Mercury Rising 鳯女

Politics, life, and other things that matter

Verbiage Dump

Posted by Phoenix Woman on April 8, 2009

A few days ago, the possibility that a hero of the lefty part of the blogosphere may have been wrong if not actively engaged in deceit (namely, by falsely claiming that in failing to nationalize the banks, Obama was breaking the law) was discussed.

Said hero was asked to address this, and responded by providing lots and lots of verbiage. Unfortunately, the verbiage didn’t exactly address the central issue of his false claim:

What part of ‘or’ do you not understand? (4+ / 0-)

(i) appoint a receiver (or, with the concurrence of the Corporation, a conservator) for the institution; or

(ii) take such other action as the agency determines, with the concurrence of the Corporation, would better achieve the purpose of this section, after documenting why the action would better achieve that purpose.

‘Or’ is a pretty big two-letter word.

The fact that Mr. Black repeats his argument, bypassing any actual refutation of the major flaw within, actually supports the ‘liar’ attribution.  If he had only said it once, it might support a more general description.. ‘in error’, or ‘his opinion’.. to restate it again exactly as before trudges perilously close to the line of a ‘lie’.

Exactly. Horsepucky does not stop being horsepucky if it’s repeated. And a horsepucky mound does not stop being a horsepucky mound if you add more horsepucky to it.<

One Response to “Verbiage Dump”

  1. Charles II said

    arg.

    PW, please lighten up on this one. Black knows a lot more about the law than either of us.

    The “or” could mean, for example, “If Daddy Warbucks is waiting in the lobby with a gazillion dollars to recapitalize the bank, you may take his money.” It does not mean, “If there is no source of money to recapitalize, you can ignore the problem.”

    I endorse this statement from Tocqueville’s diary that you linked: “Bill Black was not ‘lying.’ The tendency to smear every critic of the Obama administration’s policies, as opposed to just disagreeing, reminds me of the Bush White House under Karl Rove.

    We can disagree politely. Honest.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

 
%d bloggers like this: