An Apparent Misunderstanding

Posted on Comments

Some people are evidently as stupid as Tommy Christopher, and must have things explained to them like school children. For the record:

  1. My post Thursday afternoon, published 17 hours after HuffPo claimed there was a meeting Wednesday on Capitol Hill, was a strenuous denial that any such meeting ever took place; anyone who thought it was something else clearly has reading comprehension problems.
  2. I provided a list of conservative writers — or, as Al Franken called them, “Lying Liars Who Lie” — who obviously can’t be trusted, if they were to claim that any such meeting took place.
  3. I specifically disclaimed having been in attendance at The Meeting That Never Happened, contrary to what any of those Lying Liars Who Lie might (hypothetically) claim.
  4. Why do liberals at HuffPo and BuzzFeed think they can trust Lying Liars Who Lie to tell them the truth about a meeting that (a) was off-the-record, and (b) never actually happened?

Friendly advice: Never let ’em see you sweat. Remember you have the right to remain silent. And if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance . . .

UPDATE: Corrected an error. I had thought the alleged meeting was Thursday, but in fact, the allegation was that a meeting occurred on Wednesday, which of course, it didn’t.

Don’t worry — my alibi is airtight either way.

UPDATE II: Doug at Daley Gator is mildly annoyed that he never gets invited to meetings that don’t happen.

 

47 comments

  1. For the record about the off-the-record meeting that never happened unless you believe the lying liars, one of whom, leaked a lying lie to HuffPo and lying lied to BuzzFeed [but the story still made the Buzz cut and was published].

    Have I got this straight – like my jacket – or is the record skipping?

    I’m so confused.

  3. He also accused you of having a ‘bourbon-soaked memory’ or some such nonsense. He’s a low class piece of garbage.

  4. Are you asking me on-the-record? Because I would hate to be forced to deny that we were sipping $300-a-bottle champagne, gobbling down free Beluga caviar furnished by Karl Rove’s super-PAC and lighting our Cohibas with $100 bills. My general idea is that all those left-wing losers at DKos already suspect we were indulging in expensive decadence that would make Caligula blush, and further denials will only deepen their suspicions.

    Which would be a bad thing!

  5. Everybody knows I never drink whiskey since my old friend Jack Daniels and I had an unfortunate disagreement at a Christmas party in 2000.

  6. “…a meeting that (a) was off-the-record, and (b) never actually happened?”

    Maybe I’m being naive, but isnt saying it was off the record evidence it happened?

  8. I’m sorry, but it’s rather difficult to be less…careless with the facts?…than Tommy Christopher. At least to go by his recent record, any way. 

  10. Doug at Daley Gator is mildly annoyed that he never gets invited to meetings that don’t happen.

    Jeez. I wasn’t invited either. That didn’t stop me from… not going.

  11. I wasn’t invited, and I never heard of the meeting. I think RSM needs a huge dose of Excedrin Migrane and a couple days off.

    Perhaps his Wife needs to refill his Lithium prescription as well. He seems a bit..er.. under the weather, so to speak.

    I wouldn’t propose he get drunk as He’s a Christian, and such people just don’t do such things, unless they are under severe stress and this raving about secret meetings that never took place may call for very serious meds.

  14. Sounds to me like it was a modified limited hang out that, of course, never happened.  Although it is reported that Caligula wore blush [oh, those crazy Romans!].  Which begs the question: at this meeting that never happened – on- or off-the-record – did Mitt, who did not attend because there was no meeting, wear, or should I say ‘not wear’, his ascot?

  18.  Apparently I’m an Irish-American apostate if that’s the case.

    And I thought Stacy’s perfectly phrased denial of an event that never happened and all the things that didn’t go on there was perfectly structured.

    Shit, in retrospect, I don’t think I even read it anywhere.  Anyone else?

  20. Which begs for the comment: I’d rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.

  21. I believe you when you say there was no meeting. But I think you’re lying when you say that you didn’t attend.  You know you did.

  25.  Thank you.  Not everyone gets that, and the Valu-Rite line of popularly-priced beverages is designed just for such folks.

  26.  Which is the Cliff Notes version of “I’d rather have  a free bottle in front of me than a prefrontal lobotomy.” 

    And the fear of palindromes is Aibohphobia.

  29. Wait: You want to make “humanity” take the blame for the embarrassing existence of Tommy Christopher?

    That’s so grossly unfair . . .

  30. If you understood what serious purposes were accomplished by these absurd jokes, you wouldn’t think I was so crazy. But I’m always prepared to plead insanity, if the wrong people ever catch on to my jokes.

  33. Since it never happened it, of course, could never be better than BlogCon.  However, had it happened [hypodermically] I’m sure it would have been much better because Mz. Hale was not invited – had it happened, which it didn’t.

  34. Even if you had not read the Jack label, it’s obvious to anyone with Common Sense that it is not a bourbon – it truly does have sour kick to it, which bourbons do not have, so obviously it’s a mash.

    Now, Jim Beam has a bitter kick, which is acceptable, although Jim Beam Black is less bitter.

    I, of course, enjoyed several different kinds of bourbon this past Saturday in order to properly honor The Kentucky Derby and Colonel Daniel and I did not ‘converse’ at all.

Comments are closed.