Snow steps down

[Stormbringer]

Notice you say exactly jack and shit about all the other times the Bush Regime lied for lying's sake.

Actually, most of them are the usual political smears, manipulations, and ass coverings. Par for the course about Bush. But they are not pointless and unlike the accusations in this thread, the statements have actually been disproven.

Just because the broken clock is right twice a day doesn't mean we can't call you on your carrying the fucking water for the Bushies!

Oh for fuck's sake you brainless little moron, I didn't even vote for the fucker the last time around. I'm sorry I didn't drink the Green Party Kool Aid like all the rest of you but I happen to find the kind of knee jerk politics here not a whole hell of a lot better than the shit you decry. It's one thing to disbelieve Bush and another to simply reflexively reject everything simply because he said it.

[Patrick Degan]

Except they've got to say something other than the plain truth. Even though there is absolutely no reason to do so.

So once again, you have zero proof that this instance is a lie. You just keep insisting that they are because they have in the past. Gotcha.

Got news for you: when you're judging the veracity of a person or a group of people and they have a known, longterm track record of lying and dishonesty even about the trivial, the word of said person(s) is automatically suspect.

Doesn't suit you? Too fucking bad.

[Flagg]

And we need more than that with these fuckers?

If you're expecting it to be taken seriously, yes. There is still such a thing as an evidentiary standard if you want to actually make a claim; so far there has been nothing but baseless generalizations. I certainly don't disagree with the notion that Bush should not be trusted. But that does not mean that everything out of his mouth or his staff is automatically a lie.

And you still haven't shown why we should believe them when they have lied about unimportant things in the past. Or would you believe anything a compulsive liar says unless you have clear proof that he wasn't lying this time?

[Stormbringer]

Got news for you: when you're judging the veracity of a person or a group of people and they have a known, longterm track record of lying and dishonesty even about the trivial, the word of said person(s) is automatically suspect.

And you still haven't shown why we should believe them when they have lied about unimportant things in the past. Or would you believe anything a compulsive liar says unless you have clear proof that he wasn't lying this time?

Apparently neither of you can actually understand the critical difference between suspect and provably false. I absolutely agree with the premise that Bush or his flunkies words and actions should be treated with suspicion until such time as they can actually be proven or disproven. Unlike the rest of you, I do understand the difference between suspicion and facts. You have all seemed to have skipped right over the part about proving this accusation and started simply taking it for granted that it's actually a proven lie.

In this case, as reported in the CNN article, Tony Snow has talked about the Press Secretary job imposing financial hardship well before this resignation. And on top of that there is substantial evidence that he made considerably more as a Fox News talk show host and other pundit positions. Neither of those facts rely on Bush's word, which is a rather critical issue here. So there is a fair amount of circumstantial evidence to suggest that he really is leaving because he's losing money at the job.

But hey, keep making those accusations. I'm sure one day soon the Democracy Fairy will come along and leave you a check for all the brain cells you've lost.

[Patrick Degan]

Got news for you: when you're judging the veracity of a person or a group of people and they have a known, longterm track record of lying and dishonesty even about the trivial, the word of said person(s) is automatically suspect.

And you still haven't shown why we should believe them when they have lied about unimportant things in the past. Or would you believe anything a compulsive liar says unless you have clear proof that he wasn't lying this time?

Apparently neither of you can actually understand the critical difference between suspect and provably false. I absolutely agree with the premise that Bush or his flunkies words and actions should be treated with suspicion until such time as they can actually be proven or disproven. Unlike the rest of you, I do understand the difference between suspicion and facts. You have all seemed to have skipped right over the part about proving this accusation and started simply taking it for granted that it's actually a proven lie.

In this case, as reported in the CNN article, Tony Snow has talked about the Press Secretary job imposing financial hardship well before this resignation. And on top of that there is substantial evidence that he made considerably more as a Fox News talk show host and other pundit positions. Neither of those facts rely on Bush's word, which is a rather critical issue here. So there is a fair amount of circumstantial evidence to suggest that he really is leaving because he's losing money at the job.

But hey, keep making those accusations. I'm sure one day soon the Democracy Fairy will come along and leave you a check for all the brain cells you've lost.

Translation: You're entire argument boils down to "These people must be telling the truth this time, because there's no reason for them to lie this time, so they must be telling the truth this time".

Oh, and your main support for this argument? Tony Snow's veracity.

No, you're not in any position to be talking about anybody else's allegedly missing brain cells.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Notice you say exactly jack and shit about all the other times the Bush Regime lied for lying's sake.

Actually, most of them are the usual political smears, manipulations, and ass coverings. Par for the course about Bush. But they are not pointless and unlike the accusations in this thread, the statements have actually been disproven.

Yes they are. They waste everyone's time that could have been spent actually helping the American people. 'Par for the course' is not a shield for this behavior, in fact it is an indictment of such behavior. I'm sorry, but one who has repeatedly proven oneself to speak with a forked tongue, such as Snow here, should not be given benefit of the doubt!

Just because the broken clock is right twice a day doesn't mean we can't call you on your carrying the fucking water for the Bushies!

Oh for fuck's sake you brainless little moron, I didn't even vote for the fucker the last time around. I'm sorry I didn't drink the Green Party Kool Aid like all the rest of you but I happen to find the kind of knee jerk politics here not a whole hell of a lot better than the shit you decry. It's one thing to disbelieve Bush and another to simply reflexively reject everything simply because he said it.

Oh go blow it out of your ass, smoke some weed, and help yourself to some social services, you neocon. I'm sorry if the Republicans have given us 'Green Party Kool-Aid Drinkers' :rolleyes: probable cause to disbelieve everything they say as the default. To drink their Red-State Kool-Aid is downright dangerous, idiot. If you didn't vote for the chimp, why are you attacking those who dare criticize the damn cowboy?

In fact, I believe Bush-bashing is the new Godwin's Law...

[Flagg]

Got news for you: when you're judging the veracity of a person or a group of people and they have a known, longterm track record of lying and dishonesty even about the trivial, the word of said person(s) is automatically suspect.

And you still haven't shown why we should believe them when they have lied about unimportant things in the past. Or would you believe anything a compulsive liar says unless you have clear proof that he wasn't lying this time?

Apparently neither of you can actually understand the critical difference between suspect and provably false. I absolutely agree with the premise that Bush or his flunkies words and actions should be treated with suspicion until such time as they can actually be proven or disproven. Unlike the rest of you, I do understand the difference between suspicion and facts. You have all seemed to have skipped right over the part about proving this accusation and started simply taking it for granted that it's actually a proven lie.

In this case, as reported in the CNN article, Tony Snow has talked about the Press Secretary job imposing financial hardship well before this resignation. And on top of that there is substantial evidence that he made considerably more as a Fox News talk show host and other pundit positions. Neither of those facts rely on Bush's word, which is a rather critical issue here. So there is a fair amount of circumstantial evidence to suggest that he really is leaving because he's losing money at the job.

But hey, keep making those accusations. I'm sure one day soon the Democracy Fairy will come along and leave you a check for all the brain cells you've lost.

Translation: You're entire argument boils down to "These people must be telling the truth this time, because there's no reason for them to lie this time, so they must be telling the truth this time".

Oh, and your main support for this argument? Tony Snow's veracity.

No, you're not in any position to be talking about anybody else's allegedly missing brain cells.

I swear to christ, this guy would keep trying to kick that football every single time as long as Bush was the one yanking it out of the way. Good grief.

[Mr. T]

Apparently neither of you can actually understand the critical difference between suspect and provably false. I absolutely agree with the premise that Bush or his flunkies words and actions should be treated with suspicion until such time as they can actually be proven or disproven. Unlike the rest of you, I do understand the difference between suspicion and facts. You have all seemed to have skipped right over the part about proving this accusation and started simply taking it for granted that it's actually a proven lie.

In this case, as reported in the CNN article, Tony Snow has talked about the Press Secretary job imposing financial hardship well before this resignation. And on top of that there is substantial evidence that he made considerably more as a Fox News talk show host and other pundit positions. Neither of those facts rely on Bush's word, which is a rather critical issue here. So there is a fair amount of circumstantial evidence to suggest that he really is leaving because he's losing money at the job.

But hey, keep making those accusations. I'm sure one day soon the Democracy Fairy will come along and leave you a check for all the brain cells you've lost.

Translation: You're entire argument boils down to "These people must be telling the truth this time, because there's no reason for them to lie this time, so they must be telling the truth this time".

Oh, and your main support for this argument? Tony Snow's veracity.

No, you're not in any position to be talking about anybody else's allegedly missing brain cells.

You're being fucking dense. You're the one making the positive claim so you offer some proof that Tony Snow is lying about being a shit ass financial planner for no reason. Not vague"George Bush has lied about certain things when it suits him, so therefore it follows that Tony Snow lies for no reason at all". Does that argument make any sense? Back up your claim or shut the fuck up.

[Patrick Degan]

Apparently neither of you can actually understand the critical difference between suspect and provably false. I absolutely agree with the premise that Bush or his flunkies words and actions should be treated with suspicion until such time as they can actually be proven or disproven. Unlike the rest of you, I do understand the difference between suspicion and facts. You have all seemed to have skipped right over the part about proving this accusation and started simply taking it for granted that it's actually a proven lie.

In this case, as reported in the CNN article, Tony Snow has talked about the Press Secretary job imposing financial hardship well before this resignation. And on top of that there is substantial evidence that he made considerably more as a Fox News talk show host and other pundit positions. Neither of those facts rely on Bush's word, which is a rather critical issue here. So there is a fair amount of circumstantial evidence to suggest that he really is leaving because he's losing money at the job.

But hey, keep making those accusations. I'm sure one day soon the Democracy Fairy will come along and leave you a check for all the brain cells you've lost.

Translation: You're entire argument boils down to "These people must be telling the truth this time, because there's no reason for them to lie this time, so they must be telling the truth this time".

Oh, and your main support for this argument? Tony Snow's veracity.

No, you're not in any position to be talking about anybody else's allegedly missing brain cells.

You're being fucking dense. You're the one making the positive claim so you offer some proof that Tony Snow is lying about being a shit ass financial planner for no reason. Not vague"George Bush has lied about certain things when it suits him, so therefore it follows that Tony Snow lies for no reason at all". Does that argument make any sense? Back up your claim or shut the fuck up.

I'll try to spell this out to you in simple terms: the word of a known liar is immediately suspect. Tony Snow's entire career with Fox involved spreading outright propaganda as "truth" and now he's stepping down from a position he took with the most dishonest White House in American history.

He's saying he can't stay in the job because the money's not enough. So... why does he even take the job with a 50% pay cut in the first fucking place if money was such an all-important consideration? Especially with having to finance chemotherapy.

On the other hand, it's visibly clear that the man is in very poor health. His colon cancer is recurring and some reports indicate it's at stage IV, which means he's not going to get better. The simplest explanation for him to have given for his leaving is "I've got cancer and I'm just not up to doing this job anymore". At least my theory has immediately apparent evidence (i.e. his condition) to back it up. Whereas yours (and Stormbringer's) relies entirely on the word of a known liar and nothing else.

But I'll tell ya what, as far as backing claims go, why don't you come up with evidence that Tony Snow is indeed telling the truth, that his money really is "all gone". That despite a clear and known track record of lying his ass off shamelessly for Fox, as Rush Limbaugh's occasional stand-in DJ, and as spokesbot for the most criminally dishonest White House in history, that his word can be taken at face value this time.

Your claim, your Burden of Proof. Or you can just shut the fuck up.

[Mr. T]

Translation: You're entire argument boils down to "These people must be telling the truth this time, because there's no reason for them to lie this time, so they must be telling the truth this time".

Oh, and your main support for this argument? Tony Snow's veracity.

No, you're not in any position to be talking about anybody else's allegedly missing brain cells.

You're being fucking dense. You're the one making the positive claim so you offer some proof that Tony Snow is lying about being a shit ass financial planner for no reason. Not vague"George Bush has lied about certain things when it suits him, so therefore it follows that Tony Snow lies for no reason at all". Does that argument make any sense? Back up your claim or shut the fuck up.

I'll try to spell this out to you in simple terms: the word of a known liar is immediately suspect. Tony Snow's entire career with Fox involved spreading outright propaganda as "truth" and now he's stepping down from a position he took with the most dishonest White House in American history.

He's saying he can't stay in the job because the money's not enough. So... why does he even take the job with a 50% pay cut in the first fucking place if money was such an all-important consideration? Especially with having to finance chemotherapy.

On the other hand, it's visibly clear that the man is in very poor health. His colon cancer is recurring and some reports indicate it's at stage IV, which means he's not going to get better. The simplest explanation for him to have given for his leaving is "I've got cancer and I'm just not up to doing this job anymore". At least my theory has immediately apparent evidence (i.e. his condition) to back it up. Whereas yours (and Stormbringer's) relies entirely on the word of a known liar and nothing else.

But I'll tell ya what, as far as backing claims go, why don't you come up with evidence that Tony Snow is indeed telling the truth, that his money really is "all gone". That despite a clear and known track record of lying his ass off shamelessly for Fox, as Rush Limbaugh's occasional stand-in DJ, and as spokesbot for the most criminally dishonest White House in history, that his word can be taken at face value this time.

Your claim, your Burden of Proof. Or you can just shut the fuck up.

Alright 'tard, I'll go over this again. I never watched any of his work for Fox but I don't need to to understand the reasoning behind whatever lies he told.

Being George Bush's Butt boy on Fox = high ratings = more money = An actual reason to lie

Lying about how we're doing in Iraq or whatever else he lied to the Press about for Bush = his job requirement to put a positive spin on the administration = An actual reason to lie

Saying he needs to quit for financial reasons just for the sake of lying = no reason to lie other then for lying's sake

I think here we can conclude that theirs a mechanism behind lying in the administration. The administration lies when it serves their interest to lie. Your argument continues to be "They lie when it obviously suits their interest to lie so therefore they must just lie for the sake of lying because I'm sure they'd also lie when they don't need to". Again, how the fuck does this make sense?

Your post makes no fucking sense. It goes on to say "He should have said that he's leaving because he has cancer." Maybe he didn't say that because that's not the reason or not the major reason he's leaving, genius.

[Patrick Degan]

Alright, asshole, I'll make this simple for you.

Since YOU have now put yourself in the position of defending the claim that Tony Snow is telling the truth about his reasons for leaving the White House, and have now made it your claim as well, I presume you can provide as evidence to back that claim:

a) Mr. Snow's last three IRS 1040 statements

b) Mr. Snow's present bank and investment portfolio statements

c) An examination of Mr. Snow's liquid and non-liquid assets for our perusal

Take your time.

[SCRawl]

I'll try to spell this out to you in simple terms: the word of a known liar is immediately suspect.

(Bolding mine)

This, I think, is the point of those who won't immediately assume that Snow's story is lying. When dealing with a known liar, one must always include the possibility that the liar is lying at any given time. This is not the same thing as assuming that everything that the liar says must be a lie. Is it prudent to critically examine a liar's statements? Absolutely, and to a much greater degree than one would examine the statements of one who is not known to be a liar. But it does not logically follow that any given statement made by a known liar must be false.

Is Snow lying now? Hell if I know; there's nothing to go on but his track record, which, although highly suspicious, can't lead me to a conclusion.

[Durandal]

Is it just me, or is the claim of a Bush Cabinet member having money problems just laughable on its face?

[Mr. T]

Alright, asshole, I'll make this simple for you.

Since YOU have now put yourself in the position of defending the claim that Tony Snow is telling the truth about his reasons for leaving the White House, and have now made it your claim as well, I presume you can provide as evidence to back that claim:

a) Mr. Snow's last three IRS 1040 statements

b) Mr. Snow's present bank and investment portfolio statements

c) An examination of Mr. Snow's liquid and non-liquid assets for our perusal

Take your time.

Go back to special ed

What I've been arguing against is your insistence that Tony Snow, because he's part of the Bush administration, lies for the sake of lying rather then lying only when it suits the administrations purpose.

So I'll ask YOU, is your position that members of the Bush administration lie to the public only on issues where the truth hurts them, or is it that members of the Bush administration lie about everything because they all have some pathological need to lie.

To me it has been sounding like you've been arguing for the latter whereas I've been arguing the former. And the former makes alot more sense and has alot more evidence behind it then the latter.

[SCRawl]

Is it just me, or is the claim of a Bush Cabinet member having money problems just laughable on its face?

I had the same thought; one would think that there's enough dough floating around that someone could spare a few bucks -- back-end loaded, of course -- to keep a guy on the team who's considered to be of value. It's not like W doesn't have access to millions post-presidency, not to mention all of the kickbacks -- erm, incentive payments -- that could be negotiated through a third party (like, say, Haliburton). I wouldn't think that, after leaving office, the government figures would have to make their finances publicly available; if they wanted to give Snow a bonus at the end of the administration's time there, well, who's to know?

This is, of course, one of the reasons -- aside from the person himself being a known liar -- why lots of people here assume that he's lying. Which begs the question: "what's the real reason?" I have a theory which fits the facts: the cancer is causing him difficulty, and he doesn't want to come out and say that because it might hamper him getting another job. He's going to have cancer for the remainder of his life, in one form or another, and who wants to hire a guy who'll take a powder when he starts getting sick again. (For the record, I don't need to be told that cancer treatments can be genuinely painful and debilitating.) So, he could say that he's been taking a financial hit the whole time, but just can't do that to his family anymore. He comes off as a sympathetic figure (to some) that way.

Or, he could be telling the truth. Or he could be lying for some other reason. Impossible for me to say for sure.

[Patrick Degan]

Alright, asshole, I'll make this simple for you.

Since YOU have now put yourself in the position of defending the claim that Tony Snow is telling the truth about his reasons for leaving the White House, and have now made it your claim as well, I presume you can provide as evidence to back that claim:

a) Mr. Snow's last three IRS 1040 statements

b) Mr. Snow's present bank and investment portfolio statements

c) An examination of Mr. Snow's liquid and non-liquid assets for our perusal

Take your time.

Go back to special ed

Take your own advice.

What I've been arguing against is your insistence that Tony Snow, because he's part of the Bush administration, lies for the sake of lying rather then lying only when it suits the administrations purpose.

So I'll ask YOU, is your position that members of the Bush administration lie to the public only on issues where the truth hurts them, or is it that members of the Bush administration lie about everything because they all have some pathological need to lie.

To me it has been sounding like you've been arguing for the latter whereas I've been arguing the former. And the former makes alot more sense and has alot more evidence behind it then the latter.

Said "evidence" being... the word of Tony Snow. You'll pardon me for laughing, I trust.

YOU said:

Your post makes no fucking sense. It goes on to say "He should have said that he's leaving because he has cancer." Maybe he didn't say that because that's not the reason or not the major reason he's leaving, genius.

Do you even know how ignorant a statement that is on your part? The CNN story which reported on Snow's pending departure (pun intended) avers to his cancer having spread to his liver. Know what that means, Simple Simon? It means that Tony Snow's not merely sick, he's not just dying, he's dead. Dead man walking. Once cancer gets to the liver, you can number your days in maybe months, more often weeks.

Financial woes his "major reason" for leaving the last job he's ever going to have on this Earth, Bright Eyes? Who's going to hire Dead Man Walking now? Where's the better-than-what-he-can-get-from-the-White-House income to help take care of those all-important financial woes going to come from? Oh, that's right —that's not going to be his problem before too long because Tony Snow's not headed for the poor house but a funeral home. But according to your (we can hardly call it) "logic", maybe Snow's pending cruise down the River Styx isn't really the big reason he's leaving the last job he'll ever have on this Earth and he's not really lying after all.

Go play in traffic, little boy, and stop pretending that you're anywhere up to the rigors of intellectual combat.

[Elfdart]

Is it just me, or is the claim of a Bush Cabinet member having money problems just laughable on its face?

It could be a case where he's considered such a disposable Republitard hack (like there's a shortage of Faux News-types willing to lie for the White House) that he wasn't offered the usual Right-Wing Golden Parachute and really does need the money.

[Mr. T]

What I've been arguing against is your insistence that Tony Snow, because he's part of the Bush administration, lies for the sake of lying rather then lying only when it suits the administrations purpose.

So I'll ask YOU, is your position that members of the Bush administration lie to the public only on issues where the truth hurts them, or is it that members of the Bush administration lie about everything because they all have some pathological need to lie.

To me it has been sounding like you've been arguing for the latter whereas I've been arguing the former. And the former makes alot more sense and has alot more evidence behind it then the latter.

Said "evidence" being... the word of Tony Snow. You'll pardon me for laughing, I trust.

Hey dumbass, my entire argument has been against your insistence that everyone in the Bush administration lies for the sake of telling a lie which I've seen you conveniently avoided answering.

Here you go, I'll remind you of your position:

Except they've got to say something other than the plain truth. Even though there is absolutely no reason to do so.

I've always said that Bush and his staff will tell a lie when it suits their interests to (and yes, if it is in Tony Snow's interest to lie about his health I'm sure he would) but your the one making the claim that he and his staff have a pathological need to lie for lyings sake as you've illuminated through all your posts in this thread so are you going to stand by that statement or not?

[Patrick Degan]

What I've been arguing against is your insistence that Tony Snow, because he's part of the Bush administration, lies for the sake of lying rather then lying only when it suits the administrations purpose.

So I'll ask YOU, is your position that members of the Bush administration lie to the public only on issues where the truth hurts them, or is it that members of the Bush administration lie about everything because they all have some pathological need to lie.

To me it has been sounding like you've been arguing for the latter whereas I've been arguing the former. And the former makes alot more sense and has alot more evidence behind it then the latter.

Said "evidence" being... the word of Tony Snow. You'll pardon me for laughing, I trust.

Hey dumbass, my entire argument has been against your insistence that everyone in the Bush administration lies for the sake of telling a lie which I've seen you conveniently avoided answering.

Are you still here?

Here you go, I'll remind you of your position:

Except they've got to say something other than the plain truth. Even though there is absolutely no reason to do so.

I've always said that Bush and his staff will tell a lie when it suits their interests to (and yes, if it is in Tony Snow's interest to lie about his health I'm sure he would) but your the one making the claim that he and his staff have a pathological need to lie for lyings sake as you've illuminated through all your posts in this thread so are you going to stand by that statement or not?

I see reading-comprehension is among your many problems as well. Just where do I ascribe motive to the lying? Pointing out an observed event does not require speculations into motive.

Again, go play in traffic, little boy.