Liar Liar Pants on Fire
I posted this letter on the blog Feb 27,2007 the exact day that my letter to the editor was published in the Wall St. Journal and received this comment from a reader - we’ll refer to as “Mr. Personality” who goes by the very covert name of “bnkpm.” He’s a very secretive and bitter guy.
“…I notice that you changed the version of your letter that you posted here to remove the “lowest in 30 years” lie, but the WSJ already published it. Slick move, liar.”
My response:
I “changed the version of my letter” did I? The letter to the editor posted in the the Tuesday Feb 27,2007 Wall St. Journal in which I rebut the distortions and inaccuracies of Senator Conrad’s previous Feb 16th letter, which he still has not responded to, which I have posted above is ver batim as it appears in the actual paper.
Perhaps you can cite your proof source that shows that I said that “the current 4.6% unemployment rate is the lowest in 30 years.”
So until you prove me wrong, it is you not I who is the liar.
My letter above is the exact letter to the editor published in the Tuesday Feb 27th edition of the WSJ.
So, I’ll be waiting for your “proof” that I changed my letter. Until then we’ll all assume that you are a bitter partisan bomb throwing moron. Also funny how you could not rebut one of my statements in my letter to Senator Conrad.
Thanks for playing…
Gregg
Instead of actually proving that I omitted words that appeared in the original (”lowest in 30 years”) he goes on to call me a liar 57 times.
It is obvious the left has lost the intellectual debate in this country. All they have left is name sophomoric name calling. It’s actually pretty pathetic.
So compare my published letter to the editor that I posted on this blog from opinionjournal.com online to the actual letter to the editor as it appeared in the print version dated Tuesday February 27, 2007 page B6. The words I was accused of “omitting” from the original never appeared in the original.Specifically, I was accused of omitting “the lowest level in 30 years” from the original after the sentence in the 3rd paragraph “More than 7.5 million jobs have been created with unemployment at 4.6% .”
There is no “the lowest level in 30 years” after that sentence in the original. Period. End of story. Case closed. Here it is, you can click to enlarge.
So will the guy who has falsely charged me with intentionally changing the version I posted on this blog from the original now apologize to me? The question is does this man (or woman. I should not assume the person is a male automatically) have enough integrity and humility to admit he was wrong and apologize to me?
This was his final comment:
“So where is it? If you’re so confident that you can show the world what a liar and moon bat I am, surely you’d post it prominently on the front page of your blog, right? But you won’t, because you’re a liar and a coward.
“And cut the “give me your name” and “$100k bet” grandstanding. That’s all pompous bloviation and a pathetic diversion and you know it.
“Just post a scan of the letter and the matter will be resolved, and you will be shown to be a compulsive pathological liar, just like your lyin’ buddies Ann, Sean, Bill and Rush.
“C’mon, coward - POST IT!
So, I “scanned” and “posted” the letter. I “posted it.”
And what did it prove? It proved that “Mr. Personality” falsely accused me of intentionally deceiving my readers by omitting words from the original. I knew there was a reason he wouldn’t wager any money on it. (I bet him $100,000.)
Case closed.
I won’t hold my breath waiting for an apology. But I am glad that this has been resolved and everybody knows who the “liar” is.
Now fly away MOONBAT!
April 1st, 2007 at 10:55 am
HAHAHA - not so fast there, liar!
Below is a link to your letter as it appeared in at least one edition of the Wall Street Journal. Note the words “30-year low”:
http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u38/GreggJacksonLies/liar.jpg
Now, let’s analyze how it might be possible that the WSJ published TWO versions of your letter, shall we?
Is it likely that the WSJ would have ADDED verbiage to a reader’s letter, particularly when such an addition would materially and substantively alter the meaning of the letter, and even more particularly when they know (or can easily verify) that the verbiage is false? Moreover, is it likely that a newspaper would increase (rather than decrease) the length of a reader’s letter, when doing so would reduce the amount of space available for advertising or other articles? No, these scenarios are exceedingly unlikely.
Here’s a far more likely scenario of what transpired:
- You submitted your letter, which knowingly contained a lie.
- The WSJ chose to publish your letter, but only after deleting your lie (they may have even notified you of this prior to publication).
- By some production error (such as a WSJ staffer pushing the wrong button on his computer), your original letter was transmitted “as is” to a WSJ location for publication in one of its regional editions (which explains the version I have). The WSJ later detected and corrected their error for other editions (which explains the version you have). If anyone thinks this is implausible, one need only read the “corrections” section of any good newspaper; on nearly a daily basis, entries therein read like: “Due to an editing error, some editions contained…”
CHECKMATE.
Suffice it to say that you really dodged a bullet when I declined to accept your $100,000 wager.
Have a nice day, you lyin’ loser. HAHAHA
April 1st, 2007 at 1:09 pm
rofl pwned
how pathetic of you gregg, you sad little bitch
April 1st, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Nice try Mr. Personality. My original letter that I submitted and that I posted on this blog were all the exact same. None claimed that the 4.6% unemployment rate was the “lowest in 30 years.” I don’t know how the one you cited included those words. Most likely you photoshopped it. But those words you atribute to me didn’t come from me. Also very funny how the two titles were totally different.
Regardless, the fact remains that neither you nor Senator Conrad himself could rebut the major thrust of my published letter which totally disproved his assertion that the Bush administartion “has the worst fiscal record in history…” I totally annihilated every specious claim cited by Conrad with regard to the economy and exposed him and leftist loudmouth namecalling sycophants like you for the class warrior populist frauds you are. Like it or not, and I know it is upsetting to you, the Bush tax cuts have been responsible for enormous economic growth across the board. Supply side tax cuts work. I know this is upsetting to Communists like yourself who live to “tax the rich” and “evil capitalist corporations” etc…But you need to deal with it.
If the journal had made an error they would have printed a correction which they didn’t.So nice try posting a photo-shopped fraudlulent article.
But the bottom line is that I posted my original article which is an identical match to the letter I submitted and the article that was posted on line at opinionjournalonlne.com. Funny, how the only one that was different was the one you posted.
So, go away little ankle-biting dogie and do something productive and positive with your life besides calling people “lyin losers.”
And you are the one who is lucky you didn’t wager the money or identify yourself. And we know why you wont. Because you are a coward. Now like I said before, beat it moonbat. This will be our last communication. I have wasted far too much time with you.
Gregg
April 1st, 2007 at 1:47 pm
HAHAHA
I encourage you to blow-up the image and analyze it as thoroughly as you like. It’s real, I’m right, you’re a liar, and you know it.
And now that you mention the central thrust of your letter, Senator Conrad was commenting on Bush’s fiscal record, not the status of the overall economy, but you ignored that and proceeded to launch into a diatribe about how great the economy is. Anyone with a clue can discern that these are two distinctly separate matters. Many commentators, including some Republicans, have commented that the Bush years have been characterized by a return of “smoke and mirrors” budgeting, similar to the Reagan era, and after the Clinton era, which even his most strident critics will admit was characterized by realistic and honest budgets, regardless of what one might have thought of its priorities.
You, sir, are a lying partisan hack.