Obama really doesn't have to do anything, and given that Clinton already won this same argument by letting the GOP hang itself by its own rope, there's no good reason to expect him to do anything differently.
Exactly. We've already been down this road. It ends with the Democratic President being re-elected by a landslide.
Part of the reason the government shutdown backfired on the Rs back in the Clinton Administration was that the press got Gingrich to say that the shutdown was at least partially motivated by Gingrich's personal animosity towards Clinton over a perceived disrespect from Clinton. Then Clinton was able to hit back, over and over, with "Rs are cutting off your Social Security checks because of Gingrich holding a personal grudge!" Until Gingrich's bad quote, when it was supposedly about policy, public opinion on the shutdown apportioned blame based on party lines - Rs backed Rs, Ds backed Ds and as a result it was a pretty equal standoff. Wikipedia:
The Republicans' support was further diminished two days later when Gingrich made a widely-reported complaint about being snubbed by Clinton; Tom DeLay called it "the mistake of his [Gingrich's] life". DeLay writes in his book No Retreat, No Surrender: "He told a room full of reporters that he forced the shutdown because Clinton had rudely made him and Bob Dole sit at the back of Air Force One... Newt had been careless to say such a thing, and now the whole moral tone of the shutdown had been lost. What had been a noble battle for fiscal sanity began to look like the tirade of a spoiled child. The revolution, I can tell you, was never the same." Gingrich's complaint gave rise to the perception of his behaving in a petty egotistical manner, and Clinton defended the seating arrangement as a courtesy to Gingrich, the back of the plane being closer to his pickup car. Later, the polls suggested that the event badly damaged Gingrich politically.
Except that today is not 1994 and so the likely reactions will be more than a bit different. Not to mention the likelihood of one of the newly elected crazies saying something stupid.
I wouldn't be surprised if one of the crazier new Reps tried to take a shot at the President. What with what's-her-face interrupting the Constitution reading to pray for deliverance from the Great Black POTUS and the entire GOP platform being Obama hate, I can almost see that happening. The Secret Service would stop him immediately, and then all of Washington would be all wtf?
I really want to see how the shutdown comes back to bite Gingrich on the ass when he runs for the GOP nod in '12.
...Gingrich doesn't run for President, he runs for the NYT Best Seller's List.
He has one of the largest PACs at the moment.
I think Mittens is the the biggest though.
Like I said, he likes money. This does not mean he is running for President. Every damn election he's "thinking about considering it" all while conveniently having a new book to hock. At what point do you realize that you don't get to kick the football?
If only we had Dems with spines who would call his bluff on it.
I would love to hear Boehner explain how spending kills jobs.
I was wondering that too. I think a lot of Republican speeches are actually created by a Mad-Libs. You choose from these adjectives:
job-killing
socialist
fiscally irresponsable
unconstitutional
fascist
immoral
etc
and then insert them wherever you want into a generic speech. When you need a new speech, just rearrange them. Like this:
The ________ spending by Obama must end. It's a __________ takeover of government, and we must oppose it because it's _______. We republicans will overturn legislation that is ________ and ________, stopping the _________ democrats and returning to what our founding fathers envisioned.
There, I just wrote 6! = 720 republican speeches.
Pi-r8 on
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Isn't this basically what taking points are, and why the daily show can easily string together a clip of various taking heads and republican guests repeating whatever phrase or term of choice ad nauseum.
WASHINGTON -- Two House Republicans have cast votes as members of the 112th Congress, but were not sworn in on Wednesday, a violation of the Constitution on the same day that the GOP had the document read from the podium.
Obama really doesn't have to do anything, and given that Clinton already won this same argument by letting the GOP hang itself by its own rope, there's no good reason to expect him to do anything differently.
Exactly. We've already been down this road. It ends with the Democratic President being re-elected by a landslide.
Part of the reason the government shutdown backfired on the Rs back in the Clinton Administration was that the press got Gingrich to say that the shutdown was at least partially motivated by Gingrich's personal animosity towards Clinton over a perceived disrespect from Clinton. Then Clinton was able to hit back, over and over, with "Rs are cutting off your Social Security checks because of Gingrich holding a personal grudge!" Until Gingrich's bad quote, when it was supposedly about policy, public opinion on the shutdown apportioned blame based on party lines - Rs backed Rs, Ds backed Ds and as a result it was a pretty equal standoff. Wikipedia:
The Republicans' support was further diminished two days later when Gingrich made a widely-reported complaint about being snubbed by Clinton; Tom DeLay called it "the mistake of his [Gingrich's] life". DeLay writes in his book No Retreat, No Surrender: "He told a room full of reporters that he forced the shutdown because Clinton had rudely made him and Bob Dole sit at the back of Air Force One... Newt had been careless to say such a thing, and now the whole moral tone of the shutdown had been lost. What had been a noble battle for fiscal sanity began to look like the tirade of a spoiled child. The revolution, I can tell you, was never the same." Gingrich's complaint gave rise to the perception of his behaving in a petty egotistical manner, and Clinton defended the seating arrangement as a courtesy to Gingrich, the back of the plane being closer to his pickup car. Later, the polls suggested that the event badly damaged Gingrich politically.
Except that today is not 1994 and so the likely reactions will be more than a bit different. Not to mention the likelihood of one of the newly elected crazies saying something stupid.
That's my point. Just because a Republican House "lost" the 95 shutdown doesn't mean that a Republican House will "lose" a hypothetical 2011 shutdown.
I was going to make one that's more broad based than a stupid publicity stunt. But if Glyph wants to edit the OP and turn it into a general Congress thread, I'm fine with that.
Is the OP really that important for a current events thread?
WASHINGTON -- Two House Republicans have cast votes as members of the 112th Congress, but were not sworn in on Wednesday, a violation of the Constitution on the same day that the GOP had the document read from the podium.
Both of these are just ... oh my god. I can't stop laughing at how worthless they all are.
Armored Gorilla on
"I'm a mad god. The Mad God, actually. It's a family title. Gets passed down from me to myself every few thousand years."
Obama really doesn't have to do anything, and given that Clinton already won this same argument by letting the GOP hang itself by its own rope, there's no good reason to expect him to do anything differently.
Exactly. We've already been down this road. It ends with the Democratic President being re-elected by a landslide.
Part of the reason the government shutdown backfired on the Rs back in the Clinton Administration was that the press got Gingrich to say that the shutdown was at least partially motivated by Gingrich's personal animosity towards Clinton over a perceived disrespect from Clinton. Then Clinton was able to hit back, over and over, with "Rs are cutting off your Social Security checks because of Gingrich holding a personal grudge!" Until Gingrich's bad quote, when it was supposedly about policy, public opinion on the shutdown apportioned blame based on party lines - Rs backed Rs, Ds backed Ds and as a result it was a pretty equal standoff. Wikipedia:
The Republicans' support was further diminished two days later when Gingrich made a widely-reported complaint about being snubbed by Clinton; Tom DeLay called it "the mistake of his [Gingrich's] life". DeLay writes in his book No Retreat, No Surrender: "He told a room full of reporters that he forced the shutdown because Clinton had rudely made him and Bob Dole sit at the back of Air Force One... Newt had been careless to say such a thing, and now the whole moral tone of the shutdown had been lost. What had been a noble battle for fiscal sanity began to look like the tirade of a spoiled child. The revolution, I can tell you, was never the same." Gingrich's complaint gave rise to the perception of his behaving in a petty egotistical manner, and Clinton defended the seating arrangement as a courtesy to Gingrich, the back of the plane being closer to his pickup car. Later, the polls suggested that the event badly damaged Gingrich politically.
Except that today is not 1994 and so the likely reactions will be more than a bit different. Not to mention the likelihood of one of the newly elected crazies saying something stupid.
That's my point. Just because a Republican House "lost" the 95 shutdown doesn't mean that a Republican House will "lose" a hypothetical 2011 shutdown.
Especially with the heavy Conservative/Republican slant the media has adopted in the intervening time. There are no less than three networks that deliberate distort reality and lie to make Republicans look good and/or Democrats look bad.
A shutdown would be catastrophic and would be blamed almost entirely on Obama and the Democrats.
The amount I get is nearly $1.1 million. $1,071,872.87, to be exact, though of course this is more back-of-the-envelope than exact. When one chamber of Congress is in session but not working, we the people still have to pay for members' salaries and expenses, and for their police protection, and for keeping their lights and phones and coffee machines on.
I'm aware of the mild fallacy here that it's not *really* money wasted because these people were going to be paid anyway. And also aware of the "They're wasting money because they're not doing real work when when they should be" bit. But $1 mil for a day of THIS particular Congress not doing anything useful? Think $730 mil would be fair to do it for the rest of the Congress as well?
Armored Gorilla on
"I'm a mad god. The Mad God, actually. It's a family title. Gets passed down from me to myself every few thousand years."
The amount I get is nearly $1.1 million. $1,071,872.87, to be exact, though of course this is more back-of-the-envelope than exact. When one chamber of Congress is in session but not working, we the people still have to pay for members' salaries and expenses, and for their police protection, and for keeping their lights and phones and coffee machines on.
I'm aware of the mild fallacy here that it's not *really* money wasted because these people were going to be paid anyway. And also aware of the "They're wasting money because they're not doing real work when when they should be" bit. But $1 mil for a day of THIS particular Congress not doing anything useful? Think $730 mil would be fair to do it for the rest of the Congress as well?
What's your alternative suggestion? I mean, carrier pigeons have to eat; candles require wax...
Especially with the heavy Conservative/Republican slant the media has adopted in the intervening time. There are no less than three networks that deliberate distort reality and lie to make Republicans look good and/or Democrats look bad.
Obama got a free 2 hour primetime "news conference" on ABC about healthcare that was nothing but appeal to emotion, heavily scripted questions.
I realize you guys lost control of the situation last summer, but blaming it on the media isn't really backed up by boots on the ground facts.
Check out the obviously biased media, springing surprise hardball questions on Obama like:
SAWYER: And we have with us a couple of people who really represent the opposite ends on this spectrum too. I want to talk, if I can, to Jane Sturm.
Your mother, Hazel...
JANE STURM: Caregiver for 105-year-old mother: Yes.
SAWYER: Hazel Homer (ph), 100 years old and she wanted...
STURM: She's 105 now. Over 105. But at 100 the doctor had said to her, I can't do anything more unless you have a pacemaker. I said, go for it. She said, go for it. But the arrhythmia specialist said, no, it's too old.
Her doctor said, I'm going to make an appointment, because a picture is worth a thousand words. And when the other arrhythmia specialist saw her, saw her joy of life and so on, he said, I'm going for it.
So that was over five years ago. My question to you is, outside the medical criteria for prolonging life for somebody elderly, is there any consideration that can be given for a certain spirit, a certain joy of
living, quality of life? Or is it just a medical cutoff at a certain age?
OBAMA: Well, first of all, I want to meet your mom.
(LAUGHTER)
OBAMA: And I want to find out what's she's eating.
Especially with the heavy Conservative/Republican slant the media has adopted in the intervening time. There are no less than three networks that deliberate distort reality and lie to make Republicans look good and/or Democrats look bad.
Obama got a free 2 hour primetime "news conference" on ABC about healthcare that was nothing but appeal to emotion, heavily scripted questions.
I realize you guys lost control of the situation last summer, but blaming it on the media isn't really backed up by boots on the ground facts.
..Did...did a conservative just tell us to stop blaming the media?
Oh lord.
Oh god the cognitive dissonance.
I think it actually hurts.
Check out the obviously biased media, springing surprise hardball questions on Obama like:
SAWYER: And we have with us a couple of people who really represent the opposite ends on this spectrum too. I want to talk, if I can, to Jane Sturm.
Your mother, Hazel...
JANE STURM: Caregiver for 105-year-old mother: Yes.
SAWYER: Hazel Homer (ph), 100 years old and she wanted...
STURM: She's 105 now. Over 105. But at 100 the doctor had said to her, I can't do anything more unless you have a pacemaker. I said, go for it. She said, go for it. But the arrhythmia specialist said, no, it's too old.
Her doctor said, I'm going to make an appointment, because a picture is worth a thousand words. And when the other arrhythmia specialist saw her, saw her joy of life and so on, he said, I'm going for it.
So that was over five years ago. My question to you is, outside the medical criteria for prolonging life for somebody elderly, is there any consideration that can be given for a certain spirit, a certain joy of
living, quality of life? Or is it just a medical cutoff at a certain age?
OBAMA: Well, first of all, I want to meet your mom.
(LAUGHTER)
OBAMA: And I want to find out what's she's eating.
(LAUGHTER)
So in your world, because Obama made a joke, the issue of when you stop paying for medical care at the end of life because of the likely return on that expenditure is a softball? What the hell? Also, why do you keep ignoring Sammich's questions?
Especially with the heavy Conservative/Republican slant the media has adopted in the intervening time. There are no less than three networks that deliberate distort reality and lie to make Republicans look good and/or Democrats look bad.
A shutdown would be catastrophic and would be blamed almost entirely on Obama and the Democrats.
Meh, I'd say that fundamentals would be more important in polling than the inevitable FNC/RNC spin. The shutdown in the 90's occurred in the midst of a booming recovery with lasting goodwill towards the Republicans amongst 'independents.' Clinton didn't win a majority of the vote, recall. Even with the 2010 win Democrats and Obama poll better than Republicans. If anything one of the major factors of the election was the shifting composition of the electorate. Voters show up for Presidential elections, though, and the country didn't actually age 20 years in the intervening 2 despite what the median voter said last November.
Plus this is at a time when the economy is shaky at best; well a shutdown will have hard impacts on numerous people who won't be too pleased. You can overlook a slight uptick in layoffs or lowered aggregate demand when at full employment, not at 10% unemployment. Hell, the constant slashing of state and local governments is the single largest drag on the economy at the moment. It would also happen as ACA bennies are starting to roll out. Its easier to be anti-something since you can overlook the details. Its much harder to be pro- since that's when you get thick into the weeds. Obamacare was all death panels and Medicare Cuts. RyanCare would be pre-existing conditions and keeping old people off their meds right after getting a check in the mail to help deal with the 'donut hole' problem. &c.
Check out the obviously biased media, springing surprise hardball questions on Obama like:
SAWYER: And we have with us a couple of people who really represent the opposite ends on this spectrum too. I want to talk, if I can, to Jane Sturm.
Your mother, Hazel...
JANE STURM: Caregiver for 105-year-old mother: Yes.
SAWYER: Hazel Homer (ph), 100 years old and she wanted...
STURM: She's 105 now. Over 105. But at 100 the doctor had said to her, I can't do anything more unless you have a pacemaker. I said, go for it. She said, go for it. But the arrhythmia specialist said, no, it's too old.
Her doctor said, I'm going to make an appointment, because a picture is worth a thousand words. And when the other arrhythmia specialist saw her, saw her joy of life and so on, he said, I'm going for it.
So that was over five years ago. My question to you is, outside the medical criteria for prolonging life for somebody elderly, is there any consideration that can be given for a certain spirit, a certain joy of
living, quality of life? Or is it just a medical cutoff at a certain age?
OBAMA: Well, first of all, I want to meet your mom.
(LAUGHTER)
OBAMA: And I want to find out what's she's eating.
(LAUGHTER)
So in your world, because Obama made a joke, the issue of when you stop paying for medical care at the end of life because of the likely return on that expenditure is a softball? What the hell? Also, why do you keep ignoring Sammich's questions?
There are three whole cable networks that say you're full of shit, Deacon. I mean, if you want to play "which media outlet gave the sloppiest blow job to the party that I hate", we win easily. Not to mention that the "liberal" media doesn't do much in the way of commentary and really just let people on both sides on to spout their talking points. MSNBC, the so called liberal news channel, features more conservatives for more time than Fox News ever gives to liberals.
Check out the obviously biased media, springing surprise hardball questions on Obama like:
SAWYER: And we have with us a couple of people who really represent the opposite ends on this spectrum too. I want to talk, if I can, to Jane Sturm.
Your mother, Hazel...
JANE STURM: Caregiver for 105-year-old mother: Yes.
SAWYER: Hazel Homer (ph), 100 years old and she wanted...
STURM: She's 105 now. Over 105. But at 100 the doctor had said to her, I can't do anything more unless you have a pacemaker. I said, go for it. She said, go for it. But the arrhythmia specialist said, no, it's too old.
Her doctor said, I'm going to make an appointment, because a picture is worth a thousand words. And when the other arrhythmia specialist saw her, saw her joy of life and so on, he said, I'm going for it.
So that was over five years ago. My question to you is, outside the medical criteria for prolonging life for somebody elderly, is there any consideration that can be given for a certain spirit, a certain joy of
living, quality of life? Or is it just a medical cutoff at a certain age?
OBAMA: Well, first of all, I want to meet your mom.
(LAUGHTER)
OBAMA: And I want to find out what's she's eating.
(LAUGHTER)
So in your world, because Obama made a joke, the issue of when you stop paying for medical care at the end of life because of the likely return on that expenditure is a softball? What the hell? Also, why do you keep ignoring Sammich's questions?
Here I'll take this one.
Because HEY LOOK OVER THERE!
Deacon won't answer those questions, ever, because he can't do it honestly without looking hypocritical, can't fob it off with some snarky little comment, and can't get away with using weasel words because we really don't put up with that sort of thing.
There are three whole cable networks that say you're full of shit, Deacon. I mean, if you want to play "which media outlet gave the sloppiest blow job to the party that I hate", we win easily. Not to mention that the "liberal" media doesn't do much in the way of commentary and really just let people on both sides on to spout their talking points. MSNBC, the so called liberal news channel, features more conservatives for more time than Fox News ever gives to liberals.
MSNBC also gives conservatives more time than it does for liberals.
..Did...did a conservative just tell us to stop blaming the media?
Well, I think this is something both sides tend to do too often.
When you fuck something up, it's a very convenient excuse.
Of course the media isn't neutral, but picking sympathetic media outlets and knowing how to work them is part of "THE GAME" (as they say).
Oh, give me a fucking break! The Republicans have been screaming and wailing for more than thirty years about the liberal media, and Democrats haven't been saying shit! Kindly stop lying, sir.
There are three whole cable networks that say you're full of shit, Deacon. I mean, if you want to play "which media outlet gave the sloppiest blow job to the party that I hate", we win easily. Not to mention that the "liberal" media doesn't do much in the way of commentary and really just let people on both sides on to spout their talking points. MSNBC, the so called liberal news channel, features more conservatives for more time than Fox News ever gives to liberals.
MSNBC also gives conservatives more time than it does for liberals.
I honestly rarely ever watch the news portion of MSNBC because I work during the day, but I could believe it. Joe Scarborough occupies 3 hours a day on the network, for fuck's sake. Can you imagine a Lawrence O'Donnell or Chris Matthews taking up 3 hours on Fox News? Those three hours can't be wasted on left of center programming!
1. They're making a political grandstand out of reading the constitution.
2. They're not even reading the whole thing.
and now
3. Nobody's actually there.
Because most of the Constitution is really goddamn boring. Everybody just remembers the sexy stuff.
Citation of constitutional authority: commerce clause or one of the other vague statements in the Constitution you can railroad almost anything through under the SC's current interpretation.
Also, Deac, when you introduce more 'arguments' it becomes awfully hard to believe that you 'don't have time' to address everyone's questions, especially because you rarely even bother to try anyway.
[Oh, give me a fucking break! The Republicans have been screaming and wailing for more than thirty years about the liberal media, and Democrats haven't been saying shit! Kindly stop lying, sir.
I just responded to a Democrat itt screaming about it!
Respectfully, perhaps get your story straight before you start pressing the "LIAR" button next time.
[Oh, give me a fucking break! The Republicans have been screaming and wailing for more than thirty years about the liberal media, and Democrats haven't been saying shit! Kindly stop lying, sir.
I just responded to a Democrat itt screaming about it!
Respectfully, perhaps get your story straight before you start pressing the "LIAR" button next time.
If you're not going to answer the question that several people have asked you could you please tell us why?
Posts
I wouldn't be surprised if one of the crazier new Reps tried to take a shot at the President. What with what's-her-face interrupting the Constitution reading to pray for deliverance from the Great Black POTUS and the entire GOP platform being Obama hate, I can almost see that happening. The Secret Service would stop him immediately, and then all of Washington would be all wtf?
Like I said, he likes money. This does not mean he is running for President. Every damn election he's "thinking about considering it" all while conveniently having a new book to hock. At what point do you realize that you don't get to kick the football?
I was wondering that too. I think a lot of Republican speeches are actually created by a Mad-Libs. You choose from these adjectives:
job-killing
socialist
fiscally irresponsable
unconstitutional
fascist
immoral
etc
and then insert them wherever you want into a generic speech. When you need a new speech, just rearrange them. Like this:
The ________ spending by Obama must end. It's a __________ takeover of government, and we must oppose it because it's _______. We republicans will overturn legislation that is ________ and ________, stopping the _________ democrats and returning to what our founding fathers envisioned.
There, I just wrote 6! = 720 republican speeches.
1. They're making a political grandstand out of reading the constitution.
2. They're not even reading the whole thing.
and now
3. Nobody's actually there.
All it was was read meat for talk radio and the tea party.
That's my point. Just because a Republican House "lost" the 95 shutdown doesn't mean that a Republican House will "lose" a hypothetical 2011 shutdown.
Is the OP really that important for a current events thread?
Both of these are just ... oh my god. I can't stop laughing at how worthless they all are.
Especially with the heavy Conservative/Republican slant the media has adopted in the intervening time. There are no less than three networks that deliberate distort reality and lie to make Republicans look good and/or Democrats look bad.
A shutdown would be catastrophic and would be blamed almost entirely on Obama and the Democrats.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
I'm aware of the mild fallacy here that it's not *really* money wasted because these people were going to be paid anyway. And also aware of the "They're wasting money because they're not doing real work when when they should be" bit. But $1 mil for a day of THIS particular Congress not doing anything useful? Think $730 mil would be fair to do it for the rest of the Congress as well?
What's your alternative suggestion? I mean, carrier pigeons have to eat; candles require wax...
Obama got a free 2 hour primetime "news conference" on ABC about healthcare that was nothing but appeal to emotion, heavily scripted questions.
I realize you guys lost control of the situation last summer, but blaming it on the media isn't really backed up by boots on the ground facts.
It would make having a conversation much easier with you if you responded to things people asked you.
..Did...did a conservative just tell us to stop blaming the media?
Oh lord.
Oh god the cognitive dissonance.
I think it actually hurts.
Meh, I'd say that fundamentals would be more important in polling than the inevitable FNC/RNC spin. The shutdown in the 90's occurred in the midst of a booming recovery with lasting goodwill towards the Republicans amongst 'independents.' Clinton didn't win a majority of the vote, recall. Even with the 2010 win Democrats and Obama poll better than Republicans. If anything one of the major factors of the election was the shifting composition of the electorate. Voters show up for Presidential elections, though, and the country didn't actually age 20 years in the intervening 2 despite what the median voter said last November.
Plus this is at a time when the economy is shaky at best; well a shutdown will have hard impacts on numerous people who won't be too pleased. You can overlook a slight uptick in layoffs or lowered aggregate demand when at full employment, not at 10% unemployment. Hell, the constant slashing of state and local governments is the single largest drag on the economy at the moment. It would also happen as ACA bennies are starting to roll out. Its easier to be anti-something since you can overlook the details. Its much harder to be pro- since that's when you get thick into the weeds. Obamacare was all death panels and Medicare Cuts. RyanCare would be pre-existing conditions and keeping old people off their meds right after getting a check in the mail to help deal with the 'donut hole' problem. &c.
Here I'll take this one.
Because HEY LOOK OVER THERE!
Well, I think this is something both sides tend to do too often.
When you fuck something up, it's a very convenient excuse.
Of course the media isn't neutral, but picking sympathetic media outlets and knowing how to work them is part of "THE GAME" (as they say).
Deacon won't answer those questions, ever, because he can't do it honestly without looking hypocritical, can't fob it off with some snarky little comment, and can't get away with using weasel words because we really don't put up with that sort of thing.
MSNBC also gives conservatives more time than it does for liberals.
Oh, give me a fucking break! The Republicans have been screaming and wailing for more than thirty years about the liberal media, and Democrats haven't been saying shit! Kindly stop lying, sir.
I honestly rarely ever watch the news portion of MSNBC because I work during the day, but I could believe it. Joe Scarborough occupies 3 hours a day on the network, for fuck's sake. Can you imagine a Lawrence O'Donnell or Chris Matthews taking up 3 hours on Fox News? Those three hours can't be wasted on left of center programming!
Because most of the Constitution is really goddamn boring. Everybody just remembers the sexy stuff.
Citation of constitutional authority: commerce clause or one of the other vague statements in the Constitution you can railroad almost anything through under the SC's current interpretation.
I just responded to a Democrat itt screaming about it!
Respectfully, perhaps get your story straight before you start pressing the "LIAR" button next time.
If you're not going to answer the question that several people have asked you could you please tell us why?