Today on Blogcritics
Home » Arrogance, Irresponsibility and Greed – Hallmark of the Democrats

Arrogance, Irresponsibility and Greed – Hallmark of the Democrats

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Buying votes to win elections is a long-established tradition for the Democrat Party going back to the days when poor blacks in the South would sell their votes for a couple of dollars and continuing today with the efforts of ACORN to buy votes in dozens of states nationwide. Now it turns out that the techniques which work so well with voters work equally well on Capitol Hill, as demonstrated this week with the passage of the new Supplemental Spending bill.

There weren't quite enough votes in either of the houses of Congress pass the latest bill to appropriate supplemental funds for the Iraq War – once the Democrats had loaded it up with special conditions and an accelerated and unrealistic timetable for withdrawal. Some opposed it out of party loyalty and some opposed it on principle and some opposed it because it was obviously politically motivated and a bad idea. The margins were close, but as it turned out, there were a few in both the House and Senate whose opposition to the bill was weaker than their greed.

So, unable to pass the bill on its merits, Democrats desperate to make absolutely clear that they are pro-defeat and want to leave Iraq in chaos, remaining true to the traditions of their party, decided to bribe the more vulnerable opponents of the bill with lavish allocations of pork. And just to make sure that the bill passed both the House and Senate it got a double helping of pork, some for Congressmen and some for Senators.

The end result is the addition of about $20 billion in pure, refined pork to the bill, most of it specifically targeted to the interests of specific representatives or powerful individuals or groups in Congress. This despite a moratorium on earmarks declared last year, which helped cut the deficit in half three years earlier than the President's budget plan. Congressional leaders have called off the moratorium and declared full speed ahead on pork spending. They clearly see it as an opportunity to sneak in the pork they've been denied for several years.

As I've discussed before, the root of the problem is Representative David Obey (D-WI) who is now chairman of the Appropriations Committee. He's like the fox in the henhouse, and he made sure that the prime cut of pork went to his supporters in the dairy industry who get $283 million in subsidies – almost 10 times what Obey was able to get them in the last Republican controlled budget. Don't worry, plenty of others get their cut too. There's $425 million for educational grants to rural areas to win votes in the farm belt. There's $165.9 million for fisheries in Oregon, $10 million for the Florida citrus industry, $25 million for spinach growers, $20 million to catch crickets in Harry Reid's home state of Nevada and lots of other little prizes to make sure that pro-war Democrats and moderate Republicans in the right states played along. Nonetheless, the bill only passed the House by 6 votes because 14 Democrats voted against it. In the Senate, rather than making anyone take responsibility for their actions, all of the Republicans voted for the bill, leaving it up to the President to deal with it with his promised veto.

There are plenty of other reasons to object to the supplemental spending bill, but the pork really is the crowning insult. I understand that Democrats don't see the point of keeping peacekeeping forces in the most volatile country in the Middle East to stop civil war from erupting and spreading through the area. They're irresponsible. I get it. They have understandable political reasons for their irresponsibility. But it shows an unbelievable arrogance to top their irresponsibility with pure unadulterated greed.

If they wanted to make a point about their opposition to the Iraq war, then they should have done that. If they couldn't get the backing for it without bribes then they should have taken that as a sign that it wasn't the right time to push for withdrawal. But the worst of it all is that a good portion of the pork isn't even being used as bribes. It's just payoffs to the party leaders like for Harry Reid and David Obey, the guys who signed off on the pork moratorium just a few months ago and reversed their pledge the moment they saw an opportunity to grab some for themselves. Their combination of arrogance, irresponsibility and pure greed puts the mark of shame on their entire party regardless of how you feel about Iraq.

If all of this doesn't outrage you, perhaps I need to write an article on the fiscal 2008 budget, which also just passed and increases the budget by $130 billion. And of course, it's just loaded with pork despite the fact that the President's version cut pork spending in half. The House has added $62 billion above the President's already too high request and put all that pork and more back in for the most bloated budget in my lifetime.

Powered by

About Dave Nalle

  • BARBARABOW

    Three words: “Bridge to Nowhere”.

  • David Scrue

    Thank you thank you thank you Mr. Dave for explaining why it’s all the fault of those irresponsible democrats that the federal government has increased in size 40% in the last 6 years. And why we have trillion dollar debts.

  • Clavos

    The bill does at least include a substantial increase in funds for veteran health care, both DoD and VA.

    According to the Kaiser Family Foundation Daily Report:

    The legislation includes $3.5 billion more than Bush requested for DOD and Department of Veterans Affairs health care programs…

  • JayMagoo

    You neglect the fact that it was the greed of Bush, Cheney, and their buddies in the petroleum industry who wanted to steal Iraq’s oil fields that got us into this misbegotten war in the first place. More than 3,000 US troops (many of them my former Army colleagues) have been killed, and by latest reckoning up to a half a million Iraqis, all because Bush wanted to (1) steal Iraq’s petroleum for Exxon, Conoco, etc., and (2) wanted to be remembered as a “war president.”

    The insanity of Bush’s adventure is overwhelming. It must be stopped.

  • Sisyphus

    “…the Democrat Party..”

    Try to at least get the name right. It is the “Democratic” Party. A proper noun. Just because (or especially because) Rush Limbaugh and George Bush misuse a term, does not make it correct.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Thank you thank you thank you Mr. Dave for explaining why it’s all the fault of those irresponsible democrats that the federal government has increased in size 40% in the last 6 years. And why we have trillion dollar debts.

    I don’t believe there’s one word in this article blaming the Democrats for the past overspending or absolving the Republicans for their turn at porkmongering.

    The issue is just this particular bill which has a specific purpose and has been so cynically abused by the Democrats.

    Dave

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    The bill does at least include a substantial increase in funds for veteran health care, both DoD and VA.

    That’s part of the regular budget which is being considered at the same time as this supplemental appropriations bill.

    In addition to that VA health spending which is a regular line item, not a special earmark, there are close to 10,000 earmarks in the actual budget adding up to $130 billion in pork, and that doesn’t include the veterans healthcare spending.

    Dave

  • Clavos

    Dave,

    Perhaps I should have quoted more of the article I cited. The way I read this, the funds I mentioned are included in the supplemental appropriation for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan bill.

    Here’s the whole ‘graph I quoted from previously:

    House Approves Supplemental Appropriations Bill
    In other budget news, the House on Friday voted 218-212 to approve a $124 billion supplemental appropriations bill for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan that would provide additional funds for veterans’ health care programs, the Wall Street Journal reports (Rogers, Wall Street Journal, 3/24). The legislation includes $3.5 billion more than Bush requested for DOD and Department of Veterans Affairs health care programs, as well as $1 billion for avian flu preparedness. The bill also would provide $750 million for SCHIP. The legislation exceeded the amount that Bush requested by about $21 billion, with almost half of the additional funds allocated for nonmilitary programs (Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, 3/23). “Within minutes of passage, Bush denounced the bill” because of provisions that would establish a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. “The Democrats have sent their message,” Bush said, adding, “Now it’s time to send their money.” The Senate this week will consider a similar bill (Weisman, Washington Post, 3/24).

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Maybe it didn’t make it through to the Senate version. I can’t find any earmarks in there which are more than $1 billion, but it’s a pain in the ass navigating the Thomas site and finding the right bills. I do see appropriations matching those numbers in the regular budget.

    Dave

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle


    Try to at least get the name right. It is the “Democratic” Party. A proper noun. Just because (or especially because) Rush Limbaugh and George Bush misuse a term, does not make it correct.

    I occasionally join them in indulging in leaving the ‘ic’ off in recognition of how fundamentally opposed to democratic government the D party is. In this article, when talking about vote buying it seemed inappropriate to use the ‘ic’.

    Dave

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com Michael J. West

    Oh, for God’s sweet sake. Must we continue to pretend that EITHER party is any different from the other in terms of pandering, corruption, greed, arrogance, irresponsibility, conniving, hedging, or any of the other qualities that are inherent to the very nature of politics?

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Michael, there ARE some differences. You get to pick which groups they pander to and which issues they shamelessly exploit. Sometimes that can work out to your benefit.

    Dave

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com Michael J. West

    Superficial differences at best, Dave.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Superficial? Assuming that all else is the same, those panderings and special issues are what we get out of our government. It’s the difference between tax cuts and expanded social spending. It’s the difference between protecting civil liberties and state mandated political correctness. It’s more than just superficial.

    Dave

  • moonraven

    Bunk, Dave.

    The US political system has become a one-party system with two different names.

    Just a gringo version of what Mario Vargas Llosa called The Perfect Dictatorship in reference to Mexico during the 70-year PRI control here.

    Totalitarian states may look different but they have in common the utter lack of meaningful options.

    Get off the pot, Dave, and stop shitting us.

  • http://zardozz.com/zz/ Z.Z. Bachman

    I wonder what Jefferson and Franklin would be saying if they were alive today regarding our present two party system? Come to think of it, I don’t recall the “founding fathers” ever specifying that a democratic form of government should ever be dominated by two parties. In fact I suspect they would have deplored it. Hmmm…. perhaps they should have done a little more deep thinking when they drew up the Constitution.

    The two parties in our “system” both need a good kick in the ass by Independents if you ask me. Hey…. let’s give some credit to Sen. Joe Lieberman (CT-I) and some of the others, which I am sure many here can list, that find some integrity, sanity (or maybe perceived political safety) by moving more to the middle of the spectrum and adopting a more collaborative style.

    Maybe these few recognize what the current state of political affairs is doing to bolster the psyche of this nation’s enemies. Yes, that’s right, we have enemies. And before you start blaming each other’s parties for that, it won’t mean a damn thing when the unthinkable happens. Neither party has a claim on immortality the last I looked. While our so called “leaders” do their best to tear each other apart, the rest of the country feels absolutely ashamed at the lack of leadership and solidarity on virtually ANY issue these days on the Hill that once made this country’s form of government the envy of the world.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    I don’t recall the “founding fathers” ever specifying that a democratic form of government should ever be dominated by two parties. In fact I suspect they would have deplored it.

    Washington had some very specific and very negative things to say about political parties in general. He thought there should be no parties at all. Not terribly realistic, but I suspect that he would have preferred many parties to just two.

    Dave

  • troll

    to quote Clavos from another thread:

    *Politicians and the governments they work for are economic parasites; they produce nothing but regulation (restriction), and harassment, and in extreme cases, oppression*

    seems to fit here as we discuss parasitical differences

  • MBD

    “I wonder what Jefferson and Franklin would be saying if they were alive today regarding our present two party system?”

    I didn’t know there were two.

    I only see one monolithic lobby in control of the US government.

  • Sisyphus

    Sure, it’s a sad reality that legislators on both sides of the aisle buy and sell votes like there’s no tomorrow. Pork barrel spending reached a record $29 billion last year, according to CAGW. The Republicans were then in charge, but now you expect this to change because of a Democratic majority? Heck, it’s the Republicans that are supposedly the party of limited government, which I’m all for. But actions speak louder than words. And fiscal responsibility is evidently an unknown concept to either party.

  • Arch Conservative

    Moonraven …..why do you insist on offering the pontifications of those residing in third world Latin American shitholes?

    Don’t you realize that not only is it irrelevant but no one gives a damn?

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Sure, it’s a sad reality that legislators on both sides of the aisle buy and sell votes like there’s no tomorrow. Pork barrel spending reached a record $29 billion last year, according to CAGW.

    You must have read the wrong CAGW page. Last I checked pork spending was considerably higher than that annually. But last year may have been low because of the earmark moratorium.

    The Republicans were then in charge, but now you expect this to change because of a Democratic majority?

    No, I expect it to get dramatically and substantially worse. If that $29 billion figure is correct, then consider it in light of the $130 billion in pork the Democrats have put into the FY 2008 budget.

    Dave

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com Michael J. West

    God damn it! I hate the two-party system. One of the worst natural outgrowths of it is this stupid, blind, Manichean worldview where your side is bad, my side is the victim of your side, and ne’er the twain shall meet. Joe Lieberman and Chuck Hagel form their own opinions and are “traitors” or “[Party Member] in Name Only.”

    When I switched my voter registration from Democrat to Independent, my parents were actually more scandalized than when I left the Catholic Church they brought me up in.

    Well, I came back to the Democrats. And I did it for the simple and exclusive reason that D.C. is a one-party town, and the real election contests in local governments are the Democratic Primary. And it makes me sick every time I think of myself as a Democrat. Not that it would make me any less (or more) sick to think of myself as a Republican.

    Political parties are far too much like religions in this country. As fucking insanely religious as the U.S. is, it’s your party affiliation that people really use to determine whether you’re working for God or the Devil.

    And I’m goddamned sick to death of it. Democrats, Republicans, you all need to get a grip on reality. You have the same petty weaknesses, the same inherent strengths and flaws of organization, and each one of you, no matter how hard you try to pass the buck and point the finger at the other party, is absolutely ready to sell yourself for the promise of short-term political power.

    The Hell with all of them. There ought to be at least a half-dozen mainstream political parties in this country, and we’re stuck with this shit.

    Is it possible to be a political Freethinker? I hereby declare myself one.

  • MBD

    Both parties are responsible for digging the hole we are in, and we have been told repeatedly the way out is to keep digging.

    “The federal budget is structurally unbalanced. This will do increasing damage to the economy and is unsustainable in the long term. Regardless of the approach chosen, prompt and meaningful action is essential. The longer it is delayed, the more painful it will be.”

    These are the words of the General Accounting Office 15 years ago.

    Instead of heeding this warning, our politicians have made things get progressively worse.

    For this, we can thank lobbyists and their lackey politicians who seek re-election above all else; above the the interests of the American people, both current and future generations.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com Michael J. West

    Et tu, Dave Nalle?

    You know, insofar as the insular, one-dimensional blogosphere goes, I consider you a friend (which I suspect you do know). I respect you, I like you, I value your perspective. You’re a thinker, despite the silly and meaningless shit the MCHs and Moonravens and Sharks of this site throw at you. And I tend to think of you as not only a moderate, but an intellectually honest one.

    So it actually hurts to see you putting out playbook, talk-radio hyperbole like how the Democrats are “pro-defeat and want to leave Iraq in chaos,” when both you and I know for a fact that you know better.

    I’m disappointed, Dave. I expected more from you.

  • Sisyphus

    “If that $29 billion figure is correct, then consider it in light of the $130 billion in pork the Democrats have put into the FY 2008 budget.”

    Out of what hole are you pulling the figure of $130 billion? I sure haven’t seen any figures even begin to approach that amount. It’s bad enough without having to make up nonsensical figures. You do know what pork-barrel spending refers to, right? There’s a LOT of spending that is, IMO, totally unjustified — but it’s not necessarily pork, rather it’s just plain ol’ excessive waste.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    $130 billion is the amount he budget was increased over last year. There’s no justification for increasing it at all. We ought to be CUTTING the budget, not increasing it. As for pork and unnecessary expenses, last time I wrnt over the budget I was able to cut $200 billion in totally unnecessary spending, most of it pure pork and that was before the democrats got hold of it.

    Dave

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    So it actually hurts to see you putting out playbook, talk-radio hyperbole like how the Democrats are “pro-defeat and want to leave Iraq in chaos,” when both you and I know for a fact that you know better.

    Sorry Michael, but I’ve been thinking about it a lot, and while I can understand the desire not to have ever gone into Iraq, I’m increasingly convinced that there’s no justification for the behavior the democrats are displaying at this point over Iraq and the troops. They really are sacrificing the future of millions of people for a little political leverage and they are literally falling over each other to declare Iraq a failure. To a large extent what the outcome of Iraq is perceived as depends on how we choose to present it and how we resolve our involvement. The democrats have chosen to present our presence there as a failure and a defeat for no reason but their own political advantage.

    I realize you may not see what I’m getting at here, but I plan to write more on it later.

    Oh, and thanks for the nice comments. I do try to be rational and moderate, but despite that I just can’t stomach the democrats for all sorts of reasons. The GOP I can at least understand, but I just can’t figure out any way to excuse some of the things the Dems do.

    Dave

  • Sisyphus

    “$130 billion is the amount he budget was increased over last year.”

    No, that is the President’s PROPOSED budget for FY 2008 — an increase of about $132 billion over FY 2007. All that Congress has passed so far is a supplemental for FY 2007 (still to be reconciled and surely to be vetoed by Bush). We may even agree about a lot of the unnecessary spending, but let’s be clear about where this budget originates and where it is now.

    The increase of $132 billion is Bush’s proposal. The leadership of either party have differing ideas about budget details, but NEITHER party is considering any kind of budgetary decrease from last year.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Actually, the 2008 budget in one form or another has passed both houses. The president increased spending by only about $70 bil. Congress added another $60 bil or so. They still need to work out a reconciliation bill. Want to bet that it adds even more pork?

    But again, they ought to freeze or lower the budget, can we agree on that?

    Dave

  • moonraven

    Arch,

    It is precisely because you folks don’t give a damn about the rest of the planet that you are now ready to be flushed out of it.

  • Sisyphus

    “But again, they ought to freeze or lower the budget, can we agree on that?”

    I missed the news that the Senate passed the budget resolution on Friday. Whatever figures we’re quibbling over (it’s hard to wrap one’s mind around numbers of almost $3 TRILLION), I agree that much could and should be slashed.

    I also believe (and we may agree) that bills should be clean, without amendments having nothing to do with the original bill. Perhaps a line-item veto is not such a bad idea — along with the provision to override such vetoes with a two-thirds majority. This would make the inclusion of pork much more difficult.

  • Sisyphus

    A week ago Friday, I guess.

  • Mohjho

    How is arrogance, irresponsibility and greed hallmark of the Democrats?

    You just described 8 years of Republican political domination.

    fool

  • http://adreamersholiday.blogspot.com Lee Richards

    As old George Wallace used to say, “there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between them”, Nalle’s constant partisanship not withstanding.

    Both parties–with rare exceptions–have only slightly concealed contempt for the public, treating us as being too stupid to see that they openly lie to us about nearly everything.

    They may want to reward different interest groups, but the resulting giveaway of honesty, integrity, principles, and the betrayal of the Constitution is the same.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    I also believe (and we may agree) that bills should be clean, without amendments having nothing to do with the original bill. Perhaps a line-item veto is not such a bad idea — along with the provision to override such vetoes with a two-thirds majority. This would make the inclusion of pork much more difficult.

    I need to check up on it, but I believe there was a rider on the budget as submitted by the admiistration authorizing the line-item veto. I don’t know if it survived or not, but if it did it would make a huge difference.

    Bush could do a lot to redeem himself if he got the line item veto passed and used it judiciously. He might piss some people off, but he’d win a lot of friends in other quarters.

    Dave

  • MCH

    “I respect you, I like you, I value your perspective. You’re a thinker, despite the silly and meaningless shit the MCHs and Moonravens and Sharks of this site throw at you. And I tend to think of you as not only a moderate, but an intellectually honest one.”
    – MJW

    I couldn’t disagree more, Michael. I think he’s a phony, hypocrital blowhard.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    [Entire comment deleted]

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Both parties–with rare exceptions–have only slightly concealed contempt for the public, treating us as being too stupid to see that they openly lie to us about nearly everything.

    Contrary to what you believe, Lee, the party politicians don’t have contempt for the public, they literally grovel at the call of the public as expressed through our REAL representatives, the lobbyists. They’re a bunch of spineless buffoons who haven’t got the guts to tell the public anything beyond platitudes and promises.

    And as for the public, on the whole WE ARE stupid and easily led and deserving of contempt.

    Dave

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com Michael J. West

    Yes, MCH, I know very well what you think of Dave. You’ve made that point over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again until it’s lost all meaning and nobody fucking wants to hear it from you anymore.

    Do you actually have something to contribute to the conversation here? Not that I would ever want to deprive you of anything as meaningful to you as your obsession with Dave Nalle….

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    I visualize a wall in his room covered with pictures of me and clippings about me and possibly a shrine with candles and a pigeon with its entrails hanging out.

    But maybe that portrays him as a bit more rational than he actually is.

    Dave

  • moonraven

    More rational than you are, that he is.

    Not that it means a whole heckuva lot, brownie.

  • MCH

    “…but an intellectually honest one.”
    MJW

    I beg to differ with you, West, in spite of your superior intellect. He’s been busted for numerous falsehoods on BC, including lying about his killing of stray dogs with an .06, and conversing with himself during the “Vox Populi” charade.

    So you admire someone who target practices on stray dogs with a hunting rifle and endorse a pathological liar? And you want to pass judgement on me?

  • Nancy

    Mike J W #23 – thank you! What you said goes double for me. MR #15 & Lee #35 as well. Dead on. The corruption, arrogance, cynical manipulation of MSM & voters, & sheer greed of those at the top here in the US matches or outstrips anything anyone can offer elsewhere in the world. I suspect even Rome would blench at our current political state of decay.

    Even a massive voter turnout & resounding slap in the face of the incumbent party have had almost NO effect. Everyone in government, from the fucking president on down to both houses of congress and all their damned hangers-on & camp followers are just going on with business as usual. Perhaps we, too, have gotten to the point that only civil uprising of a more serious nature will make an impression on these scumbags.

  • Clavos

    So you admire someone who target practices on stray dogs with a hunting rifle

    Better than stray people…

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Isn’t Bush likely to veto the bill, and aren’t the Republicans likely to sustain the veto? Isn’t it likely that the “arrogant, irresponsible, greedy” Dems know this full well, and passed the bill as an expression of political will? The options open to them on Iraq spending are limited at best.

    If the pork remains after the dust settles, Dave wins his point. But if the pork is in fact not actually delivered, and was there only to help the symbolic bill pass, then perhaps Dave should acknowledge that.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Handy, if the bill is symbolic, why put the pork on it and give the GOP an additional justification for a veto? Bush can now veto the bill and say he did it because of the pork instead of because of the war. That weakens their position.

    And yes, I think it will be vetoed and then the pork will end up getting rolled into the 2008 budget.

    Dave

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    He’s been busted for numerous falsehoods on BC, including lying about his killing of stray dogs with an .06, and conversing with himself during the “Vox Populi” charade.

    So you admire someone who target practices on stray dogs with a hunting rifle and endorse a pathological liar? And you want to pass judgement on me?

    It’s not so much that I want to pass judgment on you, MCH. It’s that you leave me with little choice.

    Aside from occasional remarks about sports, you seem to surf the Blogcritics site with the single-minded agenda of chasing Mr. Nalle from thread to thread, childishly slinging petty, shallow insults about the same goddamned things over and over and over again. You are surely aware at this point that everybody knows about Dave Nalle’s “Vox Populi” alter-ego and that nobody cares but you, right? Christ, even Shark has shut up about it.

    Perhaps you have some intellect in there somewhere. Perhaps it’s even superior to Mr. Nalle’s. But since you refuse to demonstrate it–because you are so busy with what I’m sure you think is pointing out his hypocrisy, when in fact what it’s really sounding like a broken record that’s gone on repeating itself for so long that it’s lost any sort of meaning–I’m not sure how wise it is for you to go on senselessly, impotently attacking it, until you can prove yourself capable of any better.

    But I don’t know why I’m bothering. You’ll keep snipping, cyberstalking Mr. Nalle and your other “chickenhawks,” repeating the same mindless drivel, saying nothing of value or substance, and the rest of us will keep ignoring you and occasionally expressing our annoyance. C’est la vie.

  • MCH

    “You are surely aware at this point that everybody knows about Dave Nalle’s “Vox Populi” alter-ego and that nobody cares but you, right? Christ, even Shark has shut up about it.”
    – Michael J. West

    Actually, Shark left several months ago (his own words) because Nalle, an editor, was permitted to converse with himself on a thread and then lied about it.

    It is awful telling, however, to see your support of fraud and deceit, Mikey. Save the sanctimonious, self-righteous lectures for somebody else, eh.

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    MCH: Michael isn’t supporting fraud and deceit and Shark hasn’t entirely left the site.

    You are boring us all to death though and I think it’s time you found some new remarks. I hereby invoke the MCH Exception…

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com Michael J. West

    What’s the MCH Exception?

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    That’s just a little something I came up with to stop repetitive commenting such as MCH seems so keen on and I named it in his, er, “honour”!

  • troll

    actually the Poluli incident reflects the fact that most of the administrators/editors of this site do support fraud and deceit

    but who gives a fuck

    Dave remains one of the most cogent thinkers and coherent writers around even if he is wrongheaded and partisan much of the time

    and BC writers and commenters remain the most diverse group that I’ve found on any site

  • Clavos

    and BC writers and commenters remain the most diverse group that I’ve found on any site

    Quoted for truth.

    The principal reason I stayed after discovering BC about a year ago.

    More than a couple good thinkers, too-all over the spectrum.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx jaz

    not as diverse as it had been, and less so as time wears on

    but troll IS one of the “good guys”

    nuff said

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    For what it’s worth, I don’t think Dave is actually smart enough to have organised such a duplicitous approach. I think the poor old dear simply got confused with his multiple identities and, not for the first time, simply made a mistake.

    I know some passionate theorists won’t find much solace in such a view and would urge such folk to slide on over to his own new venture, the naively/optimistically titled Elite Bloggers, which seems to have missed not only its own launch date of March 26th, but writers, readers and commenters too. Come on folks, let’s all mob Dave’s new site and tell him what you think of it!

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx jaz

    no

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    LOL!

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx jaz

    wasn’t being Funny, Christopher

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    jaz, a lot of comedy is unintentional…

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Chris, I’ve got a lot on my plate. Starting an entire new blogsite, while something I much want to do, has to take second to things like actually doing work to earn money and even my obligations here on BC. But thanks for promoting elitebloggers.com. Yes, the official launch has been pushed back. There are some technical problems with WordPress I’m still trying to resolve, but I do have some writers lined up and when I start promoting it seriously it might end up being something worthwhile.

    Dave

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    I thought it only right to give your new venture the attention it deserved – presumably that’s a bit less than the blacksmithing course you’re doing next week!

    Seriously though Dave, as I’m sure you appreciate, when a site is launched it takes on a life all its own and demands regular feeding if it isn’t going to starve to death. Particularly if it’s “elite”…

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    I actually got the name ‘elitebloggers’ from an article here on BC about good domain names which weren’t taken yet, so BC is the spiritual progenitor of the site in some way.

    And thanks for mentioning it. It’s in a beta phase right now, and I would like to get some people visiting it so I can sort out some of the kinks. Comments – posted there, not here – are always helpful.

    Dave

  • Leslie Bohn

    FWIW, it’s not true that “nobody cares” about the Vox Populi incident except MCH. As a regular reader and semi-regular commenter, I find it ridiculous and embarrassing that Mr. Nalle is still an editor.

    I recommended the site to a friend a couple of months ago when all that Vox/Nalle shit was going down, and he still laughs at me about the “editor” and his posing and subsequent hilarious, obvious lies. I still tune in to BC, but not as much since then, and rarely engage political posts or ones that Mr. Nalle originated; he’s proven to be intellectually untrustworthy and hence a waste of time to converse with.

    I suspect, based on a lot of time spent online, that this a common reaction of folks when they see an “editor” who talks to himself in the comments under multiple names, exposed, and nothing happens. I think the site editors know that mentioning this incident turns some sensible, smart potential BCers off, so they’d rather posters not bring it up.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx jaz

    “FWIW, it’s not true that “nobody cares” about the Vox Populi incident except MCH.”

    Quoted for Truth

    in relation to the title of this Article, allow me to give an example of Arrogance and Irresponsibility, which demonstrates that shills spin against a kettle to distract from Realities

    How a phony letter drove the Invasion.

  • moonraven

    Actually, Chris, your saying that Dave isn’t smart enough to have created another identity to support his positions is just pure unadulterated bullshit.

    You are just covering your unethical ass for defending him.

    It doesn’t take any particular brains to type another poster name and write a comment–especially when you are like Nalle and believe in the dogpack (and probably dogpatch) approach to debate. MOB RULE I believe is the term that means the same thing.

    And it didn’t take a weatherman to see which way the wind was blowing here on blogcritics, either.

    Maybe YOU are the one who is not so smart….

  • MBD

    “Seriously though Dave, as I’m sure you appreciate, when a site is launched it takes on a life all its own and demands regular feeding if it isn’t going to starve to death.”

    Dave starting a web site is like giving a monkey a typewriter and a lot of bananas.

    Given enough time something of value might come out and the monkey won’t starve to death.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    in relation to the title of this Article, allow me to give an example of Arrogance and Irresponsibility, which demonstrates that shills spin against a kettle to distract from Realities

    You know, Jaz. There are several words in this sentence which I don’t even know the meaning of in the context in which you use them. Where does one get a kettle full of shills and what exactly are they?

    How a phony letter drove the Invasion

    A phony letter not originating with the US government or anyone associated with it, about the sale of yellowcake from Niger to Iraq, something which had happened on at least two documented prior occasions.

    That article you link to is a real pip of unbiased journalism (note the sarcasm). It suggests that Iraq had never bought yellowcake from Niger, when in fact Iraq had tons of yellowcake and had bought it from Niger, Portugal and several other countries. It also suggests Iraq had no intention at all of doing nuclear research or refining. Why then did they find a warehouse full of yellowcake after the invasion? You can’t use it for anything else.

    And having said all of this, the article you’re ostensibly responding to has ZERO to do with the reasons for the war or anything even vaguely associated with them, and at this point where we’ve moved from invading to peacekeeping in a pre-civil war state, the considerations for keeping troops in Iraq are entirely different from those prior to the invasion. If we’d just nuked Saddam or had him poisoned, we might well be in exactly the situation we’re in now with our troops keeping peace there.

    Dave

  • moonraven

    Dave, You folks DESERVE to be in the shitty morass you are in.

    The Iraquis, however, do NOT deserve to be in it with you.

    And THAT, my fine feathered fruitcake, is the POINT.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    The subtlety of your take on international affairs never fails to impress, MR.

    Dave

  • Clavos

    She writes bumper stickers for a living, Dave.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Oh, I thought it was greeting cards. My bad.

    Dave

  • MBD

    Someone gave the monkey a typewriter.

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    Dave, as the king of mindless political dogma you’re on very dodgy ground criticising anybody for lacking subtlety. You and moonraven just seem like opposite sides of the same political coin to me.

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    Oh, in response to comments 64 to 66 inclusive:-

    Leslie, I’m not privy to your friend’s arguments but I am pretty sure that Dave simply made a mistake. For a start, he’s got the brains of a goose and hasn’t even managed the launch of his new site properly. He’s simply not cunning enough to have organised such a slight and transparently weak ploy.

    As a member of the editorial team, I am embarrassed about the incident as it has clearly damaged us all. As the Comments Editor specifically, I’m really pissed off about what I see as his biggest error, which was to “correct” his own comments when he should obviously have turned to me or one of the site owners as per our internal guidelines. Of course, when you have an ego the size of a small backwater galaxy, such arrogance is par for the course.

    The only thing I can find to say in his defence is that he did at least try to respond to the many concerns of readers, writers and editors publicly in the comments space.

    He is, as you say, intellectually dishonest, but if that was a criteria for ruling people out of either political commentary or actual politics, there’d be precious few folk left in the field at all.

    In the end, we’ve been back and forth over the subject so many times now, I really fail to see what else there is left to say. He messed up.

    The owners of the site are all well aware that such conjectures can potentially damage the site but have not and are not doing anything at all to discourage people from bringing it up.

    The whole issue has been dealt with in the where it happened, in the comments space, for all to see and follow, so I doubt that there could have been any greater degree of open treatment of the whole issue.

    Just in case anybody is unclear as to how the editorial process works, NONE of the four political editors, or indeed any of the editors, are controlling or shaping the content of the site at all.

    So long as people’s views are not blatantly offensive, pretty much anything at all can be written about here at Blogcritics. The proof of the pudding is this: if you don’t believe it, join the group and write your own stuff, then you can see for yourself how the whole process works.

    If people can’t be bothered to take that tiny step and prefer to continue carping from the sidelines and disbelieving what we say, well, that’s their right of course, but I fail to see what else can be done from our side.

    jaz: I’ve told you my opinion of this story more than enough times and don’t have anything more to add. You can either believe in some mad conspiracy or accept the reality of the situation. What more do you think I should do?

    moonraven: you misunderstood me; what I said was that Dave isn’t smart enough to have put together such a little conspiracy of falsehood. Trust me on this, making up lies and maintaining them takes a lot of time, effort and intelligence.

    I’m a brilliant liar when needs be but 99·9% of the time I just don’t bother as it is more trouble and effort than it is worth. Dave, despite his impressive work rate, doesn’t have either the smarts to organise and maintain a pack of lies nor even the time to maintain his own brand new site.

    I’m not covering my ass at all because it is simply not necessary to do so. I’ve stated my opinion of what happened and I’ve not seen any evidence that would make me want to do anythibg differently. Shark’s spirited attack of Dave was full of righteous anger but not supported by the evidence as I understand it.

    For what it’s worth, I believe in openness whenever possible and there is precious little about which I could be bothered to summon the resources to maintain a fiction. Of course, if I did, you certainly wouldn’t be able to tell, for I would do it with total conviction and efficiency.

    Finally, just in case anybody is confusing my remarks with a defence of Dave’s actual political or social perspectives, I’d like to state for the record that I consider approximately 71% of his views to be complete and utter drivel, formed out of huge chunks of prejudice and shaped by dogma and shallow understanding, but that is true for many more folk than just him.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx jaz

    Christopher – Shark was spot on, documented and perfectly accurate

    i don’t give a fuck what you do, i’ve more than enough data to make up my own mind

    have a nice day

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    jaz: You are, of course, entirely welcome to your opinion. Mine is that the shark leapt on the opportunity to go to attack mode on Dave and his bloodlust blinded him to the facts.

    I’m not surprised that he did that but I am surprised at you as you are the one that is always going on about honesty. You don’t have any data at all but it’s obvious your mind is made up. Congratulations on the self-belittlement. I, however, am nothing but dismayed.

    There are many righteous reasons for kicking Mr Nalle’s arse but unfortunately this isn’t one of them.

    Have a nice day yourself…

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    Shark’s spirited attack of Dave was full of righteous anger but not supported by the evidence as I understand it.

    Shark had a valid point or two. Although it was hard to find, buried as it was in his usual brand of irrational histrionics and conviction that he’s the smartest person in the world.

    I stand corrected, obviously, on my assertion that nobody but MCH cared. (Although nobody cares with the unending monomania that MCH does.) And I don’t excuse the whole affair (although it doesn’t personally faze me, either). Still, I think the whole “scandal” got waaaaaaaaay out of hand.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx jaz

    Christopher, my Apologies if any vitriol spilled onto you, such was not my Intent.

    However, you are incorrect that evidence and factual data was not presented in full during the unfortunate incident..it was, by myself and others.

    The fact that you fail to see or acknowledge said facts are indeed cause for dismay, and are symptomatic of the Problem.

    enough out of me

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    Hi Michael, yes, I’m certainly not trying to suggest that shark had it entirely wrong and there is no getting away from the fact that Dave messed up bigtime, particularly in going and correcting his own mistakes.

    Of course, he’s an arrogant self-confessed elitist pig, a fact confirmed by the title of his latest lonely little mindwank, which seems to consist entirely of his own work, despite the plural nature of the title! Irony obviously isn’t a Nallean quality.

    Oh, and Dave, that font you’re using for the title is freaking horrible. I can’t believe that you, as a font designer and salesman, chose such a thing; it looks like a refugee from some tacky 60s sci-fi schlock.

  • troll

    moral of story: don’t take yourself so seriously that you cannot laugh at your own shenanigans

    Rx – Dave needs to have his own personal Clown assigned to remind him of this…

    but Dave’s is not the dishonesty that most concerns me in all of this…the real problem lies with those who blinded themselves to clear evidence to support their own interests

    granted that’s not really my business but it does lead me to expect less from BC’s staff

    lesson for me – no matter how offensive it is remember to remember that it really doesn’t matter

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx jaz

    troll…point taken, and thanks for the reminder that this is all an exercise in Futility

    time to change my homepage

  • troll

    (jaz – don’t let it eat you up – you are one of the ‘good ones’ too…thanks for the kind words)

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    jaz: As I’ve said before many times, Dave messed up.

    However, I clearly recall that at least one of the comments erroneously attributed to Vox Populi was actually signed Dave, as he does with all his comments on this site. That obviously indicates cockup not conspiracy.

    You ought to be kicking his arse for having the conceit to call himself Vox Populi, when he is clearly no such thing at all. His arrogance is simply breathtaking!

    The only problems I see are the obvious deep distrust he has created and the complete inability of some to accept what I’m saying.

    troll: Delighted to see you again! You presume that we volunteer folk actually have some interest here to support, which is entirely incorrect. To the best of my knowledge, there are no staff here.

    As you’re being so cynical, you probably won’t accept my assertion that I have done nothing but tell the truth as I perceive it.

    I’d love to have taken advantage of this event to have a go at Dave, not least because he deserves it on so many levels. However, my respect for the truth is greater than my desire to criticise his actions and opinions.

    It may sound hopelessly naive, but my interest here at Blogcritics is one hundred per cent the site itself, not any of the people who give so much of their lives to keep it going. As fine a bunch as most of them are, I’d defend the site itself first and foremost against anybody, including the owners. As Comments Editor, I have even had occasion to delete or edit remarks by the mighty Eric Olsen and the formidable Dawn Olsen when I felt they went too far. To their credit, I didn’t get bitched out for it either!

  • troll

    Chris – not to worry:

    *As you’re being so cynical, you probably won’t accept my assertion that I have done nothing but tell the truth as I perceive it.*

    I absolutely do accept this – my assertion is that you were blinded to clear evidence

    and I wasn’t referring to economic interest

    your interest in this case was keeping Dave in his position unchastised as he is a prolific interesting hard worker who adds a great deal to the value of the site

    no point in ‘having a go at Dave’ a la moonraven and MCH – only his ideas

    as I have always maintained in the face of his detractors: if you cannot keep up with his arguments that’s not his problem

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    troll: This is obviously one of those things we’re just going to have to let go of. I simply don’t accept that the evidence supported that particular conclusion.

    I mean, c’mon, this is Dave Nalle we’re talking about – arrogant as all get out and about as sharp as a button. And unchastised? Are you actually reading what I write? I’m kicking his arse!

    The one great thing about Dave is that, despite his many protestations to the contrary, he cares about interacting with site visitors through the comments space. He completely shows up the majority of the editors who are very rarely to be seen about the place.

    Personally, I can’t keep up with much of his arguments as they are such complete drivel as to make it pointless trying to shift him from his dogma driven perspective. The fact that he always says he’s following the evidence impartially really irritates as it is so blatantly incorrect.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx jaz

    that thread has all the
    documentation and Objections
    , spelled out and sourced as best as can be, since most of it was deleted/changed/edited

    the juice comes in about halfway down the Comments section

    just for those who may need to review the actual facts

    my Apologies for hijacking a Thread

  • troll

    Chris – I hold Dave’s ‘philosophy’ in higher esteem than you clearly…I view him as one of those rightest wrong sharp thinkers

    his arrogance is not important to me except when it drives my blood pressure into dangerous territory

    one can ignore the possibility of valid content in his writing like those folks that I mentioned above and go for the cheap shots or one can try to come up with counter-arguments on his own playing field as it were

    I enjoy the latter approach but it is hard time consuming work

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    Jaz, thanks for posting that URL again.

    But, and please understand that while I have always held and continue to hold your intellect and opinions in high esteem, it has accomplished mostly confirmation that we have already talked this “controversy” to death. Everybody presented their opinion, arguments, defenses, several times, Eric Olsen weighed in, Shark had a temper tantrum, and the whole shebang went on and on and on and on and on.

    And Chris…well, I haven’t decided yet if your personal bias against Dave is helpful or detrimental to your statements about the fiasco. So maybe I’ll just leave it be.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx jaz

    Michael, you’re welcome…my only point on it, even on commenting in this Thread at all…was the incredible Irony of the title coming from this particular Writer.

    the “controversy”, as you put it, IS relevant in context, and serves to Inform as to the motives and motivations, of the Writer, as well as disposing of any considerations of Objectivity, or impartiality.

    Now, I’ve already typed more than i ever should have, but I was compelled to respond to Michael’s very civil comment.

  • troll

    (whipping the body with holy words repeating…’the power of reason compels you’…’the power of reason compels you’)

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    I’m not biased against anybody at all, in fact I agree with 29% of Dave’s views and find the rest unthinking. I’m just telling the truth as best I can.

    jaz and troll do a great job debating back and forth with Dave but I just don’t bother. They have both shown there is precious little point and I find the effort/reward ratio too low personally. Not that I agree with them all the time. I’m non-aligned!

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    Oh yeah, jaz, unless you mean Dave’s over-enthused self-editing, which I’ve already indicated was wrong, there was zero editing or deleting of anything at all – unless it went outside of the comments guidelines, with which we’re all familiar.

  • moonraven

    Chris,

    You have taken up so much space on this thread defending yourself that it is clear to me that you are absolutely guilty as charged of supporting and denying unethical behavior on the part of Nalle.

    I know Nalle’s persona for the completely intransigent lying sack of shit it is.

    Now I know you to be a slightly sanitized version of the same lack of ethics.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx jaz

    Understood Christopher, and i NEVER said anything indicating i had thought anyone other than the person in Question had done aught awry in this Incident.

    As i stated then, and other times since (even defending Nalle against others who had Questioned his integrity as an Editor), EO made his Decision, and it’s his “house”.

    other than that my comment in #90 pretty much explains it all

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    I happen to find Mr. Nalle’s explanation of events believable, Jaz…obviously you and some others don’t, and I can certainly see how that would color your perception of credibility (although I don’t share that perception).

    But it’s equally obvious that attempts to persuade each other will be useless, so civility seems to be the best course of action; our disagreement need not make us enemies, ne c’est pas?

    By the way, how about if we simply refer to it as “fiasco”? I think regardless of our opinion of the events, we can all agree that that word fits.

  • troll

    Micheal – Dave’s explanation of most of the events – er…fiasco – is believable…except it doesn’t cover his comment where he referred to Vox as another person

    think about it…and please explain how this act can have more than one interpretation

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx jaz

    /agree with troll in #97….as if there was any Doubt about my thought on the matter

  • troll

    (Michael that is – sorry)

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    troll: As I said earlier, he’s daft and confused himself. You’re the one that thinks he’s smart, despite ample evidence to the contrary..!

  • moonraven

    Look, It’s not complicated.

    Nalle got caught adding aliases to his dogpack.

    He tried to cover his tracks.

    Blogcritics decided to deny wrongdoing and defend Dave–even though this caper he pulled and had been pulling for some time was only ONE reason that he should not have been given editorial status.

    Net result: Neither Nalle nor anyone else staffing this site can be trusted.

    Since that doesn’t bother them, we have to decide if their lack of ethics is reflected in US.

    It is not reflected in ME.

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    No, it’s not complicated.

    Dave messed up and compounded that error by fixing his own mistake, which was a clear breach of our protocols.

    Blogcritics didn’t decide anything, I looked at it, saw what he did and told the truth as I saw it. If it wasn’t for Dave’s impressive commitment to participating in the comments space here, I wouldn’t miss his prejudiced political and social perspectives that much.

    Moonraven, unless you can align yourself with the cold uncaring facts and not your personal opinion, you can’t talk of ethical behaviour. Please feel free to keep entertaining us with your lunar flights of fancy though, even though you don’t like or trust us…

    Finally, nobody is staffing this site, we’re just doing our best to respect the vision of the founder to the best of our abilities.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx jaz

    “by fixing his own mistake” – not quite that easily cast aside, Christopher, especially since some of that “self editing” deleted incriminating evidence, obstructing the actual process of fact finding, as well as removing the public Record

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    Since that doesn’t bother them, we have to decide if their lack of ethics is reflected in US.

    It is not reflected in ME.

    Certainly not!

    But that’s because the reflection is entirely taken up with your lack of rationale.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Not going to respond in detail to any of this, just wanted to add a general comment.

    Once I realized I had made a mistake I was open and honest about what had happened and attempted to address concerns which were raised as much as I could.

    I did NOT delete any comments, and that can be verified. The only comment I edited was the one which caused me and others to realize there was a problem, because I did respond to myself. It was the writing of that comment – and it can be verified that it was the LAST comment made as VP – which made me aware that I there was a problem.

    I screwed up. As soon as I was aware of it I tried to make it as right as I could. I apologized. I don’t think there’s much more or much else I can do.

    Dave

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    And yes, Christopher, the header on elitebloggers.com is horrible. I was just messing around because I needed something to fill the space while experimenting with color schemes. The fact that things like that aren’t resolved yet is why I haven’t taken the site public. I’d welcome stylistic suggestions. I’m leaning towards something more ‘newsy’ and conservative.

    Dave

  • MCH

    Re #105;
    “I apologized.”
    – Dave (Vox Populi) Nalle

    Cite?

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    Dave, try Times New Roman or similar if you want to give it a newsy, conservative feel. As it is, it looks like some hippies timewarped out of the 60s!

  • MCH

    Re #107;

    …crickets chirping…

    (repetitively)

  • troll

    MCH – if you read the record you will find several apologies…what you will not find is Dave acknowledging a conscious deception and laughing about it

  • moonraven

    Now Dave lies again.

    I am beginning to think he is a simply sociopath.

    He did NOT apologize. And the only mistake he made–in his terms–was getting caught.

    Chris,

    Where are those cold, fard facts in regard to Dave Nalle’s fuckup. I would like to see them. I have so far only seen your OPINION.

    And your opinion is no better than anyone else’s.

    Certainly not better than mine.

  • moonraven

    SIMPLE sociopath.

  • Clavos

    MR obviously doesn’t read any comments but her own.

    She says, in #111:

    [Dave] did NOT apologize. And the only mistake he made–in his terms–was getting caught…

    Which is right beneath troll’s comment, in which he says:

    if you read the record you will find several apologies…

    Typical…

  • moonraven

    Let’s see the apologies, clavos.

    I remember some shitting around and making excuses by Nalle did NOT APOLOGIZE FOR CREATING ANOTHER POSTING SELF BESIDES YOU ON THIS FORUM.

  • MCH

    Three things that may never be found:

    1) Sasquatch,
    2) the Lost Dutchman’s Mine,
    and 3) Dave Nalle’s original alleged “apology” on BC for the Vox Populi scam.

  • bliffle

    Dave Nalle IS a Big Fat Liar!

    It takes one to know one, as they say. And I AM a Big Fat Liar, too, so I know one when I see one! And Dave is a Big Fat Liar!

    Us Big Fat Liars don’t even need a secret handshake to know each other. I once watched George Bush, another member of our Big Fat Liar club, improvise lies freehand in a TV press conference. He’s really good! Maybe we should make him The Grand Poobah of Big Fat Liars!

    Lies are good! Better to tell a lie than say “I’m not going to tell you”, or “I don’t know” and if they catch you simply say “I forgot!”, or “everybody in the WORLD thought it was true!”

    And if people run around checking your facts and proving you were lieing you can just say “oops, that’s what I get for trusting my memory!”

    Just ask Dave Nalle.

    If your mom is laying in the hospital dieing tell her she’ll be alright in a couple days. See how happy she is?

    Tell your children lies about Santa Claus. See how happy they are?

    Tell your children lies about the tooth fairy. See how happy they are?

    Tell your children lies about your marriage. See how happy they are?

    Tell your children lies about George Bush. See how happy they are?

    Personally, I’m such a good Big Fat Liar that I once convinced a whole bunch of people that my name was really “bliffle”! Can you imagine?!

    How can you doubt my credentials?

    It takes one to know one.