The case of the lying RWer juror is the Post of the Day #2
Grafic by Dan
Note from Dan: Suzie posted this on the Thursday OPEN thread today at 12:28 p.m. Whether it’s true or not, it’s a great example of how certain conservatives justify lying — just like Mitt Romney did in last week’s presidential debate. It’s unclear whether or not this lawsuit is in a local court, or someplace else, or if Suzie has made the whole juror-story up.
My friend’s businessman husband found out the case for his jury duty is a work injury lawsuit. During the selection process, he was asked “How do you feel about labor unions?” He is a strong right-to-work conservative, but he smartly answered “I believe unions are the backbone of America”.
He got selected.
“This is going to be fun”, my friend texted.
October 11, 2012 - 5:22 PM
That’s vintage Suzie and vintage Karl Rove political tactics. Engage in any unethical, illegal behavior and telkl any lie no matter how heinous as long as you think the outcome is justified or it benefits you.
Dan,
Nice attempt to paint “all” conservatives by the “possible” actions of a “supposed” one. Given your definition, I suppose “all” liberals are now defined by the “obamaphone” lady… (yes I use it as humor).
Anyone (I hope) who has served on jury duty understands the importance of the obligation, and when you sit there understanding that you have the life or livelihood of another person in your decision, it is extremely sobering.
I have been called, I believe five or six times for duty in various courts (which aggravates me because I wonder if there is nobody else to do the job, particularly since many of my friends have never been called); however, when one actually sits in the booth, and hears the facts, you realize the important responsibility.
I don’t know the facts surrounding this case, but I would hope that the juror would find himself fair in his deliberations.
ALL politicians lie. All of them. No matter the party or ideological bent. Doesn’t make it right, I just find these one-sided blogs amusing.
“Nice attempt to paint “all” conservatives by the “possible” actions of a “supposed” one. Given your definition, I suppose “all” liberals are now defined by the “obamaphone” lady… (yes I use it as humor).
–Comment by mikeO
mikeO,
Wow! Rather than put words in your mouth, like you did with me, I’m going to reprint my note from the post. Because you claim I referenced “all” conservatives, and you put quote marks around that word, as if I had written it and you were calling me out on it.
So here’s what I wrote:
Note from Dan: Suzie posted this on the Thursday OPEN thread today at 12:28 p.m. Whether it’s true or not, it’s a great example of how certain conservatives justify lying — just like Mitt Romney did in last week’s presidential debate. It’s unclear whether or not this lawsuit is in a local court, or someplace else, or if Suzie has made the whole juror-story up.
mikeO, if you see the word “all” anywhere in that note, please tell me where it is. In fact, it’s not even a PART of any word in the note, which is the only thing I wrote in that post. Suzie wrote the rest.
Of course, I wrote “certain” conservatives. Have you gleaned what that means, mike? It means “a subset of conservatives.” Which is the equivalent of “NOT all.”
I have to say, though, that I’m not surprised you have pretended that I wrote something exactly the opposite of what I indeed did write. Just like that alleged juror, in the story Suzie told, which I explicitly said she may have made up, you appear to believe that any lie or distortion is justified when it serves a greater purpose.
With the alleged juror, the apparent purpose of the lie was to illegally skew the case for the defendant. In the case of your comment, your lie was for the purpose of criticizing me.
You’re in the same boat as that alleged juror, mikeO. Except, what he did was illegal and immoral. What you did was merely the latter.
And it’s why your credibility is in such tatters on this board.
Rob,
This story isn’t about a politician. This is about a so-called union-despising conservative businessman who lied for the express purpose of getting on a jury in a work-injury lawsuit. Are you arguing that what he did was OK because politicians do it?
I have to agree with Mike O at October 11, 2012 @ 7:10 pm.
Although you said “certain conservatives justify lying [emphasis added]” there is an inference in your isolating the conservatives as justified lying. The left does the same. Just look at the political ads.
Albeit Suzie’s friend’s husband lying under oath is more egregious, IMHO; you have bragged about your own lying right here on your blog.
Rather like the old joke punch like, “we have established what you are, now we are just hassling over price.”
FWIIW, some of the most honest folk I know are very conservative.
BTW, none of the above should be seen as justifying Suzie’s friend’s husband’s despicable lying. The Tu Quoque fallacy, in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser as justification, is a classic subcategory of Red Herring which I despise. In this case, I am not justifying the one by the other but suggesting a curse on both parties houses.
Of course, I wrote “certain” conservatives. Have you gleaned what that means, mike? It means “a subset of conservatives.” Which is the equivalent of “NOT all.”
You’re in the same boat as that alleged juror,… Except, what he did was illegal and immoral.
Comment by Dan Casey — October 11, 2012 @ 7:33 pm
Agreed as to both points. To the former, IMO, the word liberals could be
freely substituted; to the latter, add “and unethical”.
hey ol’ dano,
i can’t imagine any conservative actually looking for credibility from anything you are involved in, especially your blog. any conservative who displays partisan behavior like you, sandi, the Bobsey Twins, etc., has no chance at credibility on YOUR blog.
for you to even mention that as a possibility is indicative of your inherent intellectual dishonesty. but then, you are a lib. what more can we expect? nothing.
If this story from Screwzie is true, it’s also pretty obvious that this businessman is biased in favor of the employer without hearing any evidence yet. If he’s going to flat out lie in court to protect another businessman, what sort of lies does he tell his own employees to protect his own business?
Let’s also not forget how Screwzie illustrated for us how she could ‘lie without really lying’ to secure her own place on a jury.
I wonder how much lying these two business people had to do to build their businesses all by themselves?
Dave@6
You nailed it…quite well.
hey ol’ dano,
by the way, speaking of lies, where is your outrage at the falsified jobs report released today…and stoked by the libs? california evidently didn’t report their data, and well, hmmm…. are you outraged?
Dan, where is your outrage about the bs we’re getting from obama’s administration on the Libya fiasco? By now, even the likes of your partisanship-pickled pea-brain should still be quick enough to know that obama is not following some grand plan which will make all this bs “ok” in the end. Even YOU know that Americans have died, and those in our government who are responsible for their safety, and for OUR safety, are, well…lying.
And back to your point — it matters not whether suzie’s little tale is true. What tells you all you need to know about troll is her glee over the dishonesty.
Anyway, suzie, you whine a lot about not getting a post of the day, so congrats.
YOU know that Americans have died, and those in our government who are responsible for their safety, and for OUR safety, are, well…lying.
Comment by Frank — October 11, 2012 @ 8:21 pm
Agree, the Libya obamation is by far a more despicable event as all involved spoke an oath, failed to act and have blatantly and disgustingly lied about it for political correctness or some other nefarious reason.
Suze must be out to dinner at Golden Corral.
“YOU know that Americans have died, and those in our government who are responsible for their safety, and for OUR safety, are, well…lying.
–Comment by Frank — October 11, 2012 @ 8:21 pm
“Agree, the Libya obamation is by far a more despicable event as all involved spoke an oath, failed to act and have blatantly and disgustingly lied about it for political correctness or some other nefarious reason.”
–Comment by Leon.
I’m certain that Leon believes those American deaths in Libya, which indeed were terrible, are far far far worse than anything that happened in embassy or Marine barracks attacks under Reagan, or GWB, or Lyndon Johnson, or Carter or any other president.
And I suspect that Leon believes they were even worse than what happened on Sept. 11 2001. But if he denies that I’ll take his word for it.
it’s a great example of how certain conservatives justify lying
It’s almost as bad as repeatedly lying to pollsters about one’s voting intentions, then bragging about it.
So was he impeached for lying like Bill Clinton?
suz lies.
The truth dies.
“Suzie says:
it’s a great example of how certain conservatives justify lying
It’s almost as bad as repeatedly lying to pollsters about one’s voting intentions, then bragging about it.
Posted on October 11th, 2012″
ALMOST as bad?! Lying under an oath to God in a court of law is ALMOST as bad as lying to a person who makes unsolicited phone calls to one’s home?! Really?!
Screwzie, honey, lying to a pollster and then bragging about it is the same as when your friends say, “Screwzie, you look GOOD in those skinny jeans for someone your age, girl! And I wouldn’t have known about your Botox treatment if you hadn’t told me, I swear!” then they talk behind their hands through clenched teeth and say, “Can you believe Screwzie was wearing those jeans? Does she think she’s still 25? One more Botox and she’ll be Joan Rivers’ twin!”
See the difference? Committing perjury v little white lies. But if you’re okay with your friend’s hubby lying after swearing to God he would tell the truth, how could you know the difference?
I’m certain that Leon believes those American deaths in Libya, which indeed were terrible, are far far far worse than anything that happened in embassy or Marine barracks attacks under Reagan, or GWB, or Lyndon Johnson, or Carter or any other president.
And I suspect that Leon believe they were even worse than what happened on Sept. 11 2001. But if he denies that I’ll take his word for it.
Comment by Dan Casey — October 11, 2012 @ 8:51 pm
Why would you even suggest that one loss of America citizens is worse than
another? You miss the point; it is by far the worst response and reaction by any administration. . .to blatantly lie about it. It’s like
comparing Watergate to Fast & Furious. Your certainty isn’t worth spit.
#16 Wow, suzie, you couldn’t have made a more ignorant, stupid statement if you had spent a week or two trying. Somebody please mark this one down. What a dolt.
21.#16 Wow, suzie, you couldn’t have made a more ignorant, stupid statement if you had spent a week or two trying. Somebody please mark this one down. What a dolt.
Comment by gdad — October 11, 2012 @ 10:28 pm
Nope…mark 21 down…gdad stupid and…ignorant…he doesn’t realize Dan
doe what Suzie infers by his own admission. Loserdad.
Dan,
Of course it doesn’t make it right! The person should be jailed for perjury or contempt of court.
The story is just that – someone lying on jury duty. YOU introduced the politician’s name when the story has nothing to do with Romney. Do you really believe all liberals tell the truth all the time?
I realize this is an opinion blog and part of your intent is to create a stir to encourage feedback and increase page views. It would just be more educational and frankly, civil, if passions were under control.
I don’t have allegiance to any party or ideology, I like some things about Republicans and some things about Democrats. I’ll vote for Obama in November but that doesn’t mean I think he tells the truth 100% of the time.
Ask yourself honestly – would you have made a similar comment about certain liberals if the story was about a union-loving person lying and saying they disliked unions to get on jury duty?
Lying under an oath to God in a court of law is ALMOST as bad as lying to a person who makes unsolicited phone calls to one’s home?! Really?!
Answering questions from some pompous leftwing trial lawyer isn’t done under oath, genius. He’s there to skew the truth anyway. I say thwart the lying windbag from making millions off the backs of honest corporations all you can.
Does it occur to you right wing geniuses that your posts bear out what Dan and others accuse as opposed to proving him wrong? No, I didn’t think so. It is the consistent theme here. It would be incredible for any group of people to be so intent on their hate, distortions and lies to completely ignore the hole they themselves are digging, but it happens here 7 days a week.
The Roanoke valley owes Dan a debt for the exposure he gives the right wingers here. I have used it often as proof of the riotous hypocrisy of the right wing. It is somewhat incredible, but you manage to make Obama look good and liberals look better, just in comparison.
Thanks!
My suspicions are that SuzieQ’s alledged friend wants out of jury duty. Having SuzieQ post about his dilemma on a public forum just might be the ticket. Just saying…
Have you ever noticed that a disproportionate number of people that don’t agree with Dan’s liberal leaning columns and comments refer to him as Dan-o or some other form of nickname as if they were buddies?
I wonder why that is? Does it make them feel like they are folksy?
scott, the “ole dano” stuff is annoying.
“I wonder why that is? Does it make them feel like they are folksy?”–Scott
Good question, Scottie-baby.
“Answering questions from some pompous leftwing trial lawyer isn’t done under oath, genius. He’s there to skew the truth anyway. I say thwart the lying windbag from making millions off the backs of honest corporations all you can.”
Potential jurors are sworn in, genius.
You do realize there are TWO attorneys per jury trial, don’t you? Are they both lying windbags?
And from my understanding of God and the Bible, lying is wrong, all the time. Did Jesus ever lie to ‘win’? No.
Pretty telling that your friend’s hubby had so little faith in the business on trial winning the case, that he had to lie to be seated on the jury.
Just drop it, Screwzie. You’ve only shown, again, that your Catholic principles are as fake as you are.
Re: Comment by Suzie — October 12, 2012 @ 8:04 am
Answering questions from some pompous leftwing trial lawyer isn’t done under oath, genius.
—————-
IANAL and have not been called to jury duty here in Virginia.
However, in my experience, elsewhere, the clerk or bailiff asks all the potential jurors to stand, hold up their right hands, and swear or affirm that the will truthfully answer the questions about to be asked of them — either at each voir dire for each case or when the “pool” is assembled. Is that not true here in Virginia?
In many, if not most, States, lying in the voir dire constitutes perjury or obstruction of justice – typically felony offenses.
Is Suzie totally wrong, yet again?
In Suzie’s world no worker is ever legitimately injured on the job. They’re always liars trying to cheat their honest employer out of money.
#28 Which is precisely why they do it, Kristen.
That was my experience in Indiana and North Carolina Dave Hicks. I was sworn in prior to my questioning as a potential juror.
Re: Comment by Ron May — October 12, 2012 @ 10:56 am
I cannot envision it not being true in Virginia, also.
BTW, at the federal level here is a SCOTUS case:
http://tinyurl.com/93z7ysj
**
CLARK v. U.S., 289 U.S. 1 (1933)
289 U.S. 1
CLARK
v.
UNITED STATES.
No. 531.
Argued Feb. 6, 7, 1933.
Decided March 13, 1933.
SNIP
The petitioner, Genevieve A. Clark, has been adjudged guilty of a criminal contempt, in that with intent to obstruct justice she gave answers knowingly misleading and others knowingly false in response to questions affecting her qualifications as a juror (D.C.) 1 F.Supp. 747.
The conviction by the District Court was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; the proceeding being remanded, however, to correct an error in the sentence. 61 F.(2d) 695. A writ of certiorari brings the case here. 287 U.S. 595 , 53 S.Ct. 314, 77 L.Ed. –.
SNIP
The judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals is accordingly affirmed.
**
Speaking of the honesty of corporations, there are 14 families with a family member now dead due to the ‘honest’ work of this company:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2012/10/12/meningitis-fungal-outbreak.html
“Fungus has been found in at least 50 vials of an injectable steroid medication made at a specialty compounding pharmacy in Massachusetts, investigators said. Health authorities haven’t yet said how they think the medication was contaminated, but they have ruled out other suspects — other products used in administering the shots — and the focus continues to be on that pharmacy, the New England Compounding Center.
Compounding pharmacies traditionally supply products that aren’t commercially available, unlike the steroid at issue in the outbreak. And Dr. Madeleine Biondolillo of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health said it appears the company violated state law governing those pharmacies, which aren’t supposed to do large-scale production like a drug manufacturer. Instead, they’re supposed to produce medication for patient-specific prescriptions, she said.
“This organization chose to apparently violate the licensing requirements under which they were allowed to operate,” she told reporters.
Company officials weren’t immediately available to comment Thursday but earlier this week declined comment except to say they were cooperating with the investigation.”
#22 Thank you, Leon, for the proof that you’re as much of a dolt as suzie.
And from my understanding of God and the Bible, lying is wrong
So you mean Dan is in trouble for telling whoppers to those pollsters?
In Suzie’s world no worker is ever legitimately injured on the job. They’re always liars trying to cheat their honest employer out of money.
I have a big problem with leftwing trial lawyers advertising during loser television slots like Judge Joe Brown and marching out black ‘victims” and touching them as if they were household pets, then talking the audience on a first-grade level while they showing off their monogrammed cufflinked shirts and manicured mega offices. Anything someone can do to make these thieves waste their time and money sounds good to me. It’s not like these pettifoggers are after the most intelligent thoughtful jurors anyway. My friend says half the jury in this particular case are unemployed. Getting dumb down-and-outers to award lottery-style awards is the objective.
Since truth is not the goal here, my friend’s husband simply decided he would do his part.
“I have a big problem with leftwing trial lawyers advertising during loser television slots like Judge Joe Brown and marching out black ‘victims” and touching them as if they were household pets, then talking the audience on a first-grade level while they showing off their monogrammed cufflinked shirts and manicured mega offices. Anything someone can do to make these thieves waste their time and money sounds good to me.”
Who is Judge Joe Brown?
And how would Suzie know whether or not trial lawyers advertise on that show?
These trial lawyers include Suzie’s heroes like Morgan Griffith, Robert Hurt, Greg Habeeb, Bill Stanley, etc. Of course they’re not the “evil” trial lawyers despute the fact that they do the same things all trial lawyers do. But they happen to be Republicans so they’re ok. Hypopcrisy is not a word in her vocabulary.
Of course she is lying Dave Hicks. I hav e served on both civil and criminal juries in state and federal court in Va. and prospecrtive jurors are swoprn in before voi dire.
“My friend says half the jury in this particular case are unemployed. Getting dumb down-and-outers to award lottery-style awards is the objective.”
So now the unemployed are no longer valuable employees that were unfortunately laid off by the honest business owners who are struggling in this terrible economy. Now they are ‘dumb down-and-outers’.
Of course she is lying Dave Hicks. I hav e served on both civil and criminal juries in state and federal court in Va. and prospecrtive jurors are swoprn in before voi dire.
It isn’t me on the jury, so I don’t know 100% of what the procedure is as for swearing in, but technically you can’t say my friend’s husband lied. The attorney asked for an opinion. You can’t say an opinion is a lie.
Dan:
“Who is Judge Joe Brown?”
He’s an older than middle age, black, mellow TV judge. I like him better than Judge Judy or The People’s Court. He has a sense of humor and seems to be more fair as opposed to geting in catfights with the parties and getting heavy-handed as a result.
Contrasuzie:
“So now the unemployed are no longer valuable employees that were unfortunately laid off by the honest business owners who are struggling in this terrible economy. Now they are ‘dumb down-and-outers’.”
Contra, it disgusts me to hear her say stuff like that. Arguably, it was a dumb decision made by the boss that has kept her from being a down-and-outer herself.
Color me stunned that SuzieQ watches daytime tv. Oprah indeed.
And yes this fairy tale about her “friend’s husband” is pure attention grubbing fantasy. I have to assume that whomever this “Suzie” person is doesn’t get much attention wherever they call home.
So, John W, is Judge Joe Brown’s show full of trial lawyer ads? Was Suzie accurate about that?
Dan, the commercails during Judge Joe Brown’s show are littered with personal injury lawyer ads.
So now the unemployed are no longer valuable employees that were unfortunately laid off by the honest business owners who are struggling in this terrible economy. Now they are ‘dumb down-and-outers’.
Do you think these leftwing ambulance chasers want well-educated hard-working intelligent juries to decide these important cases where millions of dolllars are at stake.? Hell no. They want bums who think they were “screwed by the man” and want to help get back at these greedy corporations and award lottery-sized judgements. If you think otherwise, you’re stupid as hell.
Suzie:
“Do you think these leftwing ambulance chasers want well-educated hard-working intelligent juries to decide these important cases where millions of dolllars are at stake.? Hell no. They want bums who think they were “screwed by the man” and want to help get back at these greedy corporations and award lottery-sized judgements. If you think otherwise, you’re stupid as hell.”
There’s a lot of truth to this. What I was getting at is that you think someone who lost their job is now automatically ingorant, inferior, and down-and-out. Yes, the ambulance chasers want those.
Suzie getting out of jury duty:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTyg5rhGkX8
Golden Corral + Walmart + Judge Joe + the klatch.
This is the life of an alleged key member of the Roanoke Valley power elite.
Just sayin’
Golden Corral + Walmart + Judge Joe + the klatch.
This is the life of an alleged key member of the Roanoke Valley power elite.
Just sayin’
I’ve intentionally stopped talking about the day jet trips and the weekend vacations we’ve taken this year, Dan, because you accused me of bragging.
Past exchange with Dan:
Dan: “Suzie, tell us more about your charity
Suzie: (Explains it)
Dan: “Now Suzie’s bragging about her charity”
You just can’t win with envious leftwingers. They can’t be pleased.
I have to assume that whomever this “Suzie” person is doesn’t get much attention wherever they call home.
….said the person who made no fewer than 40 posts while on her ”beach vacation”.
These trial lawyers include Suzie’s heroes like Morgan Griffith, Robert Hurt, Greg Habeeb, Bill Stanley, etc.
Never seen a single ambulance-chasing ad by any of these men on loser TV. Have you?
hey dano,
your #15 post-above, to leon, concerning some of the bad things you note happened under other presidents somehow makes the lying and ineptness of obuma’s Libya fiasco….ok? …is acceptable to the likes of you? your reasoning is weak. sounds like a lemming mentality. your guy’s administration was gonna be the “most transparant” in history, remember? he ran on hope and change, remember? he was gonna be ‘better” than those who preceeded him… yeah, right.
soo, your answer to leon implies, “others did as bad or worse” as obama….which makes obuma above your scrutiny? typical. you and your ilk swallow ALL the kool-aid obuma can produce.
whatcha think billary is gonna have to say about the recent turn of events, eh?
Greg Habeeb is one of the lawyers who sued former Franklin County Sheriff Ewell Hunt because of the sheriff’s inaction in the Jonathan Agee incident. I think they got almost $1 million for Agee’s little girl. That was certainly a righteous case. Good going, Matt Broughton and Greg.
‘I’ve intentionally stopped talking about the day jet trips and the weekend vacations we’ve taken this year, Dan, because you accused me of bragging.’
Ole dano was just being polite. The rest of us called you out for lying.
Frank, investigate the whole “capital letter” thing. It will make your posts look like something other than what shows up when someone’s cat walks across the keyboard.
“I’ve intentionally stopped talking about the day jet trips and the weekend vacations we’ve taken this year, Dan, because you accused me of bragging.”
I stand corrected: Judge Joe + Walmart + the klatch + flying in a private jet to have lunch at the Golden Corral in Newark, NJ.
Dan – you have given a new name to a “broom” by calling it a “flying in a private jet “? Well the steps on our front porch need a little “flying in a private jet” action…
“They want bums who think they were “screwed by the man””
As opposed to business owners who think they’ve been ‘screwed by the economy’ when, in actuality, they are victims of their own inept business management? Because, you know, those guys build businesses with no one’s help, but when those businesses take a downturn or fail, it’s the economy’s fault, not theirs.
“Answering questions from some pompous leftwing trial lawyer isn’t done under oath, genius.”
Vs.
“It isn’t me on the jury, so I don’t know 100% of what the procedure is as for swearing in….”
—–
So, are you apologizing for you insult based on your ignorance, which you have now acknowledged? IOW, acknowledging, yet another, loss?
———-
“…but technically you can’t say my friend’s husband lied. The attorney asked for an opinion. You can’t say an opinion is a lie. [emphasis added]”
—-
As to “opinion” — the following is from the case that I cited above, “[The lower court] drew the conclusion also that she had obstructed the administration of justice by stating falsely that she was free from bias and that her verdict would be based only upon the evidence as [289 U.S. 1, 10] introduced, and the law as given by the court.” That is the “obstructed the administration of justice” conviction come from her stated opinion relative to her bias. Rather the same as your alleged case.
So, you are wrong, get again.
Friday evening I picked up some beer on the way home from work. And I spent a few minutes talking to the clerk in the convenience store. It was a guy so we know it wasn’t pammala. He’s a Vietnam vet.
“Do you know that lady . . ?” he said, and he mentioned a woman I actually do know. She’s a a local business owner who I’ve quoted at least twice in my columns. Her husband owns a different local business, and I’ve contracted with the latter for a couple of jobs.
“She was in here the other night, buying something,” the clerk said. “I guess she noticed I had a red shirt on or something. And she said, ‘Are you REGISTERED TO VOTE?’ and I said, “I sure am.’ And she said, “You’re voting for Romney, right?’ I guess she assumed I was because I’m white, and I had a red shirt. And I told her, ‘No, I’m not voting for Romney. Are you kidding?’
“Well, she totally flew off the handle. She started talking about business regulations [on her husband's business] and all the rules he had to follow under the Obama administration, and all the fines he’d face if he didn’t.
“And I said, ‘Lady, if he has some rules he has to follow, he needs to take care of business. All of us have to follow rules. He needs to figure that out.
“She lost it. She started shouting and yelling. And as she walked out the door, she delivered her parting shot: ‘You all ARE A BUNCH OF COMMUNISTS!’ ”
True story!
Yes, because regulations were born 3 years ago.
Rmoney voters are idiots.
Dave Hicks – catching and correcting the mountain of lies repeatedly provided by the Leader “most ill-informed” [and its faction] would be more work than 10,000 monks could refute in a lifetime.
I, for one, appreciate your diligence.
Buy stock in Reynold’s Aluminum.
Kristen,
I looked up the specific regs she was talking to the clerk about. They were the product of the Bush administration, in 2008. But the Bush administration delayed their implementation to allow the industry they affected time to prepare for them, which makes some sense. They went into effect in 2010.
It’s all Obama’s fault. And anyone who doesn’t realize that is a communist!
Obama should have thrown himself on those regulations like a grenade to keep them from exploding in the face of our oppressed small business owners. Sort of the way he should have thrown himself on that ambassador’s body.
Suzie
I have seen television and/or other advertising from 3 of the four lawyers that I mentioined. The only one I haven’t seen advertising from is habeeb and that doesn’t mean he doesn’t do it. And just for the record,
I’m not disparaging these lawyers for what they are doing.They are lawyers. Our system is set up for people who have been wronged or injured to have their day in court and have legal representation. My point is that personal injury and trial lawyers come from both sides of the political spectrum. They are not some left wing cabal bent on the destruction of all that you hold holy and worship— the almighty capitalist and unethical cheating business owner. I alos do not chracterize all business owners as uethical cheaters. But the ones who are, just like all criminals deserve what they get.
If you don’t hate Obama, you’re obviously a communist.
The attorney asked for an opinion. You can’t say an opinion is a lie.
Comment by Suzie — October 13, 2012 @ 8:47 am
So, what SuzieQ is saying folks is that even when you are under oath, it’s okay to lie because you were asked for an opinion. It’s okay to lie about what you truly believe.
That explains why it’s okay, in SuzieQ’s opinion, for Mitt Romney & Paul Ryan to say one thing one time and another totally different thing the next time. We wouldn’t want to require them to say what they truly believe now would we???
Thank you, Dave H.
I would now like to give a personal example of how an opinion can be a lie. If someone asked me what I think of the blogger named Suzie and I said I think she’s a very nice, honest person, I would be lying.
My point is that personal injury and trial lawyers come from both sides of the political spectrum.
TLA the biggest Democrat contributor in the country, ace. Please stop playing charades.
hey dano,
while I don’t question the integrity of the clerk, I can’t see how YOU can say his story IS TRUE. For goodness sakes, for all we KNOW, you made the whole story up.
You should re-phrase your “true story” label to something more along the line of, “this guy says the story he told me is true,…and so do I”.
I didn’t make it up, Frank. It is true that he relayed it to me.
Re: Comment by Shrillary — October 13, 2012 @ 10:52 am
Shrillary,
Not much diligence involved. I don’t even try to catch all of them. OTOH, his/her outright lies, total lack of logic, redundant undocumented / unattributed claims, etc are just far too numerous to miss all of them.
For that matter, I don’t even read all of her/his posts. I pick and chose what fiction I read — both in books and on the web. For example, I don’t care much for the fantasy genre — albeit I do agree that Tolkien, Martin, Feist & Wurts, et al do write quite well, have creative flair, and weaving storylines that appeal to others. Were old Rants & Raves (w/ lies) to write that well, I could see some being interested in read her/his whimsicality nonsense. But, not I.
However, some of the fantasies posted by old Rants & Raves (w/ lies) are just so egregious that, when they come to my attention, I can’t pass on them.
Based on suzie’s “logic” next time I’m being questioned by a right-wing lawyer defending some large corporation, I’ll lie about my views. I’m sure suzie would approve.
Suzie ??? You`ve done very well…Poor little Dave is just beside himself(its probably a 24-hour thing) #77…As far as Gdud goes, we know you have no problem lying…you have no choice, its the only way the left can advance a failing ideology.
hey dano, you lie. you said, “true story” in reference to the “story you then told”. squirm it any way you want, ’cause that’s what you do. maybe you can write a 15 inch column explaining what you REALLY meant to say, or shoulda said, in order to be accurate, eh?
Poor little Jeffy.
His idol Suzie is totally destroyed (even acknowledging she/he did know what he/she was talking about) and Jeffy is in denial.
#78 I don’t lie, Dolto. But we all know suzie does — and even endorses it among others.
Can any of you prove my friend’s husband lied? No?
“Can any of you prove my friend’s husband lied? No?”
No. But if he didn’t lie, then you did. The latter is much more likely, we’re all well aware.
Oh yes, we can be pleased Suzie. Leave and we will prove it.
No. But if he didn’t lie, then you did. The latter is much more likely, we’re all well aware.
I did? LOL. Now I’m expected to be a mind-reader.
But Dan clearly doesn’t object to lying since he admits lying to pollsters on numerous occasions. Why are you silent on Dan’s lying, Granddad?
Suze,
You wrote: “During the selection process, he was asked ‘How do you feel about labor unions?’ He is a strong right-to-work conservative, but he smartly answered ‘I believe unions are the backbone of America.’ “
The two possibilities here are that 1) he indeed is a strong right-to-work advocate who concealed his antipathy for unions with a lie; or 2) He never said that and you made it up.
Someone lied; it’s unclear who. You have a track record of it here on this blog. That’s why my money is on you.
Re: Comment by Dan Casey — October 15, 2012 @ 5:18 pm
Dan,
There are other possibility:
1) The husband, in fact, concealed his antipathy for unions with a lie, while under oath during the voir dire; or
2) he did not lie under oath during the voir dire — but rather told Suzie (to shut her up???); or
3) his wife not him, told Suzie a tall tale (to impress her???); or
4) neither he or his wife told Suzie anything of the sort and Suzie made it up — whole-cloth.
All of which is, IMHO, secondary to:
A) Suzie reporting it here with pride and subsequently defends it — as exemplary behavior, ethical, Right-wing folk-lore, urban legend, or whatever; and
B) Suzie subsequently insisting that voir dire is not under oath; and
C) Suzie, in her ignorance, insulting Countersuzie, who was correct; and
D) Suzie’s failing to do the honorable thing and apologize to Countersuzie (IMHO the greatest demonstration of her lack of class).
Throughout this exchange over multiple threads Suzie has repeatedly been the loser.
Comment by Suzie — October 15, 2012 @ 4:55 pm
If you don’t understand the difference between a minor lie in an informal exchange and lying under oath in a court of law, heaven help you.
If, on the other hand, you are equating Dan admitting lying to pollsters on numerous occasions to your tale, are you now admitting lying to others on this blog — hence equality you seem to think exist?
I’ve pressed the incorrect buttons to robocall polls on numerous occasions. Now who did I lie to?
Didn’t Suzie lecture us all about how to get on a jury by getting around such questions once before? I think the archives will have it. She has no credibility, why would her imaginary friends or their spouses?
Can you believe it? These are the people who defend Clinton who provably LIED under oath. Was impeached for it. Was disbarred for it. And yet they condemn my friend’s husband who, shall we say tailored his opinion a little.
Re: Comment by Suzie — October 15, 2012 @ 9:46 pm
And yet they condemn my friend’s husband who, shall we say tailored his opinion a little.
———
Delusional rewriting of history at its finest.
Show us where I defend Clinton.
Explain how your statement, “He is a strong right-to-work conservative, but he smartly answered ‘I believe unions are the backbone of America.’.” is just “tailored his opinion a little.” Did you even bother to read the SCOTUS case to which I posted a link?
When you have dug yourself into a hole, it is best to quit digging.
It looks like the leftwingers are pretty upset my friend’s husband derailed a dishonest leftwing trial lawyer with a cagey answer. Oh, did I mention, my friend said her husband dressed down and sported a four-day growth for the selection process? I thought that was a pretty cool move, because usually he wears a jacket and tie to work and looks very professional. He really wanted to do his civic jury and make it on that jury.
Many props to him for being a great citizen!
Suze,
Have you mentioned the outcome of that trial? If so, what was it (musta missed it). If not, why the delay? Is it THAT long of a trial?
We should just call her Walter.
Have you mentioned the outcome of that trial? If so, what was it (musta missed it). If not, why the delay? Is it THAT long of a trial?
They just selected the jury. I suspect this trial will get a little complicated. LOL.
As Suzie continues to campaign for deceit and perjury as the makings of a “great citizen” one can understand her/his infinity for political candidates of a like stripe.
Screwzie, you can stop now. Really. It’s well established that, despite your Catholic beliefs and principles, you have no problem with, and even heartily approve, of your ‘friend’s husband’ lying under oath. We get it, girlfriend.
I don’t know if your ‘friend’ or your ‘friend’s hubby’ are Christians. I’m assuming so, because only real conservatives are Christians in your world, but even so, you purport to be a Christian who strives to be more like Jesus every day. On that note, can you direct me to any Biblical passages where lying is approved or encouraged? Any passages where God says, ‘I’m the Truth and I’m always with you, but for those times when I’m not, lying is okay’?
Isn’t there another religion, one that you Christians denounce and refer to as an enemy, because it condones lying in its holy book?
Actually, don’t bother answering. “You libs do it, too!” is not an excuse for your failed ‘standards’.
Next thing you know, Walter’s secret life will tell us that the jury is now sequestered in some back water Days Inn.
As Suzie continues to campaign for deceit and perjury as the makings of a “great citizen” one can understand her/his infinity for political candidates of a like stripe.
Wasn’t your hero Bill Clinton impeached for perjury? My friend’s husband told no discernable lie.
#94 OK, suzie is just making all this sh*t up. Still doesn’t change the fact that she thinks it’s OK to lie under oath.
“My friend’s husband told no discernable lie.”
It’s ‘discernible’ to Jesus.
Besides, wasn’t that the whole point of your clever story?
Re: Comment by Contrasuzie — October 16, 2012 @ 8:30 pm
Screwzie, you can stop now. Really. It’s well established that, despite your Catholic beliefs and principles, you have no problem with, and even heartily approve, of your ‘friend’s husband’ lying under oath.
————–
Bingo!
But then Old Rants & Raves (w/ lies) is all about lies, most of the time.
——————————————————–
Re: Comment by Suzie — October 16, 2012 @ 8:47 pm
Wasn’t your hero Bill Clinton impeached for perjury? My friend’s husband told no discernable lie.
—————
1) As you are responding to me, prove that I have posted anything that indicates that I approved of Clinton’s lie or otherwise consider him to be a hero. IMHO, whatever two consenting adults do in privacy is no one business, save their own. OTHO, perjury is.
Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives on two charges, one of perjury and one of obstruction of justice — exactly the crimes you report that your “friend’s husband” committed (assuming that your story is not a whole cloth lie, from the get-go.
So if anyone wants to use that example as an Tu Quoque fallacy in an attempt to defend someone from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser, it is you. However, you should realize that the Tu Quoque fallacy cuts both ways. If you heartily approve, of your “friend’s husband” lying under oath, then you are defending Clinton from criticism for the same offenses.
I disapprove of both, by the way. However, if you approve of one’s perjury and obstruction of justice, you must approve of the other.
2) As to your “no discernable [sic] lie” are you saying that you heartily approve of a good liar who can deceive the audience with indiscernible, imperceptible, undetected lies? No wonder you laud certain business folk and politicians.
——————————————————–
Re: Comment by Contrasuzie — October 17, 2012 @ 6:43 am
Besides, wasn’t that the whole point of your clever story?
——————
Exactly. That was the point of Old Rants & Raves (w/ lies) OP story.
exactly the crimes you report that your “friend’s husband” committed (assuming that your story is not a whole cloth lie, from the get-go.
Not really. Clinton’s lie was documentable and provable. The man I describe was asked for his opinion. You can’t prove jack about an opinion.
Still waiting for the Scripture condoning lying.
Re: Comment by Suzie — October 17, 2012 @ 8:42 pm
Read the SCOTUS case.
Update. My friend says there has been a delay in the trial. I hear the prosecution couldn’t get it’s crap together, as this is a rather involved case. It may start back next week.
The good news her husband was selected as jury foreman. He kind of lobbied for it, and since no one else was interested…he got it.
For the sake of expedience, I will refer to him as “Tom” from now on. As in “Tom cat” As in “Cheshire Cat”. As in the smiling person who knows something the others don’t.
Anyway, a LOT of time and money are being invested in this case, so I hope justice will be served. I am supremely confident it will be.
As if there is a “prosecution” in a civil lawsuit. Pshaw.
More evidence the story is made up, just like most of Suze’s other stuff.
Ooops. Sorry. Plaintiff. Not prosecution. My slip up. Not hers.