PDA

View Full Version : Greenspan critical of Bush and Republicans



lonesomefool
09-15-2007, 02:21 PM
http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/?p=5064

With the economy looking more and more weak, looks like Republicans now have TWO major strikes (at least) against them come the elections next year.

Ethan Van Sciver
09-15-2007, 02:56 PM
http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/?p=5064

With the economy looking more and more weak, looks like Republicans now have TWO major strikes (at least) against them come the elections next year.

Yes, we're scared.

Yorick Brown
09-15-2007, 02:58 PM
"Warm up the black voter intimidation vans."

Brad N.
09-15-2007, 02:58 PM
Greenspan is a douche who is partly responsible. He was the one who was so high on the subprime market for so many years. But yeah, it's nice to see some honesty out of him now. Too bad he wasn't more so a few years ago.

Thommy Melanson
09-15-2007, 03:00 PM
Greenspan is a douche who is partly responsible. He was the one who was so high on the subprime market for so many years. But yeah, it's nice to see some honesty out of him now. Too bad he wasn't more so a few years ago.

Funny how government types are only honest and forthcoming when it's either years after the fact and/or they have a book to push.

Never when it counts.

Jay Wesson
09-15-2007, 03:05 PM
Would anyone buy a book written by Alan fucking Greenspan if there wasn't some muckraking involved? I'm sure he's got some valid criticisms of the administration, but come on...

lonesomefool
09-15-2007, 03:12 PM
Would anyone buy a book written by Alan fucking Greenspan if there wasn't some muckraking involved? I'm sure he's got some valid criticisms of the administration, but come on...

The article talks about how after Greenspan get's done talking about Bush and Clinton, how the second half of the book is pretty boring.

lonesomefool
09-15-2007, 03:13 PM
Yes, we're scared.

If your pinning any hopes on Fred Thompson's turkey neck...then yes, you (and every American) should be very scared :)

RebootedCorpse
09-15-2007, 03:13 PM
Greenspan loves the Ayn Rand!

artimoff
09-15-2007, 04:05 PM
Greenspan loves the Ayn Rand!


Better than loving the Chairman Mao like the DNC seems to.

RebootedCorpse
09-15-2007, 04:07 PM
Better than loving the Chairman Mao like the DNC seems to.

Yes. The DNC loves Mao...:mistrust: :scared: :sad:

Brad N.
09-15-2007, 04:10 PM
Better than loving the Chairman Mao like the DNC seems to.

:rofl:

Thommy Melanson
09-15-2007, 04:14 PM
I'm wearing my "I :heart: Chairman Mao" t-shirt as I type this.

You get one after undergoing the indoctrination program at Camp Clinton.

JoeE
09-15-2007, 04:20 PM
Yes. The DNC loves Mao...:mistrust: :scared: :sad:

John Edwards might.

In any case, I don't see what the big deal is; he's criticizing Bush for not being conservative enough and spending like the Democrats do, and I don't know a single serious conservative who has at any point been satisfied with Bush's atrocious record on government spending. Even before he was President we all knew he would spend like a Democrat.

Doc Randy
09-15-2007, 05:27 PM
... he's criticizing Bush for not being conservative enough and spending like the Democrats do, and I don't know a single serious conservative who has at any point been satisfied with Bush's atrocious record on government spending. Even before he was President we all knew he would spend like a Democrat.

I think the bigger complaint, the one that carries over into all areas of the Bush Administration, is the fact that this Administration values loyalty and political capital more than dissent and debate.

It is a leadership style that promotes GroupThink.

From Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aFm7L8vuX_ts&refer=worldwide):


"Greenspan said he never became part of Bush's inner circle, in which dissent from staff like former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill wasn't encouraged. ``Paul's outspokenness put him at odds with the administration, which emphasized loyalty and staying on message.'' The White House just wanted a spokesman for its economic policies, he said. "


And from the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118978549183327730.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news):


"Mr. Greenspan writes that when President Bush chose Dick Cheney as vice president and Paul O'Neill as treasury secretary -- both colleagues from the Gerald Ford administration, during which Mr. Greenspan was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers -- he "indulged in a bit of fantasy" that this would be the government that would have resulted if Mr. Ford hadn't lost to Jimmy Carter in 1976. But Mr. Greenspan discovered that in the Bush White House, the "political operation was far more dominant" than in Mr. Ford's. "Little value was placed on rigorous economic policy debate or the weighing of long-term consequences," he writes."

Ethan Van Sciver
09-15-2007, 05:31 PM
If your pinning any hopes on Fred Thompson's turkey neck...then yes, you (and every American) should be very scared :)

Nope. I'm not seeing Al Gore stepping up to the plate, and until he does, we've got 2008 in the bag no matter who we put forward.

NATE!
09-15-2007, 05:35 PM
I'm wearing my "I :heart: Chairman Mao" t-shirt as I type this.

You get one after undergoing the indoctrination program at Camp Clinton.

Well, don't you own a Che Guevara shirt? If you don't, the other revolutionaries will laugh you right out of Starbucks.

Ray G.
09-15-2007, 05:36 PM
Nope. I'm not seeing Al Gore stepping up to the plate, and until he does, we've got 2008 in the bag no matter who we put forward.

I wouldn't say in the bag, but Obama isn't getting elected after the campaign he's run, the anti-Hillary vote will be gigantic(and turnout wins elections), and I have to bet that people will be turned off by Edwards' increasingly spooky nanny stating.

Nope, our next President will be scary in the good squeegee-man-busting way, not the bad way. :)

Doc Randy
09-15-2007, 05:38 PM
Holy cow!

Ijust looked up groupthink (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink) over at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink).

Tell me this doesn't sound like this Administration...

Causes of groupthink

Highly cohesive groups are much more likely to engage in groupthink. The closer they are, the less likely they are to raise questions to break the cohesion. Although Janis sees group cohesion as the most important antecedent to groupthink, he states that it will not invariably lead to groupthink: 'It is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition' (Janis, Victims of Groupthink, 1972). According to Janis, (a) group cohesion will only lead to groupthink if one of the following two antecedent conditions is present: (b) Structural faults in the organisation: insulation of the group, lack of tradition of impartial leadership, lack of norms requiring methodological procedures, homogeneity of members' social background and ideology. (c) Provocative situational context: high stress from external threats, recent failures, excessive difficulties on the decision-making task, moral dilemmas.

Social psychologist Clark McCauley's three conditions under which groupthink occurs:

* Directive leadership.
* Homogeneity of members' social background and ideology.
* Isolation of the group from outside sources of information and analysis.


Symptoms of groupthink

In order to make groupthink testable, Irving Janis devised eight symptoms that are indicative of groupthink (1977).

1. A feeling of invulnerability creates excessive optimism and encourages risk taking.
2. Discounting warnings that might challenge assumptions.
3. An unquestioned belief in the groupís morality, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.
4. Stereotyped views of enemy leaders.
5. Pressure to conform experienced by members of the group who might otherwise disagree.
6. Shutting down of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
7. An illusion of unanimity with regards to going along with the group.
8. Mindguards ó self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting opinions.

Ethan Van Sciver
09-15-2007, 05:39 PM
I wouldn't say in the bag, but Obama isn't getting elected after the campaign he's run, the anti-Hillary vote will be gigantic(and turnout wins elections), and I have to bet that people will be turned off by Edwards' increasingly spooky nanny stating.

Nope, our next President will be scary in the good squeegee-man-busting way, not the bad way. :)

Yeah, you're probably right about that.

Mit Romney would be a better president to lead this country towards a better tomorrow. He handsome, wholesome, and righteously Mormon.

Ethan Van Sciver
09-15-2007, 05:40 PM
Holy cow!

Ijust looked up groupthink (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink) over at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink).

Tell me this doesn't sound like this Administration...

Causes of groupthink

Highly cohesive groups are much more likely to engage in groupthink. The closer they are, the less likely they are to raise questions to break the cohesion. Although Janis sees group cohesion as the most important antecedent to groupthink, he states that it will not invariably lead to groupthink: 'It is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition' (Janis, Victims of Groupthink, 1972). According to Janis, (a) group cohesion will only lead to groupthink if one of the following two antecedent conditions is present: (b) Structural faults in the organisation: insulation of the group, lack of tradition of impartial leadership, lack of norms requiring methodological procedures, homogeneity of members' social background and ideology. (c) Provocative situational context: high stress from external threats, recent failures, excessive difficulties on the decision-making task, moral dilemmas.

Social psychologist Clark McCauley's three conditions under which groupthink occurs:

* Directive leadership.
* Homogeneity of members' social background and ideology.
* Isolation of the group from outside sources of information and analysis.


Symptoms of groupthink

In order to make groupthink testable, Irving Janis devised eight symptoms that are indicative of groupthink (1977).

1. A feeling of invulnerability creates excessive optimism and encourages risk taking.
2. Discounting warnings that might challenge assumptions.
3. An unquestioned belief in the groupís morality, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.
4. Stereotyped views of enemy leaders.
5. Pressure to conform experienced by members of the group who might otherwise disagree.
6. Shutting down of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
7. An illusion of unanimity with regards to going along with the group.
8. Mindguards ó self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting opinions.

It sounds like this message board, most of the time, Randy!

That's why I'm here. With Ray.

RebootedCorpse
09-15-2007, 05:40 PM
I wouldn't say in the bag, but Obama isn't getting elected after the campaign he's run, the anti-Hillary vote will be gigantic(and turnout wins elections), and I have to bet that people will be turned off by Edwards' increasingly spooky nanny stating.

Nope, our next President will be scary in the good squeegee-man-busting way, not the bad way. :)

Yeah, health care and education are super fucking creepy. Brrrrr! Creeeepy!

lonesomefool
09-15-2007, 06:01 PM
Nope. I'm not seeing Al Gore stepping up to the plate, and until he does, we've got 2008 in the bag no matter who we put forward.

I think the Republicans have a VERY real shot of winning again, but I also think there might be a major push for change as well, even if it's just change for changes sake. The housing market is crashing, which puts a lot of construction workers and people in those fields out of work (myself included) and with the war in Iraq....I dont know, even if it's not fair to totally blame Bush for stuff like the economy, I think he and the Republicans are gonna be hurt by it. Of course, it's still very early and a ton of things could still change.

lonesomefool
09-15-2007, 06:05 PM
Yeah, health care and education are super fucking creepy. Brrrrr! Creeeepy!

Well, if you listen to Glenn Beck, if we have universal health care, our Gas is gonna go to $9/gallon :roll:

joespam
09-15-2007, 08:11 PM
In any case, I don't see what the big deal is; he's criticizing Bush for not being conservative enough and spending like the Democrats do, and I don't know a single serious conservative who has at any point been satisfied with Bush's atrocious record on government spending. Even before he was President we all knew he would spend like a Democrat.

Bush spends like Reagan. He should have spent like Clinton.

Jay Wesson
09-15-2007, 08:18 PM
Bush spends like Reagan. He should have spent like Clinton.

Yeah, maybe he should send ill-equipped troops into a military quagmire and... oh, wait... They both did that.

Thommy Melanson
09-16-2007, 05:44 AM
A Republican being elected President is far, far, FAR from "in the bag".

Unless that bag is being loaded onto a freight plane headed towards Antarctica.

America is mighty unhappy about not only this war, but Bush and his secretive administration in general. The continuing sex scandals involving the Repubs aren't helping the cause either.

If your two frontrunners are a divorced pro-choice New Yorker like Rudy or a flip-flopping (guess that's okay when it's not Kerry) Mormon like Romney, the heartland Christian conservative majority base isn't going to elect either.

Once Fred Thompson gets out there and starts mass-plugging his frighteningly archaic worldview, he'll seal his own fate.

What you may see is a staggering stay-at-home factor from Republicans come Election Day.

I'm still undecided as to whom I'll be voting for, but these next 12 months should be interesting.

RebootedCorpse
09-16-2007, 06:17 AM
Best bit from Greensapn:
"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows. The Iraq war is largely about oil."

Thommy Melanson
09-16-2007, 06:27 AM
Best bit from Greensapn:
"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows. The Iraq war is largely about oil."

That's what Republican Congressman Chris Shays from Connecticut confirmed on the C-Span program Washington Journal, which aired Sept. 11.

He's also a ranking member of the National Security Subcommittee.

RebootedCorpse
09-16-2007, 06:29 AM
That's what Republican Congressman Chris Shays from Connecticut confirmed on a C-Span program earlier this week.

Isn't this the place where a board rightie posts a ever hilarious "OMFG no blood for oilz!!" blast?:roll:

Thommy Melanson
09-16-2007, 06:36 AM
Isn't this the place where a board rightie posts a ever hilarious "OMFG no blood for oilz!!" blast?:roll:

No, here's where they immediately minimize Shay's importance and question his credibility, like they do with every fellow conservative that doesn't toe the admin's line.

Brad N.
09-16-2007, 07:08 AM
No, here's where they immediately minimize Shay's importance and question his credibility, like they do with every fellow conservative that doesn't toe the admin's line.

*cough* Chuck Hagel *cough*

Thommy Melanson
09-16-2007, 07:10 AM
*cough* Chuck Hagel *cough*

*cough* John Warner *cough*

Jamie Howdeshell
09-16-2007, 08:42 AM
*cough* George Will *cough*

Amos Moses
09-16-2007, 08:56 AM
I was going to post in this thread but then I didn't want to get sick.














Oh shit!

Colby
09-16-2007, 09:02 AM
Would anyone buy a book written by Alan fucking Greenspan if there wasn't some muckraking involved? I'm sure he's got some valid criticisms of the administration, but come on...

I won't buy it even WITH the muckraking. What, Bush is a toolbox? Thanks, Al, I already knew that, I'll just keep my 25 bucks, thank you very much.

Colby
09-16-2007, 09:03 AM
I was going to post in this thread but then I didn't want to get sick.












Oh shit!


:rofl:

Greenville 90210
09-16-2007, 02:05 PM
I see that Greenspan saying that the war is for oil has been ignored by our right-leaning brothers. That's a shame.

Fellas, you don't have to go along with your party ALL the time.

Thommy Melanson
09-16-2007, 02:07 PM
I see that Greenspan saying that the war is for oil has been ignored by our right-leaning brothers. That's a shame.

Fellas, you don't have to go along with your party ALL the time.

I will give Ray some credit - he's well aware of what a fuckup Bush is.

Ethan once said that he believes Bush and Cheney are good men doing their best.

Greenville 90210
09-16-2007, 02:12 PM
I will give Ray some credit - he's well aware of what a fuckup Bush is.

Ethan once said that he believes Bush and Cheney are good men doing their best.

I give Ray credit too.

I'm not sure if Ethan is serious or playing a character.

Brad N.
09-16-2007, 02:13 PM
I will give Ray some credit - he's well aware of what a fuckup Bush is.

Ethan once said that he believes Bush and Cheney are good men doing their best.

Thank God that type of viewpoint (and conservatives in general) are so marginalized now. It's nice to see them (no one here of course) sliming their way back underneath the rocks they crawled out from in 2000. Now the adults can get back to running things again.

Thommy Melanson
09-16-2007, 02:13 PM
I give Ray credit too.

I'm not sure if Ethan is serious or playing a character.

I like to think Ethan himself isn't sure sometimes. :)

Thommy Melanson
09-16-2007, 02:21 PM
Looks like Bush is going to announce retired Judge Locazzi (sp?) to replace Gonzales as Attorney General.

Ray G.
09-16-2007, 02:23 PM
Mukasey.

He seems to be a compromise choice.

Thommy Melanson
09-16-2007, 02:27 PM
Mukasey.

He seems to be a compromise choice.

What's the info on him?

Ethan Van Sciver
09-17-2007, 06:41 AM
Thank God that type of viewpoint (and conservatives in general) are so marginalized now. It's nice to see them (no one here of course) sliming their way back underneath the rocks they crawled out from in 2000. Now the adults can get back to running things again.

Yes, we're "marginalized". There's a do-nothing Democrat Congress and a very active Republican presidency that is doing what it said it'd do and upsetting liberals to the point of psychosis. We'll also take the White House again in 2008 most likely. But even if we don't, Bush has taken the pathetic token "troop withdraw" away from whichever Democrat would have used it to fool the voters upon his/her election. Hilarious.

But whatever your perspective is, I guess.

Ethan Van Sciver
09-17-2007, 06:43 AM
I give Ray credit too.

I'm not sure if Ethan is serious or playing a character.

I am. I'm playing "The Grown Up" amongst the stunted goofball children. I try to be nurturing and yet spank when necessary. :)

RebootedCorpse
09-17-2007, 06:45 AM
I am. I'm playing "The Grown Up" amongst the stunted goofball children. I try to be nurturing and yet spank when necessary. :)

And you define "necessary" as cranked up on meth and wearing a vinyl bodysuit.

RebootedCorpse
09-17-2007, 06:49 AM
No play for Mr. gray!
http://www.nba.com/media/finals2003/frazier_composite.jpg

Ethan Van Sciver
09-17-2007, 06:52 AM
And you define "necessary" as cranked up on meth and wearing a vinyl bodysuit.

No, that how I'd define "ready to have sex with yo' mom." ;-)

Taxman
09-17-2007, 06:52 AM
And from the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118978549183327730.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news):

. . .

"Little value was placed on rigorous economic policy debate or the weighing of long-term consequences," he writes."Wow, that is so contrary to my impression of this administrations handling of policy decisions in all other areas. :crazy:

Jamie Howdeshell
09-17-2007, 06:55 AM
I'm not sure if Ethan is serious or playing a character.

Ethan is just bullshitting on here. He's explicitly admitted before that he will never share his real opinions with this board. That's why I don't bother arguing with him anymore other than to point out his trolling. What's the point of arguing with somebody who is facetious?

RebootedCorpse
09-17-2007, 06:57 AM
Ethan is just bullshitting on here. He's explicitly admitted before that he will never share his real opinions with this board. That's why I don't bother arguing with him anymore other than to point out his trolling. What's the point of arguing with somebody who is facetious?

I would love that to be true.

Ethan Van Sciver
09-17-2007, 07:02 AM
It isn't true. Jamie is just sick of losing arguments to me. :(

Ethan Van Sciver
09-17-2007, 07:08 AM
Ethan is just bullshitting on here. He's explicitly admitted before that he will never share his real opinions with this board. That's why I don't bother arguing with him anymore other than to point out his trolling. What's the point of arguing with somebody who is facetious?

And you even lose this argument. I've never been banned for "trolling", and you have. Bush has never been officially rebuked by Congress for lying, as Clinton was. And yet, the accusations still persist. You're alone down there, Jamie. Alone in the troll gutter. :-?

Taxman
09-17-2007, 07:10 AM
Ethan is just bullshitting on here. He's explicitly admitted before that he will never share his real opinions with this board. link?

Amos Moses
09-17-2007, 07:11 AM
Ethan, you're a troll. I'd kill you, but I can't afford fire arrows. And I'm not licensed to handle acid arrows.

But yeah you are a troll.

Ethan Van Sciver
09-17-2007, 07:11 AM
link?

Yes, post the link, please.

Ethan Van Sciver
09-17-2007, 07:11 AM
Ethan, you're a troll. I'd kill you, but I can't afford fire arrows. And I'm not licensed to handle acid arrows.

But yeah you are a troll.

I'm an orc.

Taxman
09-17-2007, 07:13 AM
Yes, post the link, please.Unless, of course, this was what you shared with him when the two of you hung out 'til all hours of the night at a comic book show.

Ethan Van Sciver
09-17-2007, 07:21 AM
Unless, of course, this was what you shared with him when the two of you hung out 'til all hours of the night at a comic book show.

No, Jamie is referring to a guy who's since been banned who was trying to get my views about Christianity or the war or something, and I joked and skirted the issue because I didn't feel like being sincere with this person. I said something like, "You'll never get my heartfelt perspective about any issue", and I was speaking directly to him, and I meant that I don't list my personal beliefs upon demand to people I think are worthless. And he was.

Jamie has misinterpreted this and spun it to mean that my conservative beliefs are an act here. And as usual, as in every avenue of his life, he is wrong. It's very sad. But it's a good way out when he's got a losing hand. :surrend:

Taxman
09-17-2007, 07:37 AM
No, Jamie is referring to a guy who's since been banned who was trying to get my views about Christianity or the war or something, and I joked and skirted the issue because I didn't feel like being sincere with this person. I said something like, "You'll never get my heartfelt perspective about any issue", and I was speaking directly to him, and I meant that I don't list my personal beliefs upon demand to people I think are worthless. And he was.

Jamie has misinterpreted this and spun it to mean that my conservative beliefs are an act here. And as usual, as in every avenue of his life, he is wrong. It's very sad. But it's a good way out when he's got a losing hand. :surrend:Is this true Howardshell?

Ethan Van Sciver
09-17-2007, 07:39 AM
Is this true Howardshell?

No, "truth" is something different to Jamie. Ask him if it's reality.

Greenville 90210
09-17-2007, 07:46 AM
I am. I'm playing "The Grown Up" amongst the stunted goofball children. I try to be nurturing and yet spank when necessary. :)


And you even lose this argument. I've never been banned for "trolling", and you have. Bush has never been officially rebuked by Congress for lying, as Clinton was. And yet, the accusations still persist. You're alone down there, Jamie. Alone in the troll gutter. :-?

Ok. Character based on truth. I think I get it now.

Yes, Ethan, liberals are like goofy troll children and you are the all-knowledgeable adult orc.

*pats head*

Ethan Van Sciver
09-17-2007, 07:53 AM
Ok. Character based on truth. I think I get it now.

Yes, Ethan, liberals are like goofy troll children and you are the all-knowledgeable adult orc.

*pats head*

Go to bed.

Greenville 90210
09-17-2007, 07:56 AM
Go to bed.

But dad...I just got up.

Taxman
09-17-2007, 10:17 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070917/ap_on_go_pr_wh/greenspan_8


Bush surprised by Greenspan criticism

WASHINGTON - President Bush was surprised by the criticism leveled against him and his administration by former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan in his new book, the White House said Monday.

Greenspan accused Bush of not responsibly handling the nation's spending and racking up big budget deficits, saying he and Congress' former GOP leaders abandoned the party's conservative principles favoring small government.

"My biggest frustration remained the president's unwillingness to wield his veto against out-of-control spending," Greenspan wrote in "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World," being released Monday.

White House press secretary Dana Perino defended Bush's fiscal policies, and said that veto threats from the president were enough to keep spending from spiraling too high. Under Bush, government spending for the fight against terrorism increased, and Perino said the Bush administration doesn't apologize for acting on behalf of "the safety and security of the American people."

At the same time, government revenues declined because of a string of tax cuts, which Greenspan also criticizes in his book.

Large projected surpluses were the basis for Bush's $1.35 trillion, 10-year tax cut approved in the summer of 2001. Those surpluses never materialized, and have since turned into record deficits, so Greenspan wrote that the tax-cut goal was "no longer entirely appropriate."

Perino brought this up as one of the more perplexing parts of the book for the White House.

"The president was a bit surprised by some of the criticism in the book," she said. "Remember in late 2000, we were headed into a recession and tax cuts were the prescribed remedy. And that has borne out to be one of the best decisions we made in order to keep the economy growing like it is."

Greenspan gave a major boost to Bush's tax-cut plan in testimony before Congress in 2001, arguing then that a tax cut could help the economy deal with sagging growth. A recession that began in March 2001 ended that November. In his book, he says that testimony had been a mistake.

Perino also disputed Greenspan's line about the Iraq war, in which he said "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."

Perino said Greenspan has since "acknowledged that oil was not the president's motive for our engagement in Iraq."

Despite disputing his conclusions, the White House went out of its way to praise Greenspan, who ran the Fed for 18 1/2 years, under four presidents, until early 2006.

"The president has great respect for former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan," she said. "They served together for many years. He was excellent at his job."

Taxman
09-17-2007, 10:19 AM
No, Jamie is referring to a guy who's since been banned who was trying to get my views about Christianity or the war or something, and I joked and skirted the issue because I didn't feel like being sincere with this person. I said something like, "You'll never get my heartfelt perspective about any issue", and I was speaking directly to him, and I meant that I don't list my personal beliefs upon demand to people I think are worthless. And he was.

Jamie has misinterpreted this and spun it to mean that my conservative beliefs are an act here. And as usual, as in every avenue of his life, he is wrong. It's very sad. But it's a good way out when he's got a losing hand. :surrend:Is this true Howardshell?No, "truth" is something different to Jamie. Ask him if it's reality.Is this reality Howardshell?