SBJ Tries to Claim High Ground by LYING to RNL

RNL reader, James McPherson, made the discussion of a post he has tried to hijack for his own attention:

“…All of my comments for the past couple of days were prompted by a post — written by Dusty, commented favorably on by Joe, “liked” by Utah, and missed by you — that was blatantly false (as should have been obvious)…”

The problem here is that James is saying something that is blatantly FALSE – which makes this an intentional LIE!  Whether SBJ agreed with Dusty’s post or not is a matter of opinion, but the post was about something that has been all over the media world for some time now – that the Left has turned and is continuing to turn on Obama:

From Politico:

D.C. turns on Obama

From WND:

Obama loses the left

Politicians and mainstream media turn against the president

From TownHall:

The Left Turning on Obama Over Military Policy

From the Washington Times:

KUHNER: The left turns on Obama

Liberals plotting a challenger rather than sticking by a failed leader

From The Blaze:

Real News: Is the Left Turning on Obamacare?

From FOX News:

Hollywood supporters turn on Obama administration over NSA data mining allegations

The Left Turns on Obama

And these are from just PART of the FIRST PAGE of a Google search!!!  That makes the claim that the Left has not turned on Obama a LIE — not an opinion.

You see, what we have in James is an over-educated person with an inferiority complex and an ego that he cannot control.  But he knows enough to know he and everything he has supported and advocated his whole life is obviously wrong because the world sees it all falling apart.  So, rather than have the humility and honesty to admit his mistake and seek forgiveness, and rather than switch his positions to pursue truth, SBJ chooses to attack people and call them liars when the truth of what they are saying can be found with a simple Google search.

No, I have no doubt SBJ (James McPherson) will try to pick on a VERY narrow aspect of Dusty’s post and attack that thinking he can make his point, but he can’t.  It is fallacious to assume you have defeated a truthful assertion just because you have undermined the illustration.  This is also why SBJ does his best to side-track discussions: because he cannot defend his position against the argument in the post, so all he has is mud throwing.  In essence, he is doing on the RNL what the ANTI-DEMOCRATS in Texas did when they shouted down the People’s house over the abortion bill.

When we boil it all down, what we have in SBJ is the best example we could ask for to illustrate that Limbaugh is correct about ‘liberals:’ they are angry, little people who would rather destroy ALL of civilization than see it NOT turned into THEIR personal utopian idea of how things ought to be.

Now, remember: this man, James, represents the average college professor taking your money to teach your child and place you BOTH in debt to the government through the student loan scam.

ADDENDUM:

This is the original post to which SBJ has been referring:

AMAZING!!! The Cover of Liberal Newsweek Magazine

what

This is what the original post says:

Finally, Matt Patterson and Newsweek speak out about Obama. This is timely and tough. As many of you know, Newsweek has a reputation for being extremely liberal. The fact that their editor saw fit to print the following article about Obama and the one that appears in the latest Newsweek, makes this a truly amazing event, and a news story in and of itself. At last, the truth about our President and his agenda are starting to trickle through the “protective wall” built around him by the liberal media….

The original post refers to 2 different articles AND posts a picture of Obama with the title “Hit the Road, Barack.”  This is an attack on Obama, and it is on the cover of Newsweek.  Newsweek is a Left-leaning publication.  Case in point:

 images

So, again, any way this one is sliced (spun), SBJ shows he is a stranger to the truth.

85 thoughts on “SBJ Tries to Claim High Ground by LYING to RNL

    • No, Melfamy, they are opinions based on fact. You see, the Left does not publish its own dirty laundry, but — if you take the time to read what they write (i.e. Leftist blogosphere) — then you’ll see this is pretty much the case. And there’s more. World leaders are turning on Obama, too?

      But thanks for throwing yourself in the same basket with James. You both belong there.

    • Huntington Post:

      Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Friday aggressively pushed back on President Barack Obama’s budget proposal, calling it a “bitter disappointment” and promising that the entitlement cuts contained in the plan wouldn’t pass under his watch.

      “I am terribly disappointed and will do everything in my power to block President Obama’s proposal to cut benefits for Social Security recipients through a chained consumer price index,” Sanders said in a statement, blasting the plan to change how cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security payments are calculated.

      Investor’s Business Daily:

      The president’s support among Democrats fell to 79.8, the lowest index reading since February 2012. His support among single women — a key part of his base — has tumbled 29% from 74.6 around Election Day to 52.9 now. Meanwhile, he fell to all-time lows among Republicans, independents, men and married women.

      Just “opinions”.

      • Utah,

        You and I know, the majority of the RNL knows that neither Melfamy nor McPherson have much of a grasp on basic logic or the rules of right reasoning. In fact, they and their ilk are and have ever been as much enemies to reason as they are to society. What we have here is a clear example of this FACT from which neither of them (now that Melfamy has sided with SBJ) can escape.

        In other words, they’ve been running with the rope long enough: I just finally got tired and decided to wrap it around the stanchions so they would finally snap their own necks with it — and they did.

  1. I must have just missed all the fun – I “liked” it because I knew that the original article was written by Niall Ferguson and that it made it to the cover of Newsweek.

    It took a certain amount of fearlessness and courage to run that cover. Kudos to Newsweek. The story is generating criticism and debate, which is what opinion pieces are for. The decision to run Ferguson’s piece as a cover story is being attacked and praised.

    The establishment media regularly defends and enables this administration. What little criticism they publish is laced with generous benefit of the doubt. It is also buried in sections few people read.

    The media enabling this president is not only unethical and unprofessional, it is damaging. The media are becoming just as responsible as the president for the sorry state of the nation. Enabling failure generates more failure.

    Newsweek broke from the liberal media herd mentality by running this editorial as a cover piece.

    It is inconceivable a publication like Newsweek would allow such a biting editorial to be a cover story. It was improbable the cover caption would proclaim, “HIT THE ROAD BARACK WHY WE NEED A NEW PRESIDENT”.

    Liberals were snickering when Newsweek’s cover proclaimed Romney a wimp a few weeks ago. They were laughing uproariously when Newsweek’s cover portrayed Michelle Bachman in an unflattering light. The jury is still out over the cover portraying Obama with a rainbow halo calling him the first gay president.

    • I snatched the story out of the trash bin and saved it as “waiting approval,” but the author has to decide whether or not he wants to put it and the comments back up. Dusty? 🙂

            • Stay on topic, gents. Don’t get in the mud with the pig. Just keep focused on the fact that he lied and has no truth on his side to fall back on. Beat him into the ground with something he has no idea how to deal with — THE TRUTH! 🙂

              Hold that morality mirror to this hateful person and make him face his own reflection with that truth.

              • ‘Cuz we all know THE TRUTH and LOGIC involve LOTS of CAPITAL letters and EXCLAMATION marks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                DAMN, I WIN again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

                • No James. It evolves around writing a post where 70% of the verbiage is the word liar (or some variation of the word) in it. Now that, is literary genius, huh?

                  All from an average college professor.

                  • Gee, Auggie — your math skills are as sharp as your understanding of rhetoric. And of course each of those bolded examples was a link leading to a proven incident of the person in question lying.

                    I assumed when I wrote the post that readers would understand how links work. Oh well; I was writing for a smarter audience, but I do appreciate that you dropped by my site. Keep it up; you might learn something.

  2. Cool; another post about little ol’ me.

    Though of course you’re lying again, Joe, as we’d expect — and as others will see if you boys have the guts to put the origina post and comments back up. I never said or implied that the left hadn’t been critical of Obama, so you’re making a false claim. Hell, I have, too — an in fact have cited media criticism of Obama on my own blog: http://jmcpherson.wordpress.com/2013/05/31/comparing-obama-to-other-presidents-and-to-mermaids/

    What I actually said in response to Dusty’s post was that it was dishonest because it stated that an article written by for a conservative blog had actually been written for Newsweek.

    The post started as follows: “Finally, Matt Patterson and Newsweek speak out about Obama. This is timely and tough. As many of you know, Newsweek has a reputation for being extremely liberal. The fact that their editor saw fit to print the following article about Obama and the one that appears in the latest Newsweek, makes this a truly amazing event, and a news story in and of itself.”

    Yet Newsweek hasn’t even existed since December, while the Patterson article did not appear in any issue of Newsweek. As for the Ferguson piece, it also did not appear in that “latest issue” (and was written by someone who had worked for John McCain and who supported Mitt Romney). So in addition to being dishonest, the piece was just stupidly inaccurate and misleading — rolling a Newsweek piece from last year and an article from the previous year (both written before the election) into a single argument faulty argument.

    And then, when the pitiful article had drawn more than 30 comments, the RNL pulled it — without explanation or apology to any gullible readers who might have believed it. Highly ethical behavior boys. But thanks for devoting another inaccurate post to me, Joe — just the sort of thing we egomaniacs crave, you know. 🙂

    • Squirm all you want. The point of the original post was that the Left has started to turn on Obama. True to form, you look for some little thing you believe you can pick at that will give the impression you have “destroyed” the argument when, in FACT, you have done no such thing. This is your MO. It is the MO of most on the Left — BECAUSE THE TRUTH IS NOT ON YOUR SIDE!

      You don’t have to face it, James, but the truth is you are as I have described you, and the more you type, the more you prove it.

      • “some little thing you believe you can pick at”

        Some little thing like, say, most of the supposed “facts” given in the post? Well, yeah, if that’s “some little thing” then you’re absolutely right.

        Oh, yeah — here at the RNL facts are “some little thing.” And if the gutless wonders of the RNL hadn’t thought I was winning the argument, the post would have stayed up.

        Another minor point, pal Joey: How can I “hijack” your site when you keep giving me the keys? 😉 You boys have devoted more than half a dozen posts to little ol’ me. Really, I’m honored — or would be, if you cared a little more about those “little” facts.

    • “Cool; another post about little ol’ me.”

      Wrong again. There’s nothing little about you. Well, there could be, but I’m not willing to check down there.

  3. St. James “the Humble” McPherson and Malfamy the muslim are just typical left-wing Commenter-Boggers who do hit and Runs on Conservative sites.

    Characters like them are a dime-a-dozen they’re are all over the net …. spewing hatred daily.

    • Ah, shucks, Donnie, I’m anything but “typical” — surely you guys wouldn’t give me so much attention if that were the case, unless you spend all of your free time making up inane insults for “dime-a-dozen” commenters “all over the net.” 😉

      And if that’s the case, you really should get a hobby. Or a job.

      • Nope. You’re Typical…Pedestrian.

        I own two companies and employ 29 people…..Many with salaries far exceeding yours. And they WORK for a living, as do I. In other words we don’t skim and scam money from high-school graduates and their parents with flim-flam.

        • Don,

          It’s worse than that. James is in a FASCIST relationship with government whereby students who need aid MUST go to govt for those loans, then pay interest to the GOVT until that debt is gone. All the while, many of these colleges have enough money in their endowments to send the majority (if not all) of their students to school FREE of THE INTEREST ON THOSE ENDOWMENTS ALONE!

          And then — then they have the nerve to claim businesses are the greedy ones.

          Hypocrites all!

          • You have that 100% Correct…..’St James the Blow-hard’ in partnership with the Goobermint Fascists.

            He really needs to be islolated with ignoring. Constant attention elevates him beyond the 3rd rate level in which he lives. He should be written “around” as the “pot-hole” of verbiage he is. His inane ramblings will just stand out on their own as the Non-sequitors and hate-speech they are.

          • See what I mean — ALWAYS ad hominem from this guy.

            Sad, you’d think a professor might actually be able to use wit and intelligence to make his point 😉

            • Who said puppetry was hard? Dance on, Joey.

              Though I actually thought my comment was witty. Sigh. Unless you thought I was serious. It’s so hard to guess what you might understand, PJ.

    • Already done. Makes you look worse. Proves you were stretching — at best. But I gave Dusty a little more of an assist — just because you deserve the attention, “special one.”

      • “Makes you look worse.”

        Yeah, sure. That’s why you boys pulled it in the first place, right?

        “But I gave Dusty a little more of an assist”

        God knows he needed it. But your spin didn’t counter my point, as I’m sure any literate person reading the original post will see. And I’m glad that I was able to push you into putting it back up; you’ve become quite easy to manipulate.

  4. In considering SBJ’s taunts about pulling Dusty’s post (something Dusty did, btw), we should all remember that SBJ doesn’t allow ANY comments on his page unless/until he “approves” them. Now he claims he doesn’t censor those posts, but how can we know? All we have is his character to go on, and that isn’t very solid. But what if I told you I post often on SBJ’s site? Have you seen any of my posts on his page? No? Gee, I wonder why?

    [NOTE: this comment contains Leftist/progressive language/logic/tactics ;-)]

    • Funny, my policy is exactly the same at that of Aurora’s blog (and most other WordPress blogs). In fact, a number of my comments have been held here.

      “But what if I told you I post often on SBJ’s site?”

      You’d be a liar. IF you said that. But we know that about you, already.

      That whole “ignoring SBJ” thing lasted a long time, though, didn’t it? About eight minutes. Nice job, Puppet Joey 🙂

  5. One thing about this post before I dig in to the rest of it, or the comments that followed. If nothing else, McPherson is … average.

    And that’s a stretch.

    • “If nothing else, McPherson is … average.”

      You should be so lucky, Auggie. And y’all are doing about as good at “ignoring SBJ” as you are at winning over folks to your pitiful dying cause. Dance on, Puppet Auggie. 🙂

      • Never asserted I was trying to ignore you McPherson. In fact, I rather enjoy our flippant exchanges.

        I’m disappointed that your mental agility isn’t able to differentiate whom your speaking with.

        Maybe you need a timeout, or something.

        • “Never asserted I was trying to ignore you”

          True; my apologies. That was Don and Puppet Joey–who of course is doing that as well as he does most things. Though I hear that he can shoot someone in the head from long distance, so maybe he has one skill.

  6. James is the winner of this exchange, only the blind and the stupid cannot see that.

    James, these guys excuse the inaccuracies because the article is ‘essentially true’, in spirit, or whatever. Trouble is, their idea of truth is drawn from a series of articles and posts just as poorly researched and with unsupported allegations. Yes, the RNL is riding a tsunami of misinformation and outright lies, and when the wave hits the shore nothing, because these self-righteous idiots have nothing but angry froth and verbal spew. It may be messy, but it leaves nothing behind but a bad smell.

    Don, congrats on being a boss and a business owner, but so is George Soros, so is Michael Moore, Al Gore, and Warren Buffett. somehow, I doubt that their business acumen makes their political utterings any more palatable to you.

    • My God. For a moment there Greg, I thought you were talking about Huffington Post, MSDNC, CNN, and a slew of other media sites …

      Oh, you were.

      Utah, I think you just got grouped with the Liberal Media. 🙂

    • Well said, Greg; thanks. Notice that Donnie took a shot at you, too. Is just me, or does it seem that these boys are getting even dumber and lazier now that they know they’re stuck with Obama until 2016, and probably another Democrat after that?

      At least now they can legally marry each other. 🙂

    • My Business does not depend on Croney Capitalism amd insider Washington Deals like the 3 you mentioned.

      No congratulations are due…..we all work and have worked VERY hard …. and ask nothing from anyone…..including not asking to take anyone’s Constitutional rights away from them as Soros, Moore and Buffet continually advocate for.

      • My god, you must have a pussy mine, or be one hell of a ditch digger, because, judging solely by your comments in this forum, you are too stupid to make money any other way.

        • The Amount of Taxes i pay alone pays for your Entitlement checks a couple of times over.

          So you can sit on your a$$ and spew mohemeddan hatred on the net …. and rather mundane invective thrown in the mix as well. You are a drag on Society …. a lump, nothing more.

          • I’m retired, jerk-off, and I am living off the income from my investments. When I was working, I was making 550/day, so don’t think I need anything from you. Go back to sitting on your bankbook while clutching a rifle to your chest.

            • “I’m retired, jerk-off, and I am living off the income from my investments. When I was working, I was making 550/day, so don’t think I need anything from you. Go back to sitting on your bankbook while clutching a rifle to your chest.”

              Just wanted to take a moment and thank you Greg for providing my first smile/laugh of the day … Thank you! 🙂

  7. James and Greg tag-teamin’? That’s cute. Looks like we have us here new pair of BFFLs.

    If on their own, James is a titan of logic and “wit”, and Greg is the infallible discerner of pure truths, then OH MY GOD! WHAT DO WE HAVE WHEN THEY TAG TEAM together against infidels, cretin, gun totin’ rednecks, and the rest of the deceived that dare to post a comment on this website!?!?

    I will say this, at least Greg manages to stay somewhat on topic. I’ll give him that. James is a treasure trove of surprise irrelevances and “why didn’t I see this coming?” ad hominems. Maybe with the super friends fighting evil together, some of Greg’s relevance will rub off on James.

    Clown and circus analogies work well, too.

      • “especially when you hide behide a pseudonym”

        Careful McPherson, you might upset Melfamy. After all, he hides behind a pseudonym and posts on a crazy (censored) liberal professor’s blog site, right hypocrite?

        And I would be remiss if I did not remind “the Professor” that “hypocrite” is not spelled “hipercrite” , and that “the Professor” should hold himself to a higher standard.

        • “‘hypocrite’ is not spelled ‘hipercrite’”

          Duh, dumbo. But it is much closer to “libercrite,” who may have understood what I was doing. Or maybe not, considering the site we’re on.

          And though I’d prefer that he didn’t use a pseudonym, either, you, I, and all the regulars here know who Melfamy is and what he does. (I don’t know who you or libercrite are, though, and I’m sure you don’t have the guts to reveal it because your proctology practice would likely collapse.) Greg can take care of himself.

          • “Duh, dumbo. But it is much closer to “libercrite,” who may have understood what I was doing.”

            Doubtful. Most of us here aren’t asinine to think like you do, McPherson. If we did, we’d be crazy ass liberals, and would be hanging out on your “liar, liar” site. We also do not profess clairvoyance either, so we just take what you write, as written.

            Nice try though.

            And, I will take pity on the fact that WordPress does not give you the latitude you prefer concerning pseudonyms, but hey, you cannot always get what you want, right? A good question for those close to you.

            My practice however, is no where near “collapse”, but thanks for the well wishes. Nice to see that following Sunday’s services, you have had a change of heart concerning your benevolent attitude. 🙂

            • “Doubtful.”

              Perhaps — but I was trying to give libercrite the benefit of the doubt, assuming he’s smarter than you are.

              “I will take pity on the fact that WordPress does not give you the latitude you prefer concerning pseudonyms.”

              I don’t blame WordPress for the fact that some of you are cowards.

              “My practice however, is no where near ‘collapse’”

              Nor did I say otherwise. But I suspect it would be if you’re patients know how (and how little) you really think.

                • Much to your approval (not that I would ever require it from you anyway), I am taking my friends to the FloraBama this afternoon. Headed out from Orange Beach, AL.. Beats hanging in the PC weather pattern.

                  Enjoy your 4th. Us and the gals will be. 🙂

      • James, why do you have a fixation with what screen name people choose to use? Have you considered maybe people choose pseudonyms for reasons irrelevant to fear? Please tell me that the arrogant professor does not have a singular mind of thinking on this issue.

        Dictionary definitions? Really? Could you possibly not be anymore predictable? I’m disappointed with you, James. I was expecting a lot more out you. As a professor, your troll level should be genius and unparalleled. The fact that you can’t get off of pseudonyms and rag on people’s spelling is just pathetic, man! That’s so…17 year old high school girl of you.

        • “Have you considered maybe people choose pseudonyms for reasons irrelevant to fear?”

          Yep — considered and generally rejected. Regardless, why should anyone trust some unnamed and unknowable person about anything?

          “As a professor, your troll level should be genius and unparalleled.”

          Few professors I’ve met are geniuses. They’re mostly folks who know quite a bit about one topic that most people don’t care much about, and generally no smarter than anyone else about other stuff. Besides, it seems genius would be wasted here.

          But congratulations on your apparent knowledge of 17-year-old girls.

          • “And jokes about someone’s weight isn’t 17 year old high school girlish?”

            Who’s joking? But your point is not lost on me. Marketing is not my field of expertise, but you are right. I should not harp on these two about their weight. Instead, I should send them food, and encourage them to have at it.

            Job security. 🙂

            Side note: You care to castigate comments by your two buddies such as Greg’s accusal of Utah and his daughter?

            No. I didn’t think so.

            • “Side note: You care to castigate comments by your two buddies such as Greg’s accusal of Utah and his daughter?”

              Sorry, dude. I have no buddies here. That’s you guys, not I. I don’t play the “on our side” game. Actually the person that I correspond the most with that posts here would be Joe. I guess that would make us buddies. Is that whom you were referring to?

              BTW, I did say that Greg’s comment was inappropriate. I understand the point he was trying to make but he definitely went about it the wrong way. Maybe you missed it, but it wasn’t meant for you. It was meant for him.

              Also, I really couldn’t care less if you thought so or not. Childish is childish regardless of if it’s James going on about Dusty’s post or you going on about his weight.

              • As long as it’s balanced, then Gates … I’ll have no problem with you. I do appreciate the “care less” statement more-so than you might imagine. Indifference is definitely quality I can identify with, so you and I have common ground.

                “Dude” however … Well I suppose if you like to smoke that tumble-weed, then it is appropriate. “Dude” however is not a moniker that would fit me very well.

                • Here’s the difference…but trust that “dude” wasn’t meant to be disrespectful. That’s not my style. I don’t intentionally disrespect people.

                  If some one says something totally disrespectful I will usually, if I’m considered a friend, email them my disappointment in their statement. I don’t usually believe in the “public denouncing” thing because doesn’t prove sincerity. Putting people on blast is appropriate in some settings, but just as asked my ex-wife to never embarrass me in public, I try to follow the same rule. I think Joe can verify this is as we’ve had disagreements and agreements via email. I think we both learned a lot and aired our differences without audience participation which usually just gets in the way.

                  Your statements and James’ never really hit the level that Greg’s did and I never really saw any need to say anything them. For this one, for whatever reason, I decided to respond to the “17 year old girl statement” since they’re usually the ones really concerned about weight. I thought it fit well. It is what it is.

                  ““Dude” however … Well I suppose if you like to smoke that tumble-weed, then it is appropriate. “Dude” however is not a moniker that would fit me very well.”

                  Believe me I would smoke it if it were legal. I’ve give up drinking today if that were so. But since it isn’t, I’ll just have the good ol days to reminisce about.

        • “James, why do you have a fixation with what screen name people choose to use?”

          Excellent question! McPherson definitely has his tracking radar fixated poor ole’ Dusty. It’s actually sort of creepy, and a great argument for continued anonymity.

          • I just don’t really see what pseudonyms have to do with the topic of discussion on any post. What are we now, super sleuths all trying to figure out who each other is? Unless James is on some sort of transparency quest to rival that of the “most transparent administration in history”.

            Then again, maybe James is secretly NSA!!!?

            • “what pseudonyms have to do with the topic of discussion”

              It simply goes to credibility. The less I know about someone, the less I tend to trust their motives, biases or courage of their convictions. Perhaps you’re willing to trust anyone who comes along, as long as they seem to agree with you.

              And if I were with the NSA, I’d already know who you are. Right, Frank? 😉

              • I just think this self-professed “Christian” generally loves to show his true nature outside of the pew.

                Basically, a typical liberal hypocrite.

                • Not to mention that it is TOTALLY fallacious to claim that the validity of a statement or an argument depends on the source. I guess nothing Mark Twain ever wrote has any credibility, huh?

                  • “it is TOTALLY fallacious to claim that the validity of a statement or an argument depends on the source”

                    A claim I didn’t make, of course, so what’s your point? My argument had to do with the courage (or lack thereof) of the writer, and whether we should trust them or not. For example, I sometimes suspect that Augger is actually a liberal, hanging out here and making inane insults but contributing almost nothing to a conversation just to make conservatives looks stupid.

                    And frankly — not that you care — I have more respect for you now that you use your name than I did back when you were posting under a pseudonym. But I do find it tellingly appropriate that you choose to identify with a fiction writer in your argument for credibility.

              • I do think it’s funny, Joey, that you’d refer to me as a literature professor (using capital letters, no less). That’s something I’ve never been, nor pretended to be. Admittedly I read more of it than most folks here other than perhaps Utah probably do.

                I’m a journalism professor with a Ph.D. in journalism, history and political science, who “has a problem” with the number of anonymous sources used by journalists. And I’m glad to see you’re back to “ignoring” me, PJ. 😉

                • So you are a “journalist” who has a problem with journalism. Because, last time I looked, there is seldom anything worth reporting if people fear they will be exposed for telling the press about what is happening, and if you do not protect those sources, they will KNOW they will be exposed.

                  One might almost think you work for Obama and the NSA.

                  • “last time I looked”

                    You should look harder. And I didn’t say their use was never justified — they’re just used way too much by lazy journalists quoting people who simply have an ax to grind.

                    “One might almost think you work for Obama and the NSA.”

                    Then “one” would obviously be a moron.

                    • Well, I would have to agree with McPherson on this one. He’s on a level to where he could work for Obama, but there is no way in hell he could aim high enough to hit the bar for employment with the NSA.

                    • Either. Snowden (used as the bar), reportedly a collegiate drop-out with a high school diploma, would be more favorable for covert operations.

                      McPherson is too busy reading everyone his resume to avoid landing squarely on the radar.

                    • Augger,

                      My pint, exactly. Even Snowden appears more intelligent and, therefore, credible as an NSA agent than SBJ. So what better cover for the doc than as… well, as what he presents himself to be? 😉

  8. Pingback: SBJ Does it Again (logic lesson: please read) | The Rio Norte Line

  9. Gee, you boys were so confident that I was “wrong” that you went back and deleted my comments from that original post? Here on the site that “doesn’t censor”? Hilarious!

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

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.