Trapped In The Land Of Liars

Liars“In a certain town there are two tribes—one  always tells the truth; the other always lies. A stranger arrived in the town and asked one of the natives whether he was a Truth Teller or a Liar. The native answered, but the stranger didn’t hear the answer. The stranger then asked two other natives who overheard this conversation, what the first man had said. The first replied, “He said he was a Truth Teller.” The second replied, “He said he was a Liar.”

—-Old Brain-Teaser

Senator Dick Durbin (D-ILL)  posted this on his Facebook page:

“Many Republicans searching for something to say in defense of the disastrous shutdown strategy will say President Obama just doesn’t try hard enough to communicate with Republicans. But in a ‘negotiation’ meeting with the president, one GOP House Leader told the president: ‘I cannot even stand to look at you.'”

Durbin, the #2 Democrat in the Senate, much like the #1, Harry Reid (and the GOP #1, Sen. Mitch McConnell, and…but I’m getting ahead of myself) is a serial shiv-master, adept at making explosive and unfair partisan accusations. This one is typically irresponsible and despicable, because he tells the tale of inexcusable disrespect to the President of the United States but does not attach it to any one individual. Unethical. Cowardly. If he’s going to blow the whistle, he has an obligation to blow it and point, so the accused can defend himself. The Golden Rule demands no less. Of course, this method indicts all GOP leaders, which is Durbin’s design.

The Illinois Senator is also not very bright, and thus his account, which is also based on hearsay so he actually cannot know if it is true or not, does not prove what he purports it to prove. The President’s obligation to negotiate and communicate is independent of what any one lawmaker thinks or how that lawmaker may act. Durbin’s argument is the Tit for Tat rationalization: bad conduct by Republicans…or just this one Republican…justifies the President not doing his job. Dumb. Unethical. Unfair.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Sen. Dick Durbin!

But wait, there’s more!

Republicans at the meeting Durbin referenced denied his charge, but we would expect that no matter what happened.  The amazing thing is this: Asked about the alleged incident at a press briefing, White House spokesman Jay Carney, who didn’t have to say anything, replied that he had investigated Durbin’s story, and “it did not happen.”

This is a mini-ethics train wreck in which the victim is order in the universe. What does it mean? Durbin is one of President Obama’s staunchest allies in the Senate. Carney is the White House spokesman. Neither has demonstrated any hesitation to lie his head of if it serves his—or Obama’s—purposes. Did Durbin make the story up whole cloth? Has Carney gone rogue? Why would the White House try to make Durbin out to be a liar, when his story, whether it is true or not, was designed to defend the President and condemn a Republican leader, and by extension all Republican leaders, for whom Obama has shown nothing but contempt and disdain…like Dick Durbin? Now Durbin is sticking by his story, insisting that it is true. Does that mean that he’s calling Carney a liar? Democrats aren’t supposed to do that: Carney speaks for the President. If Carney’s lying, then Obama’s lying..why would Obama approve of lying to make Durbin out to be a liar! What a betrayal of Durbin. I bet Senator Durbin can’t even stand to look at…wait, that can’t be right! Could it?

Could the explanation, and as Sherlock Holmes says, once you have eliminated the impossible, the solution to a mystery must be the only remaining possibility, no matter how improbable, be that that the Clinton Virus has become epidemic in Washington, and everyone—Republicans, Democrats, conservatives, libertarians, progressives, elected officials, appointees and journalists—now lie as a matter of course, for the fun of it, because they like it, because they can’t help themselves, and we are now facing a political landscape where liars lie about whether other liars are telling lies about who’s lying, all the time, all day long, and there is no possible way to tell the truth-tellers from the liars because they all are liars?

This is Ethics Hell.

How do we get out of here???

_________________

[ And the fish rots from the head down...]

_______________
Sources:Wall Street JournalTime, Chicago Tribune

50 thoughts on “Trapped In The Land Of Liars

  1. I agree in part — if you are going out someone for bad behavior, you actually have to name that individual. Otherwise, shut up. As for having to negotiate with everybody, well that responsibility lies with all lawmakers. And there are limits to negotiating. We don’t negotiate in hostage situations after all. I would also add that any President doesn’t have the responsibility to negotiate with lawmakers who threaten shutting down the government as leverage — and again, that comment applies to both political parties.

    • I couldn’t disagree with the last part more. The President has an obligation to lead, which means doing what is necessary, not taking punitive positions. Right now, the Administration is in about to consider doing exactly what the GOP demanded to keep the government funded–delay the individual mandate. This is like refusing to negotiate with a kidnapper (I am NOT analogizing the House majority, which was within its Constitutional authority at all times, thus rendering the Democrat and media “terrorist” analogies dishonest and irresponsible, to a kidnapper, but rather comparing the negotiation stances ), then giving him the money AFTER he has killed the baby. Bad leadership, bad negotiation, infantile,and stupid….political eye-poking rather than governance or statesmanship. The President preferred to close the government to doing what the GOP House wanted, even if that appeared to be the smart and prudent thing to do.

        • Being within Constitutional authority makes it a legitimate political tactic, There is nothing unethical about the opposition party opposing what it believes is bad policy. That’s its job. Crippling the operation of the government to do that may be irresponsible, but all impasses require at least two intransigent positions.

          • but all impasses require at least two intransigent positions.

            THIS. Thank you. I seriously do not understand 1) Democrats/ Liberals who somehow think the Republicans are supposed to somehow magically jump on board the ACA Train and endorse legislation they have opposed since day 1, and 2) Think that it’s perfectly OK for Democrats to likewise refuse to mitigate their positions.

            In my book, it’s a pox on both their houses. Sheesh.

          • A minority party who didn’t get its way and has unsuccessfully voted over 40 times to repeal a law cannot and should not threaten or do actual damage to our government and national economy because there is no other way. If the Democrats did this, I would be just as critical.

            As to AM’s point, I don’t give a damn what these Congressmen promised to their electorate. If Obama had promised to bomb every country that begins with the letter “L” when elected, it would still be immoral and unethical for him to do so once in office. Or if Romney promised to eliminate ALL taxes on the top 1%.

            Every single party – and every individual within each party – hates certain laws that are enacted, and then hates even more that funding is going to those laws. I despise many aspects of our foreign policy, the pork in government spending across all agencies, the pet projects added to each law, the Patriot Act, much of Homeland Security, the dozen or so spy agencies that we have, our bloated defense spending, etc. Every person on this thread could create his or her own list. But I also realize that it would be irresponsible for me to charge my leaders to hold our economy and government hostage because of these things. At the end of the day, the government has to keep the lights on – especially the largest superpower in the world.

            • A minority party who didn’t get its way and has unsuccessfully voted over 40 times to repeal a law cannot and should not threaten or do actual damage to our government and national economy because there is no other way. If the Democrats did this, I would be just as critical.

              It is not the job of a political party to make life easier for the other party. Again, this line of thinking amazes me. If the Democrats (in this case) don’t have enough clout to pass their laws they way they want to, perhaps that should tell them something.

              As to AM’s point, I don’t give a damn what these Congressmen promised to their electorate.

              Wat

            • “A minority party…”

              What’s the minority party in the House of Representatives (also referred to as the part of the national government CLOSEST to the People and also the House in which bills of revenue legally originate)?

              “As to AM’s point, I don’t give a damn what these Congressmen promised to their electorate. If Obama had promised to bomb every country that begins with the letter “L” when elected, it would still be immoral and unethical for him to do so once in office. Or if Romney promised to eliminate ALL taxes on the top 1%.”

              Terrible analogy. I don’t think a President would be elected if he promised to bomb every country starting with “L”, let alone a promise to do such is not equal to a promise to stop Obamacare. However, if a person is elected to end terrible liberty and economy destroying laws, then that person better fight tooth and nail to do so.

              “But I also realize that it would be irresponsible for me to charge my leaders to hold our economy and government hostage because of these things.”

              Y’all just can’t get over using the false analogy of hostage taking. It’s tired, it’s worn-out, it’s dishonest and it is hopelessly inaccurate. A better analogy is described here

    • ”President doesn’t have the responsibility to negotiate with lawmakers who threaten shutting down the government as leverage.”
      Yes he does and he was stupid for not doing so. Here is the case as simple as I can make it. The Republicans have (had) the power of the purse, about the only leverage they really have. Despite this the President was still in a better position as short term trends (people not liking the gov shut down, blaming republicans) and senate were on his side. He actually had an out with the shut down, give a little to the republicans and later claim that he did something in regards to the debt and financial burden that AHC will inflict. The long term trend shows that the population is not happy about the debt, resulting inflation and AHC. There is a reason we have those checks and balances in place, the Republicans were accurately representing a long term position of the population, even if they did a poor job of it. This may really come back to hurt the Democrats in a major way if the Republicans frame it correctly. This sucks because it can lead to Republicans dominating the government and more gridlock, as the trend is to not compromise with your enemies. A strong leader can overcome this. President Obama, which clearly is not a strong leader could have insured that concerns were addressed and moved more to a centrist position which would have strengthened faith in our system.

      • Yes, Obama’s position relied on general ignorance by most people of the constitutional republican system, as well as general disdain of it by left-leaning Americans.

        Additionally, President Obama has demonstrated precisely why the Founders hoped beyond hope that the Presidency would be an Un-partisan position. As leader of the nation it should never appeal to a particular ideology, but to leadership. Alas, even as the media has portrayed President Bush to be a great divider, you’d never see Bush engage in the disrespectful rhetoric towards his political opponents or the divisive behavior on ACTIVE (and media-protected) display by Obama.

        • the disrespectful rhetoric towards his political opponents or the divisive behavior on ACTIVE (and media-protected) display by Obama.
          ************
          That’s because he’s a punk.

  2. This one is typically irresponsible and despicable, because he tells the tale of inexcusable disrespect to the President of the United States but does not attach it to any one individual. Unethical. Cowardly. If he’s going to blow the whistle, he has an obligation to blow it and point, so the accused can defend himself. The Golden Rule demands no less.

    But if a right-wing newspaper editor claims that an unnamed park employee says that an unnamed someone, presumably representing the Obama administration, had said something outrageous – but does not attach it to any one individual – you make no such critique, nor do you argue that either the park ranger or the editor is cowardly or has any ethical obligation to “blow it and point, so the accused can defend himself.”

    As for the rest, it’s interesting that both the spokesperson and Durbin, both relying on unnamed witnesses, come to opposite claims. It’s actually possible that both are telling the truth (if they had spoken to different witnesses who told them different stories, for instance). I don’t think it’s possible to know what actually happened, given the lack of real, direct evidence. For that reason, I think it’s best to not give Durbin’s accusation any credit. The bottom line is, Durbin shouldn’t have said it if he can’t back it up.

    • That’s not even a fair or convincing “Gotcha!” Barry. The facts in question occurred-–the quote was just an individual’s comment about what was happening. Do you deny that the parks and monuments were closed by the Park Department? Was there any good reason that has been identified for blocking the WWII memorial other than what the statement alleged? The President himself, in remarks about why he rejected various GOP measures to fund the government piecemeal, said that he wouldn’t allow the shutdown to appear to be painless–how is that not 100% consistent with the park ranger said?

      The Washington Times is no less and no more credible than the Washington Post. It quoted a source who obviously couldn’t give his name because he would get fired. I believe the statement was made…for that matter, I find it hard to believe that somebody didn’t tell Durbin that story about the GOP leader—but he’s a politician with track record of lying. The Times just has biases. Two separate issues entirely. I have been in this city for decades, and nobody has ever caught the Times fabricationg a quote.

      Nor did I rely on the Times story to convince me that that Obama was intentionally picking specific, high profile group to inconvenience to try to shift public opinion. I just picked a quote that pointed out what was already in evidence. Did anyone, except maybe you, not see that Obama strategy clearly? The same was done with the sequester.

      • It’s perfectly fair, Jack. Either you have standards that you consistently apply, or you don’t. In this case, it’s obvious you don’t.

        No one denies that there was a meeting between House members and the President which did not produce an agreement. In both cases, what’s at issue is not whether or not the event occurred, but an outrageous, anonymous, unsourced quote that speaks to motivation and blame.

        In the one case, you categorically – and I think correctly – state that such accusations are unethical because they can’t really be contradicted or defended against. In the other case, suddenly the unfairness of attributing an outrageous quote to unidentified people isn’t an issue anymore.

        Suppose you were in the Obama administration. You read in the WT that an anonymous park ranger has said that someone said something awful. There are literally thousands of park employees and administration officials; you can’t prove that none of them said such a thing. The park ranger was anonymous, so you can’t ask him or her who, specifically, said that, or if s/he heard it firsthand or secondhand.

        This is unfair for precisely the reasons you outline in your post about Durbin’s unfair accusation: It breaks the golden rule by giving the accused group no fair chance to investigate the claim or defend itself.

        (Also, there’s no sign that the Washington Times editor even attempted to find out who allegedly said the quote, or to get that person’s version of events.)

        So why is an accusation that can’t possibly be disproven, investigated, or defended against perfectly okay and ethical if said about an unnamed Democrat, but unethical when said about an unnamed Republican?

        • Who cares who said the quote? Neither I nor the Times were using it to prove a fact. The identity of the speaker was irrelevant. The fact was that the Obama administration was indeed picking and choosing what government functions to block or not to block to inconvenience Americans in high profile ways. This was despicable, in essence a President setting out to harm his own people so he could blame it on the opposing party. The quote was used to highlight the conduct, which again, was not in question. Nor do I care who the official was who said this to the park ranger, or whether he in fact said it. The administration was acting in an obviously ruthless and unethical manner, regardless of who said it or not. The characterization was accurate, and would have been if I said it myself. The administration was trying to make people miserable, and it was disgusting.

          Got that?

          In contrast, Durbin was asserting an entire party leadership’s bad faith and disrespect of the President citing an anonymous source and an incident that may not have occurred. Unlike Obama’s war on vterans, tourists and others, there was NO proof except the hearsay statement from an unnamed source that the conduct Durbin was citing existed at all. The memorials and White House and various park locales WERE closed, Barry. Vets, student groups and tourists were targeted. That wasn’t hearsay. That wasn’t made up. The motives were obvious to anyone objective.

          Your criticism would be valid if I were relying only on the park ranger’s quote and outside of that, there was no other evidence of intentional manipulation to inconvenient citizens. But there was. I live in DC. It was right in front of us. But nobody, apparantly, including Durbin, saw or heard what his quote was alleged to prove…and wouldn’t have proven anything about the GOP leadership if it were true!

          • Your criticism would be valid if I were relying only on the park ranger’s quote and outside of that, there was no other evidence of intentional manipulation to inconvenience citizens.

            Okay, can you please provide a link to this evidence of “intentional manipulation to inconvenience citizens”? Because although I did see many conservatives make that claim, I never saw one of them provide any compelling, objective evidence, let along enough to justify the conclusion.

            The fact that the parks were closed is not evidence of anything, other than that during a government shutdown, nonessential services like the parks are closed down. They’ve been closed in previous shutdowns, such as the 1995 shutdown; why shouldn’t they have been shut down during this one?

            Since every federal park in the country was shut down, with a “free speech zone” exception made especially so that veteran’s groups could come into the WW2 Memorial, I don’t see how the claim that “vets, student groups and tourists were targeted” can be factually justified. But if you have any evidence-based arguments to prove that claim, I’d certainly read it with interest.

            • The Lincoln Memorial has never been shut down before in such closures. Never. There is no need to shut it down, except to piss people off. It isn’t staffed, and is open to be visited at all hours. Ditto the World War II memorial, which is wide open, and also not staffed.Also the Viet Nam Memorial, which just sits there.

              The incident with the restaurant that was on Park property but privately operated is also over the top. Nobody seriously doubts that this was a White House tactic, unless they are in denial. The sequester was handled exactly the same way. The pro-illegal immigration rally on the Mall was given a pass, while WWII veterans–80 year old patriots and heroes— were intentionally inconvenienced. I don’t see how its deniable, but go ahead.

                • Well, it had to come from SOMEWHERE with in in the executive branch. You then have to accept that even if it was not ordered by Obama himself, it is impossible that he was not aware of it after the first few days.

                  And yet it continued. The only possible conclusion is that, even if he did not order it initially, Obama gave his tacit approval of the tactic by not ordering it stopped.

                  A lack of action on his part is the same as his approval.

                  • Yes — but that can be said about every single thing that happens in government. The president can’t turn his attention to everything and, as awful and stupid as this was, it is pretty minor compared to the 1,000 other problems on his desk. I’d rather crucify the individual who thought this was a good idea.

                    • No, but something that was clearly calculated to effect as many as possible in as petty a way as possible (“no photos! YOU ARE RECREATING!”) Should garner at least a fast phone call and a “whoever told you that was a good idea, I’m telling you it is a stupid idea and you are to knock it the fuck out…”

                      Just because he’s the president doesn’t mean he isn’t ultimately responsible for everything the executive branch does.

                      Remember?

                      The buck stops here.

              • The Lincoln Memorial has never been shut down before in such closures. Never.

                It has been shut down before. Check out this photo of the Lincoln Memorial during the 1995 shutdown.

                But even if you weren’t mistaken, your argument would still be wrong. The last Federal government shutdown was in 1995, before 9/11, and before the Oklahoma City bombing. You can’t seriously expect today’s security to be identical to 1995’s.

                (Plus, according to the Park Service, the volume of visitors to the parks and to the National Mall is much larger today, which changes things.)

                The idea that anything on the National Mall isn’t staffed is frankly ridiculous. There are usually about 300 Park Rangers working full-time at the National Mall; during the shutdown, there were seven. Seven rangers can’t provide the security and maintenance necessary to keep open an attraction like the Lincoln Memorial, which attracts over ten thousand visitors a day, let alone the entire National Mall. And the liability issues would be enormous.

                To quote the Park Service blog:

                Just because many national parks and monuments are physically outdoors does not mean we don’t need staff there to protect them. Like a Smithsonian museum, the National Park System is chock-full of irreplaceable treasures.

                Assuming you mean the Blue Ridge restaurant, it’s not just on National Park land; the building itself is the legal property of the Park Service. The law allows the park service to do what it has to, during a shutdown, to protect life and property; keeping a restaurant open does not qualify, and might not even have been legal.

                Finally, due to the First Amendment, demonstrations are allowed on Park lands even during a shutdown. That same exception was why BOTH the veterans group (once they changed from a tour to a demonstration) and the immigrant group were allowed to demonstrate. “Under the same First Amendment rights that are allowing Honor Flight veterans and their families to visit the veterans memorials on the National Mall, other groups will be granted access to the park for First Amendment activities in accordance with National Park Service established regulations,” [National Parks Service spokesman Mike] Litterst said in a statement.

                You don’t have to assume malice to understand why national parks are shut down during a government shutdown. And you certainly don’t have any evidence – and even the claims you make, like that the Lincoln Memorial has never been shut down before, are flatly untrue.

                The logical thing to do, upon discovering that the facts you believed are mistaken, would be to reassess your conclusions.

                • I’d put all that in my brief too, Barry, if my job were to defend the Obama Administration, but it isn’t, and it shouldn’t be your job either. The 9-11 argument is a real stretch, though. Most security is for show, but if terrorism was a concern, putting up a few moveable barriers and signs did nothing to help the cause of security. (But thanks for finding evidence that Clinton closed the Lincoln Memorial for show too. That figures; my sources missed it. It is remains a stupid, wide open site to close. But not as wide open as the Vietnam memorial, which was also blocked.) I don’t see how a fair argument can be made that the Blue Ridge Restaurant, which I have visited, needed to be closed in any way. It wasn’t the only one, either. For example, Cliff House, which uses no Federal personnel, is a private, very profitable, very popular restaurant on US park lands. No money was saved by shutting it down, just as no money was saved by butting up barricades at the WW II memorial and keeping out veterans and tourists. Go ahead, explain why Mt, Vernon, which is privately owned and operated, was blocked. (I know—Because George owned slaves.) Why was the view of Mt. Rushmore carefully obstructed?

                  The First Amendment argument is a joke. Please. The Federal Government can’t stop lawful protests, and if an area is closed by law, its not lawful. Protesters have never had free rein to go anywhere they want—that’s why there have to be permits. The state can always close a public area for a legitimate purpose and have the protest someplace else…as it does during inaugurations, for example. There is no fair, rational, non-laughable argument to be made that the Administration was picking and choosing who it wanted to annoy with its shut down tactics, especially since it had so much discretion about what it considered “essential.” The diagnosis is especially uncontroversial because it’s Obama’s MO—he did exactly the same thing during the early days of the sequester.

                  There are too many blatant examples to list. Why were websites like the USDA site shut down, but Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” site allowed to remain up? Why were contract priests who volunteered to do Mass on service bases gratis told they couldn’t come on the bases? (The Administration could have cited the First Amendment here, too, as an exception—but the military isn’t a base constituency, like illegal immigrants and their relatives.) This incident, which involves a quote similar to the unattributed one I sited from the park ranger, involved the Forest Service and is difficult to justify except as shutdown theater. This theme was another terrible example of the Right-media/Left-media split—it was just ignored by the Post and NY Times, and should have been covered even if it was just to explain that the accusations were wrong. But they weren’t wrong—so that aspect of the shutdown was largely ignored by media outlets that knew it made the White House look as ruthless as it is.

      • Hailing from Illinois (for my sins), and having long know what sort of person he is, I absolutely believe Carney over him.

        And having just said that I believe some Carney said, I shall now attempt to fly and shoot rainbows out of my ass, because clearly reality has ceased to care about the rules…

      • Oh, and:

        It quoted a source who obviously couldn’t give his name because he would get fired.

        You’re misunderstanding my argument. I’m not objecting to the park ranger being unidentified – I’m all in favor of press whistle-blowers being anonymous. I’m objecting to the official the park ranger accused, being unidentified.

        Not identifying the official who allegedly said that rangers should “make life as difficult for people as we can” can’t be excused as protecting the park ranger’s job. If the official only told one park ranger, then the official knows which park ranger spoke to the press, even if the park ranger isn’t identified.

        But why would a general directive to “make life as difficult for people as we can” be told to only one employee? That makes no sense at all – if the unnamed official was giving general orders to make life difficult, he would have told a whole bunch of employees. But if he did that, then there would be no danger of the park ranger who spoke to the WT being identified by naming the official.

        What’s being protected here is not a park ranger’s job, but a disgusting accusation. By not naming the official who allegedly said “make life as difficult for people as we can,” the WT protects its accusation from being investigated or double-checked. It’s completely irresponsible – and it’s just as irresponsible when a Democrat like Durbin does the same thing.

    • By the way, the gyrations you will go through to avoid admitting that any Democrat’s pants are on fire boggles. If either Carney of Durbin had said “My sources tell me..” then yes, either or both could be truthful. But that’s not the case. Durbin said, without qualification, “This happened.” Carney said, “It did not happen.” They cannot both be telling the truth, as stated.

      • Sources: Word of alleged rude GOP comment came from WH deputy chief of staff – CNN.

        But on Thursday a White House official accepted some blame for the story.

        “While the quote attributed to a Republican lawmaker in the House GOP meeting with the President is not accurate, there was a miscommunication when the White House read out that meeting to Senate Democrats,” the official said. “We regret the misunderstanding.”

        Senior administration officials tell CNN that, according to those White House officials who were in the room, Sessions’ comments at the October 10 meeting were expressing frustration with the shutdown standoff, not with President Obama.

        White House officials would not comment on whether Nabors misunderstood what Sessions said, or whether he just miscommunicated the story to Senate Democrats.

        • Or option c) Durbin assumed he could get away with misrepresenting what a republican said.

          It has, after all, been something the Dems have been getting away with for at least the last 6 years, with absolute cover being given by a lapdog press.

        • And that’s why hearsay is inadmissible in court.
          And at this point, nothing that is said, and no explanation, can be trusted, since the WH is in spin mode. For Reid to use a dubious report like that is typical, but really low. That’s our Harry Land of Liars.

  3. There was a good Star Trek episode, where Capt. Kirk won the day by out-computing an evil, threatening robot by telling it, “Everything I say is a lie.”

    “How do we get out of here?” The hard way. With a catastrophic collapse that renders the liars’ lies irrelevant. They’ll never cut the B.S. – and probably never will cut it, but only redouble it, even after the B.S. cuts them, because it’s the only currency they have to trade with.

  4. Isn’t this really about Durbin’s spitefulness and tendency to bite anybody he perceives as an enemy. Like a rabid dog, he just doesn’t care.

  5. Republican Party is a victim of their own Gerrymandering. As a result they have empowered some very amateur politicians who are not in any real danger of losing their seat.

    Pointing the finger at Dick Durbin or whoever your Democratic punching bag of the day is, does not change the fact that the Republican Party hates itself. And America knows it.

    • This comment is counter-factual, and completely unrelated to ethics. I’m sorry prominent Democrats lying and contradicting each other bothers you, but it is relevant to ethics, and your comment is just a classic “oh yeah?” For example, any serious political scientist knows that gerrymandering is practiced with equal fervor by both parties. It’s a destructive practice, but a bi-partisan one.

    • I am truly puzzled by your comments. Speaking of amateur politicians, I suggest you take a look at *The Amateur: Barack Obama in the Whitehouse*

      • Referring to Obama as an amateur is insulting… to amateurs. I say that in all seriousness as MOST amateurs will grow and mature over time… something King Putt appears incapable of doing.

          • Yep, but there’s got to be a desire to learn. This is why narcissism is so deadly; the narcissist has to be willing to acknowledge mistakes. That they cannot do. So guys, I guess you right. I apologize to all amateurs that are willing to learn from their mistakes.

  6. Jj,I notice that fewer and fewer who post here bother to engage with you. Do you think it might be because of pointless, bullshit comments like the one you just made?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.