Video: JD Hayworth: Sayer of negligent things, Refuser of responsible apologies
Because saying "I outright made it up" is much more difficult than smiling mindlessly:
How do you not rip into this guy? It's not about a disagreement of opinions. If he said that he FEELS that the Mass court's ruling on gay marriage defines marriage by intimacy, then I'd say, ok, that's his opinion, RM can disagree with it.
He stated something as a FACT. The information he stated was not only disputed but found to be FALSE. If not just false, a lie.
So he is "disagreeing" with her, having a "disagreement" with her about the fact that what he said was used in Mass as a definition of legal marriage didn't exist and was never said.
It's like saying "in the new ruling on marriage in connecticut, it defines the sky as red." Then someone looking through the law in connecticut, as well as all court statements, finding out that no one said "the sky is red", and then him claiming it to be a matter of "disagreement on opinion".
Beyond moronic. He got caught in a lie and tried to shift it to opinion.
Posted by: Stef | Mar 16, 2010 12:24:51 AM
Heh. Seriously, I see this so often in written argument online. When faced with matters of fact, claims that have demonstrable truth value, some people try to down play their incorrectness as a matter of disagreement of opinion, and try to gracefully "agree to disagree."
Often times it's the same people who, on matters of actual subjective truth (say, the morality and ethics side of many social issues, like same-sex marriage), that's when the idea of mutual understanding over disagreement goes flying out the window. They're right; you're wrong.
Posted by: Christopher Eberz | Mar 16, 2010 12:27:20 AM
And Maddow delivers another fact checking smack-down! Now if only the mindless legions of Faux "news" viewers could get their heads out of their asses long enough to see it
Posted by: dragon88 | Mar 16, 2010 9:00:37 AM
This guy has Jack Nicholson's face and Rush Limbaugh's voice.
My favorite part was at the end of the show when she has a late announcement - her staff has posted the entire ruling on her blog, so, viewers, please go check it out and see if this was a disagreement of opinion.
Here's the problem with anti-gays: they know they're right and they argue from that justification a priori, which means they can never be wrong. The only way to change their mind is to live and work next to some out gay person and open their hearts enough to see what that person is worth (ie exactly the same as them).
But hey, I live in Arizona - this guy probably has a decent chance of winning by spewing garbage like this. Check out his website - he lists his support for the (extremely defunct) Federal Marriage Amendment three times on his Issues page. (http://www.jdforsenate.com/issues)
Posted by: DN | Mar 16, 2010 11:28:36 AM
Hey, listen, Jeremy -- I'm gonna have to disagree with you on this issue.
Posted by: Lane | Mar 16, 2010 11:50:10 AM
Ha @ Lane
Posted by: G-A-Y | Mar 16, 2010 12:07:21 PM
Guess this paid political whore hasn't got the word "empirical" in his vocabulary. Another religious wingnut with no idea of reality.
Posted by: Mykelb | Mar 16, 2010 9:03:08 PMcomments powered by Disqus