster.
Hell, I called for Clinton's ouster over ONE lie about a blowjob with a young adult. Surely you can find it within yourself to condemn this troubled conman who ripped off the whole state of NY and probably many others. WHY are you not asking where his great wealth came from? Don't you have any just basic intellectual curiosity?
This con artist wing of the GOP is a direct threat to our free republic. THAT is why you all need to condemn him.
Why do I need to explain this?
Marshal...
then asked a question in response which you dodged with a non-answer as you tried to flip responsibility back to me while you stand pat on a link which provides no context for its premise.
You asked if I recognized that the LONG list of GOP presidential administration's criminal indictments and convictions is meaningless without context. I responded directly:
Context is always important.
That is a direct and unequivocal and clear as hell answer to your question. Does context matter when looking at the list of GOP malfeasance? YES. CONTEXT ALWAYS MATTERS.
Are you somehow having a hard time understanding my point? My clear and direct answers?
I further pointed out that I rather doubt you have any significant context to explain the VAST dis-proportionality between the actual convictions of actual Republicans who actually doing the crimes they were accused of vs the relatively speaking boy scout behavior of Democrat administrations.
You respond with a long list of far right opinion pieces that in no way disproves that GOP administrations haven't been more criminal as evidenced by their criminal convictions.
Now, IN YOUR HEAD, YOU MAY THINK that TO YOU, the convictions of the Reagan, Trump and Nixon administrations aren't "real" or don't matter because of "context," but just because you think that doesn't mean that the convictions aren't real or don't count as criminal behavior.
You're equivocating and apologizing for bad behavior on your side while clumsily grasping at straws to try to find some equivalency to the relative Boy Scouts on the Democrat side where none exists.
Yes, Biden plagiarized in school and a speech. And was caught and owned up to it and apologized for it as clumsy mistakes on his part. AND, he stepped down from the particular race he was running in response. HE was held accountable. HE owned up to the mistake.
Your perverts and deviants like Trump and Santos have YET to apologize for their perversions, cons and lies and, indeed, double down and say that MAKING UP ONE'S ENTIRE RESUME is no big deal and everyone does it.
No. Everyone does NOT do it. NO. It's not okay. I'm just asking if you can condemn clearly this great corruption on Santos' part?
Answer the question directly or move on. HINT: There's only one rationally, morally correct answer.
Well, that's just f'ing great. I tried to post a detailed response and the system didn't publish it, and now it's lost. The reason is likely related to how long the comment was, how long it took me to complete it in between life. Anywhere else, I could simply have posted what I was able to finish and do more later, other hosts understanding pleas to withhold response until I do. But I'm dealing with you who can't hold his water when the truth slaps you in the face, and will jump in or delete. Oh well. Here I go again....
Marshal posted seven posts and no doubt hundreds of words and never once could find it within him to condemn Santos unequivocally, while bringing up all manner of half truths and unsupported claims and deviant attacks against innocent people.
Strike seven. You're out.
Look, it should be easy. Watch this:
Let's pretend that there was a Democrat who ran and was elected to office. This was a person I could get behind, they believed in taking care of the climate/environment, reducing military investments and boosting social investments, taking care of infrastructure, supporting women, people of color and LGBTQ with policies on their behalf... BUT this person was elected while running with the claims that they graduated from Harvard (never attended college), that they had a 4.0 GPA (again, never attended college), that their parents were mixed race (they were white) and that they had worked the last 20 years for Habitat for Humanity and before that, for the UN... and NONE of it was true. Not even close. What would I say to this person who supported all the policies I support? "STEP DOWN. RESIGN." I would campaign against this person saying they got into office under false pretenses and it was an obscenely wrong thing to do - that Democrats must NOT accept such over-the-top falsehoods. I would call it a con and say that this person probably needs some help, but they certainly should not be in office.
It's really quite easy. There is only ONE rationally correct response to this level of false claims: Denounce it and demand they resign. Period.
Come on, you can do this.
What has happened to the modern GOP?
A GOP Secretary of State talking about a journalist who was murdered and dismembered.
“ The former US secretary of state Mike Pompeo has dismissed the indignation prompted by the murder of Jamal Khashoggi as “faux outrage” – and cast doubt on whether the Washington Post columnist was a genuine journalist at all.
In his new book, Pompeo says that Khashoggi – who was killed by Saudi agents in Istanbul in 2018 – was not “a Saudi Arabian Bob Woodward martyred for bravely criticising the Saudi royal family”.
Instead, Pompeo argues, Khashoggi was “an activist who had supported the losing team.”
The half of us invested in irrational rage think little of denying pregnant women the right over their own body before a fetus is viable.
But they protect the right to own guns…
… even though death by a gun is the #1 killer of children and adolescents.
The GOP thrills to a brutalizing society.
Name
Sexuality
Family
Ethnicity
Education
Committed a crime
Work history
Made his own money
Founded an animal charity
Stolen clothes
Stolen money from Veterans
Holocaust
9/11
Target of an assassination
Brasilian drag queen
Did Biden lie about his own existence about these things? In other words, is Biden pathological and the Dems turn a blind eye just to seat him?
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Documented
Documented
Documented
Documented
Documented
Documented
Documented
Documented
Documented
Documented
Documented
Documented
Documented
Documented
Documented
Correct, Feodor. Apples and rotten worms. Which is obvious to all but the self-deceived.
Marshal manages to find time to criticize my profile picture which I updated to show a more recent version of my face over against the decade old photo that I replaced.
Do you not have more important and rational things to do?
Do you really think it's wrong to update one's profile picture to show a more recent look at one's face than the last one from, I don't know, a decade ago?
Marshal...
Your comment of January 22, 2023 at 2:50 PM pretends the lies of Santos are somehow worse than the many of Biden's over fifty years, because...why?
Because they just ARE, to any rational, non-blindly-partisan person. That you can't see that is just evidence of your blind partisanship.
Open your eyes. Abandon your blind partisanship.
In his blind attempt to somehow suggest that Biden's "lies" are worse than Santos (or WHATEVER his name is - we STILL don't know who he is!), Marshal said that Biden's "lies" about how his wife died, that Biden had claimed a couple of times that she'd been killed by a drunk driver, HERE are the details on that story:
"In 2007, Biden, then the vice presidential nominee, said that a "guy who allegedly … drank his lunch" drove the truck that collided with Neilia Biden’s car. A clip from 2001 showed Biden describing the incident and saying the driver "stopped to drink instead of drive."
Dunn’s family disputed the characterization and a spokesman for Biden said in 2008 that Biden "fully accepts the Dunn family’s word that these rumors were false."
In other words, the FACT is that the driver was not found to be drunk when it happened.
The FACT is that Biden had heard rumors that the driver liked to drink a lot and MAY have been drunk that day.
The FACT is that Biden passed on that rumor once or twice.
The FACT is that the driver's family disputed that claim and Biden accepted that and stopped making the claim.
So yes, Biden acted on some rumors and passed on those rumors about the man who'd killed his family in a tragic accident and, when called upon it and faced with the facts, he quit making the claim.
Acting on rumors that turn out to be wrong is wrong, but NOT at all the same as making up your resume out of thin air. Again, it's "stretching the facts" to say "I graduated from Harvard with a 4.0..." if you graduated from Harvard with a 3.0.
It's a complete and utter falsehood to make that claim when you didn't GO to Harvard at all. And combining that with the other completely false claims about where he worked and who he was and THEN for him not to apologize for it but just dismiss it as simple exaggeration... that is sickness, not exaggeration.
No comparison.
There you go again, diminishing the seriousness of a lie told by one of yours...a lie far more egregious than any you've dug up to attribute to Trump...a lie told to garner sympathy for electoral support (personal profit)...a lie for which he's never made a public recantation...a lie for which he always had plenty of means by which to confirm its falseness. Even if we assume that Dunn actually liked to "drink his lunch", investigators found no evidence he was at all intoxicated. Now as a trucker, I know that I'm in violation of drunk driving rules if my BAC is over .04%, which is half the limit on non-CDL holders. I can't find when that rule was implemented, and it may be that at the time of the accident, truckers were also limited at .08%. What I do know is that testing was in place at the time of the accident and Dunn wasn't drunk at all. There's no way Biden couldn't know this from early on. "Rumors" are a lame excuse for telling lies, especially when one has the means by which to confirm or rebut them, as Biden most surely did.
And of course, there's no shortage of tales of Biden padding his own resume in a similar fashion employed by Santos. So again you lie in pretending Biden's somehow different or less a liar than Santos, who hasn't lived long enough to have lied as much as Biden has. Biden isn't "sick". He's a rank liar like you are.
Post a Comment