PDA

View Full Version : Richardson to Endorse Baarack-CNN


memyselfI
03-21-2008, 06:32 AM
Good news for him when he certainly needed it. At this point though I can't imagine Richardson's endorsement will help as much as it may have a month ago.

Ultra Peanut
03-21-2008, 09:44 AM
Another longtime friend of the Clintons jumps ship. Shocking.

jAZ
03-21-2008, 11:53 AM
Good news for him when he certainly needed it. At this point though I can't imagine Richardson's endorsement will help as much as it may have a month ago.
Very true. But doesn't hurt. Another SuperDel too.

mlyonsd
03-21-2008, 11:55 AM
I'm guessing he wants a job in the next administration and has decided since MI and FL look like they won't revote it'll go Obama's way.

Being a govenor doesn't get him into the papers enough.

BucEyedPea
03-21-2008, 11:58 AM
Good for Barack. I like Richardson, even if I don't agree with him much.

ClevelandBronco
03-21-2008, 12:14 PM
Good for Barack. I like Richardson, even if I don't agree with him much.

"Much?" How do you agree with him?

patteeu
03-21-2008, 12:26 PM
"Much?" How do you agree with him?

I was surprised to find out during the campaign that of all the democratic candidates (not named Kucinich or Gravel), Richardson was the one who favored the most hasty retreat from Iraq without any apparent regard for the consequences to American interests. I'd imagine he and BEP see eye to eye on that one.

jAZ
03-21-2008, 12:32 PM
I was surprised to find out during the campaign that of all the democratic candidates (not named Kucinich or Gravel), Richardson was the one who favored the most hasty retreat from Iraq without any apparent regard for the consequences to American interests. I'd imagine he and BEP see eye to eye on that one.
No matter whether you agree with his plan or not, he put forward a plan BASED on what he thinks is best for American interests. You might disagree with it, but to claim it's without regard to our interests is just dishonest.

patteeu
03-21-2008, 01:02 PM
No matter whether you agree with his plan or not, he put forward a plan BASED on what he thinks is best for American interests. You might disagree with it, but to claim it's without regard to our interests is just dishonest.

I've noticed that you like calling other people dishonest when they don't agree with you. It's not one of your more attractive qualities.

Pitt Gorilla
03-21-2008, 01:14 PM
I've noticed that you like calling other people dishonest when they don't agree with you. It's not one of your more attractive qualities.Pot, meet kettle.

jAZ
03-21-2008, 01:20 PM
I've noticed that you like calling other people dishonest when they don't agree with you. It's not one of your more attractive qualities.

I call you dishonest a lot because you are not honest in your statements. You and I disagree on how best to handle Iraq. But I don't assess your analysis to be lacking of any consideration for what's best for our interests. Just a flawed judgement about what's best.

You assume the opposite about Richardson, and that's dishonest. Much like I can admit about you... he has a different judgement of what actions match our interests, but he's considering those interests in any respect.

That you can't even acknowledge such speaks VOLUMES about your credibilty and honesty in these discussions.

keg in kc
03-21-2008, 01:22 PM
Another longtime friend of the Clintons jumps ship. Shocking.Not many of the smart rats will stay onboard that foundering junk.

mlyonsd
03-21-2008, 01:39 PM
I call you dishonest a lot because you are not honest in your statements. You and I disagree on how best to handle Iraq. But I don't assess your analysis to be lacking of any consideration for what's best for our interests. Just a flawed judgement about what's best.

You assume the opposite about Richardson, and that's dishonest. Much like I can admit about you... he has a different judgement of what actions match our interests, but he's considering those interests in any respect.

That you can't even acknowledge such speaks VOLUMES about your credibilty and honesty in these discussions.

Not speaking for patt but I read his statement as speculation based on his understanding of Richardson's position.

If speculation is dishonest you're one of the biggest liars on the board.

jAZ
03-21-2008, 01:54 PM
Not speaking for patt but I read his statement as speculation based on his understanding of Richardson's position.

If speculation is dishonest you're one of the biggest liars on the board.

Speculation isn't dishonest. Describing Richardson as not even considering American interests in his policy proposals is dishonest.

BucEyedPea
03-21-2008, 02:06 PM
I was surprised to find out during the campaign that of all the democratic candidates (not named Kucinich or Gravel), Richardson was the one who favored the most hasty retreat from Iraq without any apparent regard for the consequences to American interests. I'd imagine he and BEP see eye to eye on that one.

:D

mlyonsd
03-21-2008, 02:28 PM
Speculation isn't dishonest. Describing Richardson as not even considering American interests in his policy proposals is dishonest.

When he used the word "apparent" in his statement speculation is implied...IMO. But I'm just speculating there.

jAZ
03-21-2008, 02:34 PM
When he used the word "apparent" in his statement speculation is implied...IMO. But I'm just speculating there.

It's dishonest to speculate such. There are a lot of different views of what and how to get out of the mess in Iraq. To demonize those you disagree with as not even considering the best intersts of America... espeically someone who's demonstrated his commitment to serving his country in so many ways... is dishonest. That it's speculation doesn't change that.

patteeu
03-21-2008, 02:37 PM
Pot, meet kettle.

Ah, our data-driven, fact-based communicator chimes in with a typically well-sourced comment. Bravo, Pitt!

But despite it's lack of intellectually stimulating insight, your post did coincidentally lead me to investigate the matter further.

I did a search for all the posts I've authored that contained the word "dishonest" in them and did a quick study of the ways in which that word was used. As it turned out, there were 121 of those posts. Here's what I found.

I've called other posters "dishonest" in 11 posts. Most of the time, the other poster was jAZ (5 times). Second on the list was the Talking Can (3 times). More on that later.

I've referred to someone other than a poster as "dishonest" 12 times. That includes such things as calling a public figure dishonest or saying that an argument in an article posted here at the planet was dishonest.

Many of the hits came from quoted material in my posts. I've been called "dishonest" 27 times in these quotes. (Note that this doesn't include every time someone has called me dishonest, just the times I happened to quote them doing so). I've been called "dishonest" several times by the Talking Can (I didn't keep track of the number). But the king of calling me "dishonest" is clearly jAZ. His quotes account for 16 out of the 27 occurances. An analysis of the timing of these posts makes it pretty clear that many of the times when I called either jAZ or the Talking Can dishonest it was in the course of responding to their invitation to visit this low ground.

71 of the 121 hits were more innocuous. Either I was quoting someone who called another poster "dishonest" (e.g. jAZ calling Baby Lee dishonest) or I was quoting someone calling a public figure dishonest (e.g. penchief calling the entire Bush administration dishonest) or something even more mundane (e.g. me quoting Stevie Ray lampooning jAZ's inclination to play the "dishonest" card).

So in summary, in a study focused only on my own posts, jAZ has called me dishonest 16 times compared to me leveling that charge against all other posters combined 11 times. And in many of those 11 events, I was mirroring the language and tactics of either jAZ or the Talking Can. I theorize that if we focused on posts actually authored by jAZ, we would find that the discrepancy between our relative uses of the word "dishonest" would be even more pronounced. IOW, Pitt, I think you're FOS. :thumb:

jAZ
03-21-2008, 02:43 PM
So in summary, in a study focused only on my own posts, jAZ has called me dishonest 16 times compared to me leveling that charge against all other posters combined 11 times. And in many of those 11 events, I was mirroring the language and tactics of either jAZ or the Talking Can. I theorize that if we focused on posts actually authored by jAZ, we would find that the discrepancy between our relative uses of the word "dishonest" would be even more pronounced. IOW, Pitt, I think you're FOS. :thumb:
IOW, you are more dishonest and have reason to get called out on it far more often. :p

TEX
03-21-2008, 02:54 PM
I can't see how anyone could vote for the guy.

a1na2
03-21-2008, 02:54 PM
439 25824, 946 22737?

patteeu
03-21-2008, 03:20 PM
IOW, you are more dishonest and have reason to get called out on it far more often. :p

Even though I'm quoting you, I won't count this one towards the study since it's obvious you're just joking now. I'm guessing that you know you over do it with the "dishonest" blasts and I trust that you'll try to reign yourself in a little bit. :)

jAZ
03-21-2008, 03:24 PM
Even though I'm quoting you, I won't count this one towards the study since it's obvious you're just joking now. I'm guessing that you know you over do it with the "dishonest" blasts and I trust that you'll try to reign yourself in a little bit. :)
I know that the truth hurts quite a bit for you to spend so much time on the word "dishonest".

patteeu
03-21-2008, 03:41 PM
I know that the truth hurts quite a bit for you to spend so much time on the word "dishonest".

"Truth" is indeed the reason I spent that time, but it had more to do with Pitt Gorilla, who claims to be used to "evidence driving discussion, debate, and decision-making" (despite the lack of evidence here at ChiefsPlanet for that proposition), than it has to do with you.

Go ahead and continue to call me dishonest whenever you disagree with me if it floats your boat. It doesn't bother me all that much even if it has taken a serious toll on my level of respect for you.

jAZ
03-21-2008, 03:45 PM
"Truth" is indeed the reason I spent that time, but it had more to do with Pitt Gorilla, who claims to be used to "evidence driving discussion, debate, and decision-making" (despite the lack of evidence here at ChiefsPlanet for that proposition), than it has to do with you.

Go ahead and continue to call me dishonest whenever you disagree with me if it floats your boat. It doesn't bother me all that much even if it has taken a serious toll on my level of respect for you.

I'll call you dishonest when you are. I'll disagree with you when I do. The latter happens far more often than the former. And you'll note that the failure of those occurances to overlap historically is entirely due to the fact that they aren't the same thing.

Logical
03-21-2008, 03:57 PM
Even though I'm quoting you, I won't count this one towards the study since it's obvious you're just joking now. I'm guessing that you know you over do it with the "dishonest" blasts and I trust that you'll try to reign yourself in a little bit. :)

I found your self study interesting so I did a self study.

I only have the word dishonest in my posts 18 total times

9 Times it is another poster calling someone or something not on the BB dishonest

3 times it is Russ calling me dishonest
1 time it is me denying what Russ said
1 time I am calling Russ dishonest

1 time it is a1na2 calling me dishonest

1 time it is Kotter calling me dishonest
1 time it is me calling Kotter dishonest

1 time it is me calling someone not on the BB dishonest

So in summary I have only called someone on the BB dishonest twice and someone/thing off the board dishonest once.

patteeu
03-21-2008, 04:31 PM
I'll call you dishonest when you are. I'll disagree with you when I do. The latter happens far more often than the former. And you'll note that the failure of those occurances to overlap historically is entirely due to the fact that they aren't the same thing.
While you don't call me "dishonest" every time you disagree with me, I see plenty of overlap between the two. And in my study of the phenomenon, I didn't find a single example of actual dishonesty supporting your less than high class behavior. But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that and everyone can draw their own conclusions. I did notice, during the course of my investigation, at least 2 other posters making fun of your penchant for slinging the "dishonest" card and I don't think anyone has ever lampooned me for doing it, fwiw. (Oh, and it's not just me that you do it to either, it's a more general habit than that). Carry on, Obama supporter.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-21-2008, 04:35 PM
Ah, our data-driven, fact-based communicator chimes in with a typically well-sourced comment. Bravo, Pitt!

But despite it's lack of intellectually stimulating insight, your post did coincidentally lead me to investigate the matter further.

I did a search for all the posts I've authored that contained the word "dishonest" in them and did a quick study of the ways in which that word was used. As it turned out, there were 121 of those posts. Here's what I found.

I've called other posters "dishonest" in 11 posts. Most of the time, the other poster was jAZ (5 times). Second on the list was the Talking Can (3 times). More on that later.

I've referred to someone other than a poster as "dishonest" 12 times. That includes such things as calling a public figure dishonest or saying that an argument in an article posted here at the planet was dishonest.

Many of the hits came from quoted material in my posts. I've been called "dishonest" 27 times in these quotes. (Note that this doesn't include every time someone has called me dishonest, just the times I happened to quote them doing so). I've been called "dishonest" several times by the Talking Can (I didn't keep track of the number). But the king of calling me "dishonest" is clearly jAZ. His quotes account for 16 out of the 27 occurances. An analysis of the timing of these posts makes it pretty clear that many of the times when I called either jAZ or the Talking Can dishonest it was in the course of responding to their invitation to visit this low ground.

71 of the 121 hits were more innocuous. Either I was quoting someone who called another poster "dishonest" (e.g. jAZ calling Baby Lee dishonest) or I was quoting someone calling a public figure dishonest (e.g. penchief calling the entire Bush administration dishonest) or something even more mundane (e.g. me quoting Stevie Ray lampooning jAZ's inclination to play the "dishonest" card).

So in summary, in a study focused only on my own posts, jAZ has called me dishonest 16 times compared to me leveling that charge against all other posters combined 11 times. And in many of those 11 events, I was mirroring the language and tactics of either jAZ or the Talking Can. I theorize that if we focused on posts actually authored by jAZ, we would find that the discrepancy between our relative uses of the word "dishonest" would be even more pronounced. IOW, Pitt, I think you're FOS. :thumb:

One of the most pathetic things I've ever seen, this side of Dana Plato's descent into porn.

jAZ
03-21-2008, 05:19 PM
While you don't call me "dishonest" every time you disagree with me, I see plenty of overlap between the two. And in my study of the phenomenon, I didn't find a single example of actual dishonesty supporting your less than high class behavior. But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that and everyone can draw their own conclusions.
That's always been my approach. I *never* lobby people to support my statements of the sort. Your own behavior, when noted for the record, is all that's necesary.
I did notice, during the course of my investigation, at least 2 other posters making fun of your penchant for slinging the "dishonest" card and I don't think anyone has ever lampooned me for doing it, fwiw. (Oh, and it's not just me that you do it to either, it's a more general habit than that).
My MO around here is to work hard to keep discussions honest. That's a monumental task in such a partisan setting.

keg in kc
03-21-2008, 05:23 PM
I found your self study interesting so I did a self study.

I only have the word dishonest in my posts 18 total times

9 Times it is another poster calling someone or something not on the BB dishonest

3 times it is Russ calling me dishonest
1 time it is me denying what Russ said
1 time I am calling Russ dishonest

1 time it is a1na2 calling me dishonest

1 time it is Kotter calling me dishonest
1 time it is me calling Kotter dishonest

1 time it is me calling someone not on the BB dishonest

So in summary I have only called someone on the BB dishonest twice and someone/thing off the board dishonest once.Stop lying you dishonest f*ck.

patteeu
03-21-2008, 06:20 PM
That's always been my approach. I *never* lobby people to support my statements of the sort. Your own behavior, when noted for the record, is all that's necesary.

My MO around here is to work hard to keep discussions honest. That's a monumental task in such a partisan setting.

I have no idea what your first paragraph means.

And wrt the second paragraph, I've got a different idea of what your MO around here is.

jAZ
03-21-2008, 07:10 PM
Interestingly Richardson admitted just now that he was set to endorse Clinton after Bill came to watch the Super Bowl with him, calling him "very persuasive". But that watching how nasty the Clinton campaign has decided to become, and watching how Obama handled the Wright crisis with his speech, he decided to endorse.

Also, he admits its not much help in the polls.

I thought this was interesting.

Logical
03-21-2008, 07:43 PM
Stop lying you dishonest f*ck.
:LOL::thumb:

BucEyedPea
03-21-2008, 09:43 PM
Interestingly Richardson admitted just now that he was set to endorse Clinton after Bill came to watch the Super Bowl with him, calling him "very persuasive". But that watching how nasty the Clinton campaign has decided to become, and watching how Obama handled the Wright crisis with his speech, he decided to endorse.

Also, he admits its not much help in the polls.

I thought this was interesting.

That's how I get when I see the righties foaming at the mouth about Obama being racist.

Thig Lyfe
03-22-2008, 01:06 AM
Beardy Richardson is angling for a VP job.