The Radio Equalizer: Brian Maloney

11 September 2005

Latest Scandal Updates: 11 September

Explain This, Mr. Franken!

Editorial Takes Air America Host To Task



As expected, the mainstream media somewhat ignored our "gotcha", where Al Franken was essentially caught lying about his knowledge of Air America's Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club scandal. That's where $875,000 in taxpayer funds were apparenetly diverted to the liberal radio network's coffers.

Today, a Washington Times editorial takes Franken to task over his recent antics.

Franken claimed on his show he'd only heard about the scandal in early August, but Michelle Malkin and I produced a document which proved he knew about the whole mess at least as far back as November, 2004.

After our revelations, independently echoed in a New York Sun story, Air America management went into defense mode. CEO Danny Goldberg changed the subject, saying the on-air talent lacked reponsibility for the loan itself, but that wasn't the key issue.

Radio trade publications, dependent on advertising from the liberal network, were happy to take the deception at face value.

Today's Washington Times, however, was thankfully paying attention and a hard-hitting editorial is the result. Here is an excerpt:


Al Franken appears to be caught in a fib -- a "lying lie," he might call it -- about Air America's loans-from-children scandal.

A month ago Al Franken claimed ignorance of the transfers. "I didn't know anything about this until late last week," he told Air America listeners on Aug. 8.

The network's brass echoed this: Air America CEO Danny Goldberg told the New York Sun this week that the "on-air talent" has "never had any responsibility for this loan." This seemed plausible at the time, since no one expects the talent to be arranging finances, so in our Aug. 3 editorial on the subject we gave Mr. Franken a pass.

Regrettably, it appears we shouldn't have. In light of documents that surfaced last week, it looks to be the case that as of November 2004, and possibly earlier, Mr. Franken knew the amount of money, the money's origins and the dates the transfers occurred.


This came to light after a settlement agreement between former and current owners of Air America -- a document which details the Gloria Wise transfers -- was leaked to Michelle Malkin and Brian Maloney, who promptly posted the document on their Web sites.

The document shows that Mr. Franken signed off on the settlement, and did so in the presence of a notary public, no less.

Claims that Mr. Franken was unaware of the particulars fly in the face of a clause in the document that states each signatory "has read this Agreement and understands its terms."

Mr. Franken has made a career playing gotcha. The scandal involves the funnelling of tax dollars intended for children to fund a failing partisan radio venture. His prevarications look much like what he criticizes in others.



--- Also today: liberal talk hurting in portions of Michigan, according to the Ann Arbor News.


--- And Denton (TX) Record-Chronicle columnist Lucinda Breeding takes on Janeane Garofalo in a piece published today:


The larger culture does seem to be, on its face, antagonistic to religion in general.

Janeane Garofalo, an anchor on the liberal talk radio syndicate Air America, chose to scream at a religious caller who took her to task for joining mainstream America and labeling Scientologists as freaks, or something like that.

What could have been an opportunity to have a calm, rational discussion about the fact that religion has hurt a lot of people devolved into a bombastic tirade against faith in general.

Garofalo is a smart, capable woman with a bully pulpit and hard left leanings. She could have used the moment to have a real conversation about religion.

All the things she deplores about religion could be part of a discussion. She could have told the truth: that religion has hurt her, and a lot of other people. Instead, name-calling and shrieking prevailed.



--- Lib talker Ed Schultz defends his show's practices in a letter to a West Virginia newspaper.


--- A Free Republic participant reminds us of a previous Al Franken ethics flap, from 2003. The Smoking Gun has the details.


--- A big welcome to Orbusmax (serving Washington state, Oregon, British Columbia and the entire Pacific Northwest region) and Western Standard magazine (serving Alberta, British Columbia and other Canadian) readers!

The latter's Shotgun Blog is a daily must-read, while the magazine provides the truth about Canadian politics, untouched by Ottawa-Liberal-style political correctness.


Your Amazon orders, that begin with clicks here, help to support this site's efforts. Thanks!

Franken scandal graphic by Darleen Click.

41 Comments:

  • Poor Brian's hope that the AAR "scandal" would be his cash cow just went down the toilet. It also looks like the locals who claimed that AAR stole from the poor are now exposed as liars.

    Air America Wires $825,000 To Club in Bronx

    By Blogger Dick Tuck, at 11 September, 2005 17:03  

  • Dick Tuck, I was fully prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt. You are not doing well. The article you link merely shows that AAR wired money from one of its pockets to a different pocket. AAR still controls the money. They gave it to no one but themselves.

    Perhaps you did not take the time to read the article, perhaps you have not been keeping up with the fact that this is not news at all, Brian covered it already.

    Why are you so emotional about this, Mr. Tuck? You are not behaving rationally here. Slow down, take a deep breath, start reading before you link. I want to believe in you, I really do.

    By Blogger al fin, at 11 September, 2005 17:47  

  • Hmmm... Read the Smoking Gun story from 2003?

    Comedian Al Franken last month wrote an apology letter to Attorney General John Ashcroft, admitting that he was not truthful when he previously sought Ashcroft's views on abstinence.

    I sense a pattern here! Al Frankenberry isn't just a LIAR, he is a HABITUAL LAIR!

    Dick Tuck is a liar too. You can tell - when caught red handed - he will instinctively deny, deny, deny - no matter how absurd the denial. That is what liars learn to do.

    And, it is a regular practice of Democrats.

    So, I can also tell you that Dick Tuck (great name - watch out for that duct tape!) is a Democrat, too.

    By Blogger Tom C, at 11 September, 2005 20:27  

  • Tom C, how do you live with yourself? The money is now in escrow, and will either go to the Boys & Girls club or the city.

    You're the liar here.

    By Blogger Dick Tuck, at 11 September, 2005 22:10  

  • will either go to the Boys & Girls club or the city.

    And you accuse me of speculation!

    HA!

    Anyway DICK, I thought they DIDN'T OWE THE MONEY, EH? That they were an ENTIRE DIFFERENT COMPANY!

    I live with myself just fine, old pal.

    By Blogger Tom C, at 11 September, 2005 22:57  

  • Yep... this dead horse just keeps getting flogged. (Baloney is gonna need some more donations from you wing-nuts to put food on the table.)

    So this "lie" is all you've got? That Franken's lawyer determined that the Gloria Wise liability listed in the settlement agreement had such little relevance to Franken that the lawyer did not bother going over that part with Franken before recommending that he sign it? That's it?!!

    Has everyone here read every word of their mortgage documents (or explicitly reviewed every word with their lawyer) before their lawyer gave the OK to sign them? If not, then the argument that Franken "lied" is looking pretty sick?

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 12 September, 2005 07:50  

  • "Has everyone here read every word of their mortgage documents (or explicitly reviewed every word with their lawyer) before their lawyer gave the OK to sign them?"

    Well, yes - but I freely admit that's what makes us right wing nut jobs exceptional and prosperous and able to send money to Brian!

    And in a situation where you HAVE a lawyer to do your reading for you, to not take the time to go over the various previsions borders on a childish lack of attention span.

    Which is perhaps a qualifier to be an on air presence at Air Amerika.

    By Blogger Peter Porcupine, at 12 September, 2005 11:20  

  • And in a situation where you HAVE a lawyer to do your reading for you, to not take the time to go over the various previsions borders on a childish lack of attention span.

    BS. I sign contracts and agreements on behalf of my company every week. The attorney from the legal department assigned to my group reviews and gives the OK to sign or not. At times, our attorney will review with me and explain certain parts that are significant and/or exceptional. I have never read every part of a anything I sign because that's the attorney's job! Besides, I'm not a lawyer and would not understand everything even if I did read it all. Our group's attorney and I have a long-standing working relationship and because he has always does an exceptional job, whenever I do sign something I have enormous confidence that my/the company's interests are protected! I have a similar working relationship with my personal attorney who has managed several property transactions on my behalf during the last ten or so years.

    OK... since you read and remember everything you sign. Tell us the precise dates and amounts that all of the various units that were used to back your mortgage. Actually, just give us one. Did you read that when you signed up for your last mortgage? Do you remember what you signed? (No looking back at the documents now).

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 12 September, 2005 12:20  

  • So you are saying that people generally don't read what they sign, and so aren't responsible for knowing they are signing?

    If that were true, people could use that defense to get out of ANY contract.

    But they can't. Your point is absurd.

    Actually, your claim is downright laughable. Look, Dubya READ Tenant's Iraq report - ASKED THE RIGHT QUESTIONS, and the entire Senate concurred with that information, ... but based on THAT the democRATS tell us: "Bush Lied".

    Meanwhile, Al Frankenberry, liberal icon, puts a NOTARIZED SIGNATURE on an important document, and your excuse is "Well, the fact he signed it doesn't mean anything? Who reads what they sign?"

    ... And to think this guy wants to be a US Senator? What's his qualification - that he can be counted on to sign bills without reading them?


    So, Phil, why don't we leave the final call up to you:

    Al Franken - liar or fool?

    By Blogger Tom C, at 12 September, 2005 12:46  

  • So, what have we learned today?
    That Dick Tuck is a partisan hack? Nope, already knew that.
    That Tom C is the anti-Dick? Knew that too.
    That you shouldn't do business with PhilM, unless you plan to defraud his company in a legal yet thouroughly unscrupulous manner? Bingo.
    I've never signed a contract in my life without reading it. Wouldn't do business with anyone who didn't take the document just as seriously as I did.

    By Blogger SCSIwuzzy, at 12 September, 2005 13:41  

  • So you are saying that people generally don't read what they sign, and so aren't responsible for knowing they are signing?

    If that were true, people could use that defense to get out of ANY contract.


    Meanwhile, Al Frankenberry, liberal icon, puts a NOTARIZED SIGNATURE on an important document, and your excuse is "Well, the fact he signed it doesn't mean anything? Who reads what they sign?"

    Tom C once again demonstrates his inability to read and/or his inclination to distort the truth.
    Let's be clear: I did NOT state that people are NOT responsible if they do not know what they sign. NOR did I state that this was a defense to get out of any contract. NOR did I state that that signing such things while not knowing their detail is inconsequential.

    The accusation that you wing-nuts are propogating is that Franken "lied" because he actually knew about the loan at the time when he said that he didn't.

    However, most people leave it to their attorney's to read and review legal agreements, call out and explain significant provisions, and either advise for or against signing in accordance with protecting their client's interests. Why would Franken be any different to the vast majority of us who have no legal background, who rely on our attorneys to review such agreements and advise us whether it is in our interests to sign or not? But are we responsible for those agreements we sign? Absolutely.

    If everybody here without exception can demonstrate that they read every part of every document they signed during their last property transaction, and can recall every part of every document 9 months afterwards, then I'll concede Franken doesn't meet this standard. But I know very few people have any option other than to entrust an attorney to ensure that whatever they sign doesn't compromise their interests.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 12 September, 2005 14:04  

  • That you shouldn't do business with PhilM, unless you plan to defraud his company in a legal yet thouroughly unscrupulous manner? Bingo.
    I've never signed a contract in my life without reading it. Wouldn't do business with anyone who didn't take the document just as seriously as I did.


    More deliberate distortion...
    You willfully ignire the fact that I stated that I work with attorney's to ensure that my interests and the interests of my company are protected with respect to all contracts and agreements that I sign.

    Goddamn wing-nut idiots!

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 12 September, 2005 14:08  

  • So, Phil, why don't we leave the final call up to you:

    Al Franken - liar or fool?


    I have the final call? OK.

    From Hanlon's Razor:
    "Do not attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance."

    Franken's a fool for not reading and fully understanding a legal agreement that he duly signed. In this respect, he is no different to the vast majority of people who do not have a legal background and thus need to entrust an attorney to review legal agreements for them, to explain relevant and material points, and to ensure that signing such agreements do not compromise their interests.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 12 September, 2005 16:07  

  • Franken's a fool

    OK, can we kiss and make up now?

    :-+

    By Blogger Tom C, at 12 September, 2005 17:34  

  • That Tom C is the anti-Dick?

    From my La Cage aux Folle days (it's a long story) "Dick Tuck" has a very specific meaning to me.

    So I am left asking myself - Was there a real fellow called "Dick Tuck"?

    Or is it just a hoax leading up to the punch line:

    "Nixon thought that in order to win the election they needed to develop a Dick Tuck capability."

    That line just cracks me up.


    Anyway, there is a problem with your statement "I always read everything I sign". I was actually going to type that, because I DO take time to read documents before I sign them, (forcing the banker or insurance agent to sit there patiently) but you know, when I thought about it I could NOT say that I ALWAYS did it. What about the software licence agreements that we see when install every new box of software? Although, technically we don't SIGN those, could you say that you read EVERY SINGLE ONE?

    I think, though for a notarized signature on a 20 something page contract that related to my employment, damn right I would read it, and if I didn't understand anything, I would ask a lot of questions.

    And if something can't be explained or I don't like, well, that's what the big black magic marker is for. And if they don't like it, I would just hand it back to them and say: "Goodbye".

    I once paid a year's worth of rent on a lease in advance rather than sign the thing because I didn't like the boilerplate and they wouldn't take it out. The eirxcuse: "The lawyers require that we have that in there" just wasn't cutting it with me.

    Screw that. You don't have to sign ANYTHING.

    By Blogger Tom C, at 12 September, 2005 17:54  

  • However, most people leave it to their attorney's to read and review legal agreements, call out and explain significant provisions, and either advise for or against signing in accordance with protecting their client's interests.

    I have had way too much experience with lawyers. If you think they don't make mistakes, you are a fool.

    If you don't monitor their work then you are not doing your job as a client. EVERYONE who has has significant dealings with lawyers knows that.

    Look, buddy, maybe Al Franken learned the hard way. I learned the hard way too. And you keep signing stuff without reading and understanding it, then you will learn the hard way, also.

    You are pretty short in the wisdom and common-sense department - what are you, like 22 years old or something?

    By Blogger Tom C, at 12 September, 2005 17:59  

  • You are pretty short in the wisdom and common-sense department - what are you, like 22 years old or something?

    And you're pretty destitute in the brains and honesty departments.

    Look, buddy, maybe Al Franken learned the hard way. I learned the hard way too. And you keep signing stuff without reading and understanding it, then you will learn the hard way, also.

    Then get a better attorney instead of that crack-ho you've shacked up with.

    I have full confidence in our group's attorney and my personal attorney who have worked with me with 5 years and 9 years respectively. I review with them what needs to be reviewed. Both have served me exceptionally well. I have never regretted following their advice.

    Also...you seem to be totally confused about whether Franken breached this agreement (no known claims to such, no evidence) and the actual situation where his public statements have simply been at odds with an item in the settlement agreement. That's not a breach, you dumb ass. I guess that reading problem and that sore GOP ass might be distracting you.

    OK. So you have read and can recall every part of every legal document you've ever signed. Let's put you to the test. On your mortgage agreement, there will be a list of explicit waivers. What are they? Now. No pulling them out of the filing drawer. Go. Go Go. Go.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 12 September, 2005 19:25  

  • But you know what I think is really funny?...
    How few people are posting comments to Baloney's blog. Baloney got less than 20 comment posts to this latest slimey piece and 7 of them are from me!! Perhaps all the wing-nuts out there are evolving some brains afterall. But that's a wild theory at best.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 12 September, 2005 19:48  

  • That's not a breach, you dumb ass

    What? Put down that crack pipe, Phil-o - and show me where I said he breached the contract!?

    Dumb-ass.


    ha ha ha ha

    By Blogger Tom C, at 12 September, 2005 22:29  

  • Lucinda Breeding: Janeane Garofalo, an anchor on the liberal talk radio syndicate Air America, chose to scream at a religious caller who took her to task for joining mainstream America and labeling Scientologists as freaks, or something like that.

    Or something like that? Real editorializing that.

    Washington Times: The scandal involves the funnelling of tax dollars intended for children to fund a failing partisan radio venture. His prevarications look much like what he criticizes in others.

    Bunch of whorish offspring of Moonies, that.

    By Blogger WHT, at 12 September, 2005 22:39  

  • But you know what I think is really funny?...
    How few people are posting comments to Baloney's blog. Baloney got less than 20 comment posts to this latest slimey piece and 7 of them are from me!! Perhaps all the wing-nuts out there are evolving some brains afterall. But that's a wild theory at best.


    Not as funny as instructive. An anatomy of a would-be RatherGate trying to keep its head above the water.

    The gang here is like a group of backyard picnicker's swatting away mosquitoes, making the ignorant assumption that they will make a dent in the population.

    By Blogger WHT, at 12 September, 2005 22:55  

  • What? Put down that crack pipe, Phil-o - and show me where I said he breached the contract!?

    OK.


    Look, buddy, maybe Al Franken learned the hard way. I learned the hard way too. And you keep signing stuff without reading and understanding it, then you will learn the hard way, also.


    What did you mean "Franken" learned the hard way, I learned the hard way too" if you weren't referring to breaching legal agreements?

    Dumb ass!

    Also, I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate that you have read and can recall every part of every document in your mortgage. Come on. Where is it? Or are you going to tail it and run again?

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 13 September, 2005 08:03  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger Tom C, at 13 September, 2005 10:45  

  • Or are you going to tail it and run again?

    ha ha ha ha

    I didn't turn tail and run - YOU have had your head handed to you with every sorry-assed Al Frankenberry and Hairball America excuse you have come up with!

    Your name-calling and temper trantrums are SO much fun to watch - I feel guilty over enjoying them so much.

    By Blogger Tom C, at 13 September, 2005 10:46  

  • ha ha ha

    Oh, and in answer to your questions dumb ass,

    What did you mean "Franken" learned the hard way, I learned the hard way too" if you weren't referring to breaching legal agreements?

    How the frick do you get THAT?

    ha ha ha ha

    Also, I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate that you have read and can recall every part of every document in your mortgage.

    Well, you didn't ask ME that question, dumb ass, so maybe that's why I didn't answer it.

    Anyway, dumb ass, reading everything when you sign it and therefore having total recall years later is not a logical inference.

    You clearly don't even have a fundamental grasp of the most simple concepts of logic, and I don't have time to give you 16 liberal arts credits in a few blog comments.

    Go to college, study those liberal arts electives, and then come back in 4 years when you are all grown up, sonny boy. Then, maybe we'll let you sit at the big people's table.

    By Blogger Tom C, at 13 September, 2005 10:59  

  • Hey, look, I've got a lease agreement right in front of me that someone sent me a few weeks ago.

    Not only DID I READ IT, I crossed out and changed stuff I didn't like.

    That is what INTELLEGENT people do when asked to sign legal documents.

    But, you know what, if I put this away, there is no way I could recite the lease back to you word for word.

    No one could, and thet is why we keep notes and hard copies.

    Phil's "straw man" that you have to be able to recite this stuff off the top of your head to prove you read it is so lame that it proves only one thing...

    That Phil M is a dumb ass!

    By Blogger Tom C, at 13 September, 2005 11:15  

  • Look... I know you're a little senile... but you really should see someone about this incoherent ranting.

    Also, I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate that you have read and can recall every part of every document in your mortgage.

    Well, you didn't ask ME that question, dumb ass, so maybe that's why I didn't answer it.


    You're a coward. I asked you to list the explicit waivers in your current mortgage agreement as a demonstration that you have read every part of every legal document you signed (as you claim and as you expect Franken to have done) and can recall any such part of any such document at any time (again as you expect of Franken). It's that simple, limp dick.
    If you can't do it then that's fine. But then your assertion that Franken "lied" looks like dried dog-shit blowing away in the wind.

    Anyway, dumb ass, reading everything when you sign it and therefore having total recall years later is not a logical inference.

    Geesh you're an idiot...you've just conceded that Franken could have everything read that he signed but wasn't able to recall it. And you're telling me about logical errors??!! Pull yourself together, limp dick.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 13 September, 2005 11:42  

  • Phil's "straw man" that you have to be able to recite this stuff off the top of your head to prove you read it is so lame that it proves only one thing...


    Again... you've just conceded that Franken could have read the settlement agreement but could not recall it's details. You're assertion that he "lied" has now blown up your ass. Dumb ass!

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 13 September, 2005 11:48  

  • ha ha ha ha

    No more kissing and making up with you, Phil, you're sleeping on the couch tonight!

    By Blogger Tom C, at 13 September, 2005 13:38  

  • But then your assertion that Franken "lied" looks like dried dog-shit blowing away in the wind.


    We've already reached an agreement on the "lying" thing, dumb ass, you and I were both content agreeing that Frankenberry is just a plain fool.

    So, were you telling the truth when you agreed to that?

    Or were you just saying ANYTHING hoping I would give you a big wet kiss?

    That's the only thing I can think of because - according to the democRATS - if it's about sex - it isn't a lie!

    By Blogger Tom C, at 13 September, 2005 13:43  

  • Just to recap...

    Poor ol' Tom C was bleating on over and over again how Franken "lied"; that Franken stated that he didn't know about the loan from Gloria Wise when allegedly he did know about it. The so-called proof? His signature on a settlement agreement that includes details of the loan.

    But we all know that many people (even if it is just some stupid people) don't read legal agreements that they sign (either in part or in full). In fact, many people are simply unable to read and understand legal agreements because they have no legal background and therefore depend on attorneys to read and explain such agreements to them, and to recommend to them whether they should sign agreements or not.

    So Tom C claims that he reads every legal agreement that he signs and anyone who doesn't is a fool. Perhaps. But it happens nonetheless. And so the assertion that Franken definitely without a doubt "lied" is now in doubt - Franken could have been just a stupid fool who didn't read the settlement agreement for himself before he signed it.

    And so Tom C concedes Franken is either a liar or a fool. Alright.

    But you know what happens then? Tom C gives it all away like the local ass-bitch at a GOP slime-fest.

    In order to demonstrate that he does read every legal agreement that he signs, Tom C was asked to recall a randomly selected clause in his mortgage.

    Tom C chose his lease agreement:

    Not only DID I READ IT, I crossed out and changed stuff I didn't like.
    That is what INTELLEGENT people do when asked to sign legal documents.

    But, you know what, if I put this away, there is no way I could recite the lease back to you word for word.

    Phil's "straw man" that you have to be able to recite this stuff off the top of your head to prove you read it is so lame that it proves only one thing...


    So Tom C claims that it is unreasonable to expect people to "recite this stuff off the top of your head".

    So Franken may not have been a fool who didn't read the settlement agreement. He actually may have read the entire thing for himself but simply couldn't recall that the agreement included details of the Gloria Wise loan. Indeed, as Tom C claims it is "lame" to expect anyone to recall such details.

    Thanks Tom C. I'm sure there's a community college nearby that can help you out with your demonstrated shortcomings in simple logic.

    The thing that really strikes me is how he fell for it. Tom C could have kept retreating from the question. He would have been called a limp-dick coward yet he would have lived to fight another day.

    BTW, Tom C, here's your head.
    Dumb ass! HA HA HA HA

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 13 September, 2005 14:15  

  • He actually may have read the entire thing for himself but simply couldn't recall that the agreement included details of the Gloria Wise loan.

    ha ha ha ha

    Quite a streach!

    "there is no way I could recite the lease back to you word for word. "

    THAT was your demand - that one recite old legal writing verbatim -and because that is impossible you make the leap of logic that, therefore, one can be expected to remember NOTHING!

    Gee... back to community college for YOU!

    ha ha ha


    Quite a trick you tried to pull...

    But as usual - you CAME UP SHORT!

    ha ha ha

    Anyway, I take it you want to re-open the "Al Franken Is A Liar" argument?

    By Blogger Tom C, at 13 September, 2005 16:24  

  • Tom C, give it up buddy - it's over. Your incoherent cackling is not going to change that.

    THAT was your demand - that one recite old legal writing verbatim -and because that is impossible you make the leap of logic that, therefore, one can be expected to remember NOTHING!

    BZZZZZZZT!
    Nice try. You're not getting away with trying to squeeze "verbatim" in there. That was NOT what I asked. (That reading problem of yours again.) I asked you to list items from a randomly selected clause in a common legal agreement. (ie. explicit waivers in a mortgage agreement) - paraphrased, verbatim, whatever.

    And you admitted: ...that you have to be able to recite this stuff off the top of your head to prove you read it is so lame...

    But you do highlight another interesting point: Some people might even be able to recite the list of waivers in their lease agreement either from the top of your head or reading from the document, verbatim, paraphrased. But without legal training, how would they fully understand them and/or fully appreciate their significance/implications??

    Also, you're not getting away with making out that I jumped to: "therefore, one can be expected to remember NOTHING." Only as far as: therefore, one cannot be expected to remember everything.

    You're really not very good at this, are you? It looks like you'll have to complete high school before they'll even consider you for community college.


    Quite a trick you tried to pull...
    But as usual - you CAME UP SHORT!


    Ahhh...no. You know...you're really quite hilarious sometimes when jump up and down screaming "I WON" when all one has to do is simply read your posts to show otherwise.

    Anyway, I take it you want to re-open the "Al Franken Is A Liar" argument?

    Why? Thinking of shifting ground?

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 13 September, 2005 18:00  

  • ha ha ha ha

    Oh Phil, I am laughing so hard. It must suck to be you.

    ha ha ha ha

    First you try:

    Has everyone here read every word of their mortgage documents (or explicitly reviewed every word with their lawyer) before their lawyer gave the OK to sign them?

    Then Peter and I blow you away.

    You should have gone home at that point, so you try a more desperate tack:

    If everybody here without exception can demonstrate that they read every part of every document they signed during their last property transaction, and can recall every part of every document 9 months afterwards,

    Your requirement that Franken is responsible for what he signed is that EVERYONE be able to remember EVERYTHING about anything they sign!

    Since they can not - by your logic NO ONE is EVER responsible for ANYTHING they sign!

    * BZZZZZTTTTT!*

    Then you try this mysterious "breached" angle - what were you thinking?

    ha ha ha ha

    Then:

    Also, I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate that you have read and can recall every part of every document in your mortgage.

    Gosh, despite your backpeddling - that sound pretty close to "verbatim" to me.

    So, you spike the ball, do the happy dance in the end zone and it gets called back, and you want to "clarify" your remarks!

    You can clarify all day long - what you are TRYING to say is:

    SINCE NO ONE CAN REMEMBER EVERYTHING THEY SIGNED, THEN AL FRANKEN IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANYTHING HE SIGNED!

    ha ha ha ha

    So, who is the limp dick now?

    ha ha ha ha

    Hey - just out of curiosity, Al Franken didn't "lie" according to you because he was "forgetful". The old "I do not recall" excuse.

    Or whatever.

    Then, consider - what criteria does Hairball America use to *prove* that Bush lied? Or Rove?

    All I have to do is turn on that station and I hear that limp dick dumb-ass rampage all day long - when I am in range of a station that is, which fortunately isn't often.

    If Airball America applied the same standard for "lying " to Bush and Rove that you grant for Frankenberry, they would have NOTHING TO SAY!

    ha ha ha ha

    Well, I guess that Bush and Rove should be held to a higher standard than...

    ... LYING AL FRANKEN!

    By Blogger Tom C, at 13 September, 2005 21:05  

  • Tom C, I hate to see someone in the state that you're in. Look... I know you're mad. And I know that you really want to get back at me. But you really should get a hang of yourself. Now. Because you're just embarrassing yourself.

    Has everyone here read every word of their mortgage documents (or explicitly reviewed every word with their lawyer) before their lawyer gave the OK to sign them?

    Then Peter and I blow you away.


    Err...no. Wishing on a star for something doesn't make it come true, limp dick. But your fairy-tale optimism will make the folks at Disney very happy.

    Also, I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate that you have read and can recall every part of every document in your mortgage.

    Gosh, despite your backpeddling - that sound pretty close to "verbatim" to me.


    That sounds "pretty close" to "verbatim" to you? Then you really need to go back to school, limp dick - that's not even in an adjacent zip code. Let me help you out. "Verbatim" means "using exactly the same words". No - I asked you to demonstrate that you have read every legal agreement that you have signed (as you claimed) by recalling (whether in your own words or verbatim or whatever) the contents of a randomly selected clause in a common legal agreement. Can you see the difference, limp dick? And you then demonstrated here today that you couldn't do it! Like most people, you had to go back to the relevant document to recall what was in it. So why expect Franken to be any different?

    Your requirement that Franken is responsible for what he signed is that EVERYONE be able to remember EVERYTHING about anything they sign!

    Since they can not - by your logic NO ONE is EVER responsible for ANYTHING they sign!

    SINCE NO ONE CAN REMEMBER EVERYTHING THEY SIGNED, THEN AL FRANKEN IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANYTHING HE SIGNED!


    Those GOP dicks visting your ass must have knocked your brains out, limp dick? You really are quite confused, aren't you? Please try and concentrate - it's really very simple. Franken being responsible for the legal agreement that he signed (he absolutely is) is NOT the same as demonstrating that he "lied" when he said he did not know about the loan. I would ask you to go back and review the posts again but you've demonstrated that your far too stupid to read or understand.

    So I'll go over it again for you. The assertion that Franken definitely, without doubt, "lied" when he said that he didn't know about the loan is thrown into significant uncertainty because no one knows whether his statements were simply the result of a fool who didn't read the agreement, or whether he did read the entire agreement but didn't understand it (because he has no legal background), or whether he read the entire agreement and simply can't recall some of the details (as you demonstrated for us today). But whatever the case may be, he is absolutely responsible for signing the legal agreement. You got it yet, stupid?


    So, who is the limp dick now?


    Err...you are. You wanna go another 'round?

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 13 September, 2005 23:02  

  • ha ha ha ha

    Go back at read your first "apology" for Frankenberry, you tried to say that NO ONE reads what they are handed to sign, and Peter and I contradicted you. That wasn't me wishing on a star, buddy!

    That sounds "pretty close" to "verbatim" to you?

    Well, sure. He's another quote from you:

    I asked you to list items from a randomly selected clause in a common legal agreement. (ie. explicit waivers in a mortgage agreement) - paraphrased, verbatim, whatever.

    According to you:

    Also, I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate that you have read and can recall every part of every document in your mortgage.

    Whatever!

    The assertion that Franken definitely, without doubt, "lied" when he said that he didn't know about the loan is thrown into significant uncertainty

    Let me axe you a question, limp dick. Since Frankenberry made the statement that he "didn't know about" the Gloria Wise loan, (what a month ago?) has he taken the opportunity to "revise and extend" his remarks to explain why he signed a document a year ago, in the presence of a notary, saying the had read the agreement?

    No?

    DO YOU WONDER WHY NOT?

    He has to have some awareness of the increasing drumbeat of negative publicity, I mean he drags out any article from the Washbasin Armpit news that might support his hate Bush campaign, so he clearly know of the stories in the Post, Sun and Washington Times. These people know EVERYTIME their name is mentioned in the press, you know.

    You say it's a leap of logic to concluded that Al Frankenberry is lying.

    You say just because it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and talks like a duck - how DARE I conclude that it is a duck!

    It's not a leap of logic at all - it is common sense!

    ha ha ha ha

    By Blogger Tom C, at 14 September, 2005 11:11  

  • Tom C, if you want another round then please... try to make an effort. And fer Chrissakes...at least go to www.dictionary.com and look up the word "verbatim".

    ...you tried to say that NO ONE reads what they are handed to sign, and Peter and I contradicted you.

    You demonstrate again and again your inability to read or comprehend anything. Here is what I actually posted...
    Has everyone here read every word of their mortgage documents (or explicitly reviewed every word with their lawyer) before their lawyer gave the OK to sign them?

    You and your wingnut assbuddy both claimed that you do. I then said OK, prove it by recalling the contents of a randomly selected part of a common legal agreement. Your assbuddy knew better than to try. You were stupid enough to try and you couldn't do it!! You couldn't recall the specific details without referring to the relevant document thereby demonstrating the possibility that Franken could not recall such details either. In fact, you complained that expecting anyone to recall such details was "lame".

    IF YOU COULDN'T RECALL SUCH DETAILS AND YOU THINK IT'S "LAME" TO EXPECT ANYONE TO RECALL SUCH DETAILS, WHY ARE YOU EXPECTING FRANKEN TO BE ABLE TO???

    Here is what I also posted...
    ... we all know that many people (even if it is just some stupid people) don't read legal agreements that they sign (either in part or in full).

    Your assertion that I stated "NO ONE reads what they are handed to sign" is just more wingnut dog-shit stinking up this blog, limp dick.

    Since Frankenberry made the statement that he "didn't know about" the Gloria Wise loan, (what a month ago?) has he taken the opportunity to "revise and extend" his remarks to explain why he signed a document a year ago, in the presence of a notary, saying the had read the agreement? No? DO YOU WONDER WHY NOT?

    From the Minneapolis Star-Tribune quoted in one of Baloney's recent slimey posts:

    Franken said he had read only portions that pertained to him and that his lawyer, who had reviewed the document, recommended he sign. "The list of other assets and liabilities did not pertain to me because I was not an investor," he said.

    Also, Franken quoted in Malkin's blog:

    "I am not an investor, and I didn't see this thing," Mr. Franken, the comedian and best-selling author who hosts Air America's daily show "The O'Franken Factor," said.

    This is becoming too easy, limp dick. In fact, your wingnut buddies are probably going to give you an extra special ass-drilling tonight for screwing all this up for them. Look. Either try to put forward a decent argument or stop wasting my time.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 14 September, 2005 13:44  

  • Franken said he had read only portions that pertained to him and that his lawyer, who had reviewed the document, recommended he sign. "The list of other assets and liabilities did not pertain to me because I was not an investor," he said.


    So, limp dick, you demonstrate that Frankenberry is telling the truth by presenting HIS OWN WORDS???

    ha ha ha ha

    So, you're stranded on an island, see, and you know there are 2 tribes. Members of one always tells the truth, and one always lies...

    By Blogger Tom C, at 14 September, 2005 14:26  

  • Tom C wrote: ...you demonstrate that Frankenberry is telling the truth by presenting HIS OWN WORDS???

    You must be really really stupid, limp dick. Because you keep forgetting that your words are recorded in this blog for anyone to see. You know (or do you?) and anyone else who wants to read this blog knows, that the Franken quotes I posted were a direct answer to your stupid uninformed query:
    Since Frankenberry made the statement that he "didn't know about" the Gloria Wise loan, (what a month ago?) has he taken the opportunity to "revise and extend" his remarks to explain why he signed a document a year ago, in the presence of a notary, saying the had read the agreement? No? DO YOU WONDER WHY NOT?

    And you were proved wrong yet again, limp dick. Then you return with a pathetic dishonest rejoinder.

    So, you're stranded on an island, see, and you know there are 2 tribes. Members of one always tells the truth, and one always lies...

    Thanks for demonstrating so vividly that you wingnuts are the lying tribe.

    Are you done embarrassing yourself yet? Or do you want to go 'round again?

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 14 September, 2005 15:00  

  • You must be really really stupid, limp dick.

    ha ha ha ha

    What a reaction!

    Anyway, I stopped reading your posts a couple of days ago. I saw that I didn't have to, there was nothing there, and just picking a phrase or two off at random and showing how silly it was is enough to get you rolling again into a rabid, foaming, vitriolic rant.

    Anyway, just a word on writing style, if you DO want people to read what you right, starting off with the above line is not the best introduction to your ideas.

    Anyway, great job, 'ratsm, what can I say. You are going to love the new Supreme Court. Just keep doing what you are doing, I say!

    I am off for a bit - life calls!

    By Blogger Tom C, at 14 September, 2005 19:09  

  • Anyway, I stopped reading your posts a couple of days ago. I saw that I didn't have to, there was nothing there, and just picking a phrase or two off at random and showing how silly it was is enough to get you rolling again into a rabid, foaming, vitriolic rant.

    Yeah... sure you did. And Peter Pan is waiting to drill your ass at the end of the garden path.

    But it's OK. I imagine that it must have been very difficult for you - given your lack of brains and all. You couldn't answer the question so running and hiding was your only option. I've seen it before - it's standard wingnut MO.

    Here's your head again, limp dick.

    Another wingnut has been beaten back to his slimey bed of lies.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 14 September, 2005 20:14  

Post a Comment

<< Home



 
Page Rank Checker

Powered by Blogger