Yet Another Obama Administration Official Lies To Congress?

[Upchurch]

I started with calculation: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6281534&postcount=231 . Then as more data came in, revised it: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6282688&postcount=290 , http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6284089&postcount=300 , http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6284781&postcount=327 . It wasn't until even more data came that I was able to come up with an estimate: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6286112&postcount=367 , consistent with the CBS' … and I then stated my willingness to accept their estimate.

From your first link:

Since the reflecting pool is 2,029 feet long and 167 feet wide, just a dense crowd would produce a crowd estimate of 2029 * 167 * 3 / 5 … i.e., over 200,000.

So you made an estimate in your first link but said you hadn't made one until your last link. By your own standards for Bloom, did you lie to us just now?

 

[BeAChooser]

Even if Bloom does admit to saying this, even the other witnesses indicate it was said as a joke.

Yeah, it was a joke (wink, wink).

You know what they say about jokes.

http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/WeirdWildWeb/jokes_truth.htm "Truth is Funnier than Fiction"

 

[BenBurch]

You can't even prove it was said. Come on, at least bash those you hate with half-truths instead of complete fabrications.

 

[cwalner]

Yeah, it was a joke (wink, wink).

You know what they say about jokes.

Interesting, you accept the guys word as to what was said, but not about the conext or inflection of the quote.

So by BaC logic Rattner is either lying about the quote or lying about the context

 

[BeAChooser]

But you can't even begin to prove what was actually said, can you?

LOL! At this point, I have two reputable sources that say he said what was quoted. You haven't shown that either source lied (or has a reputation for lying) or would even have a motive to have lied. All you have are the denials of a man accused of lying and who would have a clear motive for lying at this point. The denial of a man who voiced no objection to the quote when it was earlier attributed to him ... who only started denying it when admitting it might explain his motive for the actions he and the Obama administration clearly took vis a vis GM and the clear favoritism shown toward the auto unions in that deal.

By the way, do you know anything about Ron Bloom? His past is full of connections to unions (he was a high ranking member of the United Steel Workers), the DSA (the Democratic Socialists of America) and many other socialists. He was raised in a family that was quite pro-union. After graduating from Wesleyan University in 1977, Bloom worked for the SEIU (a union) … working for a time under John Sweeney (President of the AFL-CIO union and a socialist). While at SEIU, Bloom came to the conclusion that unions lacked the technical skills to negotiate with management teams and their advisers at the bargaining table. He said "Unions were being backed into corners by companies and couldn't understand on a sophisticated level, the company's arguments...Labor needed to be armed with the equivalent skills." And of course, he thought he was the one to provide those "skills".

In fact, in 2006 he contributed an article to the DSA's magazine, Democratic Left (http://www.dsausa.org/dl/Fall_2006.pdf ). The article was titled "If I Ran the Zoo: A Win-Win Solution for the Steel Industry" and indicated that if he ran the Steel Industry, he'd make it a point to get along with the unions … to put their interests OVER shareholders. Which is exactly what he did in the GM bailout, isn't it?

So he sounds like just the type of guy who would have boasted (in the form of a *joke*, of course) to fellow leftists about all the good he did for the unions in the GM case.

 

[BenBurch]

...

So you made an estimate in your first link but said you hadn't made one until your last link. By your own standards for Bloom, did you lie to us just now?

Now, you don't seriously expect an honest answer, do you?

 

[BeAChooser]

...as a joke. Whoever is saying that he was serious would be misquoting him.

Whether it was a joke or not is irrelevant. The issue is whether he lied under oath when he repeatedly claimed never to have made that statement.

 

[leftysergeant]

In fact, in 2006 he contributed an article to the DSA's magazine, Democratic Left (http://www.dsausa.org/dl/Fall_2006.pdf ). The article was titled "If I Ran the Zoo: A Win-Win Solution for the Steel Industry" and indicated that if he ran the Steel Industry, he'd make it a point to get along with the unions … to put their interests OVER shareholders. Which is exactly what he did in the GM bailout, isn't it?

Well, that makes sense. If the workers have not been duly compensated for their labor and their work environment and conditions are not up to standards, the shareholders aren't really supposed to get paid in the first place.

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
If he actually said what the sources claim, then he lied under oath.

Or he didn't recall saying that. Being mistaken is not lying.

You liberals depend on that excuse a lot.

No, Biscuit, he was quite adament that he did not say it. He was given every chance to say *I don't remember*. And insisted he did not say it.

And when this didn't just go away, he claimed he was only joking when he said it. So if he remembered he was joking, why would he initially deny even saying it? Odd sort of selective memory.

Or he never said that and the people claiming he did are mistaken.

Then why would he now say it was just a joke?

Say ... want to hear another of Bloom's *jokes*, Biscuit?

Ron Bloom, speaking as a union official - "Generally speaking we get the joke. We know that the free market is nonsense."

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So he sounds like just the type of guy who would have boasted (in the form of a *joke*, of course) to fellow leftists about all the good he did for the unions in the GM case.

Now we're getting somewhere.

So you think he's guilty of perjury because you don't think he made that statement as a joke (if he even made that statement), right?

In a battle of "he said/he said", you're willing to reject his statement under oath and rely on the word of someone else (even though a third person has given a plausible explanation).

You're not going to convince anyone here that it was perjury. And I guarantee you there will be no perjury charges brought against him by Congress.

 

[BeAChooser]

So you made an estimate in your first link but said you hadn't made one until your last link.

No, you just can't read English.

What I stated is that

It wasn't until even more data came that I was able to come up with an estimate ... snip ... consistent with the CBS'

That doesn't say or imply that I hadn't made an estimate in my earlier posts.

You must be really desperate if this is your defense of Bloom, U.

 

[Upchurch]

You liberals depend on that excuse a lot.

I had no idea you considered George W. Bush a liberal.

 

[Upchurch]

No, you just can't read English.

Oh, your misuse of punctuation was misleading.

 

[BeAChooser]

Now, you don't seriously expect an honest answer, do you?

See post #51. The honest truth is that U can't read. Placing a URL in the middle of a sentence was just too confusing for him I guess.

 

[BeAChooser]

So you think he's guilty of perjury because you don't think he made that statement as a joke

Are you having trouble with English, too?

 

[Upchurch]

See post #51. The honest truth is that U can't read. Placing a URL in the middle of a sentence was just too confusing for him I guess.

The honest answer would be that you put a colon where you should have put a comma, thus indicating that you had finished the thought and were merely providing an example URL. You were unclear and I can't read your mind.

 

[Biscuit]

Unless you have a source that says he said it and meant it as a serious statement regarding the motivations for the work they were celebrating that night. Do you have that source BaC?

Did you ever find this source BaC?

Lets define "lie" instead.

Lie. Noun: An intentionally false statement. Prove that was intentionally trying to deceive congress. Because in order for this to be a crime thats what would have to happen.

Did you ever find this proof BaC?

 

[leftysergeant]

You liberals depend on that excuse a lot.

No, Biscuit, he was quite adament that he did not say it. He was given every chance to say *I don't remember*. And insisted he did not say it.

And when this didn't just go away, he claimed he was only joking when he said it. So if he remembered he was joking, why would he initially deny even saying it? Odd sort of selective memory.

Why is it even an issue?

Ron Bloom, speaking as a union official - "Generally speaking we get the joke. We know that the free market is nonsense."

That falls into the category of "Things that make you say 'Well freakin' DUH!'"

 

[BeAChooser]

Why is it even an issue?

Yes, I know that lying under oath doesn't matter to democrats/socialists/leftists/communists. Take your pick.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Isn't this sort of a How To Get Martha Stewart thing?

Whether she did some shady deal on stock or not, she was untruthful to the investigators.

"It ain't the crime, it's the cover up."