[Promoted by Epluribusunum. Although surely our readers do not need that much help.]
WMAL reports on this year’s Courthouse Christmas controversy. Here is the quote from Supervisor Delgaudio and the facts as reported by WMAL. Can you spot the lie? If not, I’ve bolded it.
“This is the same location that for three years running, crowds of people have shown up to protest the elimination or the barring, outright barring, of a nativity scene. Why are we revisiting this again?” Delgaudio said.
This year’s accepted applications, in order, include:
– The Welsh family nativity scene
Pingback: click here
umm, no he isn’t elderberry–I live in Dulles, and do not belong to any party.
Yes, you ARE late.
Late to the party, sorry.
He’s your mad dog, Barbara Munsey, he has been for quite some time now, and the question truly is becoming if there is any point at which you and your party affiliates will ever draw the line on him. As the quote goes, “…..and then they came for me.”
Maybe that’s the one in the policy some of the people protesting cared about the most? As is their right?
Or do we now control free speech so that anyone protesting must protest inclusively?
That would be a tough one–many of your own protests would then be invalidated too. I can’t see anyone really wanting to go there.
“Outright barring of a nativity scene” is not at all the same as barring all displays, and is not something that was ever on the table. Saying so (over and over again) is not only a bald-faced lie, it’s intended to be inflammatory. As usual.
I see we’re back to the Christmas display again, from the larger issues where everything always goes, no matter the trigger. Okay.
Specific to general and back again, as needed.
I agree with your opinion that lying is wrong, David. Now, the bolded part, where Delgaudio says people have shown up to protest the elimination or barring of a nativity scene–umm, wasn’t that what would have happened for ANY displays (including a nativity scene) if the recommended policy of the grounds committee had been adopted? People DID protest that policy, which would have yes, barred those too. Is there a BOLDFACED lie in the statement?
Keep reaching, as needed.
You really do seem to be out of arguments.
This is a very straightforward post, and for most readers would require no further explanation, but here you go: Lying is immoral. Lying is wrong. You are free to claim that’s my opinion, if you like.
Guys, please show me how your “bolded lie” has anything to do with your single preferred topic?
Yes, David, I asked you not to expect me (asked, not declared, told, hectored, demanded, snarked, and I said “please”) to treat your opinions as facts.
Opinions = subjective, facts = objective.. See the difference? I know it’s hard, when one has an overarching need for control, to recognize it, but give it a try–if you want people in the larger world to treat you with a fraction of the seriousness with which you take yourself.
For instance, your framing of it as “me wanting to control what you expect from me” assumes that I will tacitly agree that you HAVE A RIGHT to expect things from me.
Umm, no. Maybe in the larger world of law and order, yes, we have the right to expect we will treat each other properly, and we have.
In the world of opinion and discussion (which you seem to think is proprietary, and controlled by laws of your own), no, we both have freedoms which you don’t seem to acknowledge.
Jonathan, I never said my opinions are facts. I’ve said frequently that your and David’s opinions will not be treated as facts (other than that you hold them) by me, regardless of how much you both demand that I accept your alternative reality where you define what people think, say and believe, and in the process cede control over my own thoughts to your somewhat narrow editing skills.
Please tell me what the Christmas displays, and Delgaudio’s opinion on them, have to do with LGBT rights? Did the two of you apply for a display, get there eleventh in line, and were told “I’m sorry, there won’t be room for it on the lawn”, and now that is proof of some nefarious Delgaudio conspiracy at the Courthouse to deny the LGBT community its rights in expressing holiday messages in the public forum, and were treated as less than human in the process, and it’s obviously Delgaudio’s fault?
As I’ve told you David: you allow no one to define you. Yet you demand that the right to define others be ceded to you. It doesn’t work that way in the real world with real people.
And others ARE real people to YOU, right?
In the postmodern world, it doesn’t matter that the articles here present factual evidence, such as actual defamatory letters and emails and actual demonstrated bald-faced lies like the one this post is about.
Reality in that world is just a prop.
this election was interesting how people get involved in the HOA no matter how big it is.
get a bit a power and it goes to their heads, especially in the recent ones of 10 years or so. then because of whatever boring day job they have this, becomes far more exciting then their day job.
they feel like all of a sudden they are a some buddy fine and good. but they don’t get real politics.
then they got the so called power drug and i mentioned a few you got it before. So they especially this election think they have it made and going to win. Supervisor Delgaudio knows his people as i said before and I am NO fan of his. not a surprise he won. he is a true politician. Just like York.
people here in Loudoun are living in LA LA land and the end is coming for economic development or the future for more years then people think.
there is always a reason for what i am saying. anyway I have some rich texas buddies here and they say get of out this place is finished for what you do for a long long time.
the government can’t keep printing money. obamas trillion dollar infusion has done nothing for america except a few on wall street.
but my texas pals say one word “”””Oil”””” and that is mostly texas and wall street does not control oil although they try. 😉
A remarkable twist? You mean like this?
Pariahdog asks?
Barbara reframes:
I’m not going to ask about your motivations for the twist Barbara. I’ll merely note it as a fact, not an opinion.
Your words: “please do not expect me to…” convey something you want from me, and they are your response to the direct question “what is it that you would like for me to do?”
This post discusses a recent outrageous lie, one in a history of other outrageous lies, the most outrageous of which is to claim that it’s acceptable in any way, shape or form to refer to other human beings as “it,” as if any human being is less than human. We’ll continue to point out the lies as they occur, as well as the behavior of those who try to excuse them.
David, that’s a remarkable twist.
I said nothing about dictating what you expect from me–I asked if you would not epxect me to treat opinion as fact.
I don’t think either of us has the right to EXPECT anything from the other, especially in the realm of OPINION.
And as usual, the argument has moved to “it” again, and not the specific of the new proposed legislation under discussion, nor the courthouse displays, or any other subject that you seem to EXPECT to devolve into a discussion of what you prefer, framed by you, with predetermined agreement demanded, or else.
You EXPECT quite a bit, it seems.
So then, you want to dictate what I “expect” from you. I don’t know what that means. You can control what I expect no more than I can control what you expect. I think I’ve already pointed out the obvious enough times – nobody’s freedom of speech is being abridged. It sounds as if what you want is for me to agree with you that there might be some legitimate moral argument for defending Mr. Delgaudio’s behavior – specifically, that of defining and attacking some members of the human family as less than human. The fact is that I don’t agree with that, and so I’m not going to say that I do. That’s really all there is to it.
I have, several times: please do not expect me to treat opinions as fact, including your own reimaging of my opinions.
We are both entitled to our own, and to state them.
Ok, Barbara. Why don’t you just explain how you would like for me to change my behavior to suit you? Just spell out what it is that you would like for me to do.
David, you are certainly entitled to your own opinions on what you have decided I am saying. You too, Jonathan.
I find it somewhat funny that you both have often used variants of “shut up” when others don’t say what YOU prefer, and of ALL people to talk about someone using “lots of words” (use LESS words, Barbara, i.e. “shut up”–lol!)! How many blog posts here could be summed up as “we hate Eugene and we hate anyone who doesn’t hate him with us”?
Maybe an acronym would suffice?
WHEAWHAWDHHWU?
I know – Barbara sure needs to use a lot of words to tell us the simple thing we already know: She doesn’t like what I say.
David,
I guess all that talk about a transcendent moral order and natural law are pure bunk when you or I or the ‘it’ of the day has anything to say. But don’t shut up. Nobody asked you to do that.
David, as I have replied to you at tc, and here before as well, and on Mr. Miller’s now-defunct blog, it is YOUR construct that people “want you to stop talking”.
Again, because you have stated an opinion does not make your opinion FACT anywhere but in your controlled world.
And in that world, anyone who disagrees with any portion of your OPINION is immoral, and anyone who does not attack the target of YOUR choice is defending it, and, as with this for the umpteenth time, anyone who does not allow YOU to define their opinion is somehow angry with your freedom to express your own, and wants your freedom to do so curtailed.
No. I simply disagree that your OPINION is FACT, simply because you declare it to be.
It all devolves from there.
Read Wolverine at tc, and then examine your methods. It may feel wonderful in your closed and totally controlled world to be 100% right because you say so and there endeth the lesson, but it isn’t getting people to vote how you want in either your own district, or the other ones you’d like people to obey in.
Maybe there’s a lesson there?
LI, I’ve become much less enamored of it myself, especially since I can’t get the sidebar links to direct properly to the comment. Unless anyone fervently objects, I think I will turn off threaded comments.
Barbara, as I just pointed out on the thread at TC, your objective is obviously to get me and others to stop saying things you don’t like. If those statements – that Mr. Delgaudio’s behavior is embarrassing and morally indefensible, and that you are responsible for choosing to defend it – were so inconsequential, you and your cohorts would not be spending so much energy trying to refute them.
LI, you’re right: anyone can comment about anything. But to comment endlessly on something you can do nothing about, until it devolves into relentless attack on people who aren’t doing what you want (and can’t anyway, since you don’t live or vote there, and apparently have no intention of changing THAT), is pointless in the long run. Who does it win to your position?
Do you actually want to change things? I do think Wolverine had it right on another of the identical threads here: if there were no Eugene, the people who spend most of their time screaming about him would have to invent him.
Just MY opinion.
And I hate the out of sequence reply comment format. Sorry, I’m just not going to use it.
How frigging ridiculous Barb. Of course Sterling voters have their freedom to vote for who ever they want to. I am not trying to deny them that right in any way shape or form. I think the few voters who bothered to show up re-elected an embarrassing obnoxious buffoon. That’s their right, and it’s my right to tell them what I think. Of course they didn’t have much of a choice, but that’s the usual fare from the LCDC. Holy cow, you surely opine plenty in western Loudoun matters. I am so sick of this you can;t comment about someone if they;re not in your district BS.
Pointing out what I see does not give you instructions. Sorry, but it just doesn’t.
David, you are one person, and LI is another. You’re both men, you both live far from Sterling, and you seem to be in agreement on some aspects of this matter, hence my perhaps overly-familiar use of the term “guys”, plural.
You don’t seem to wish to allow others the freedom to not take instruction from YOU, and that apparently includes a majority of voters in the Sterling district. (I don’t take instruction from you either. There’s the rest of the entire universe out here, remember?)
Sterling continues to point out, through their votes, what they see in their district.
(And please do tell me how you saw me doing things before YOU moved in–I got here before you did! lol)
Eugene Delgaudio is an embarrassing buffoon. I will say it as often as I want to. Barb can pound sand.
LI, it’s incontrovertible that that part is up to the LCDC. Nobody else can do it. At the same time, the LCDC produced two stellar candidates in Malcolm Baldwin and Valdis Ronis, and they both lost anyway. I would think we can agree that the situation has more complexity than you are allowing.
Who is Barbara addressing here? Did LI become two people somehow?
In any case, I imagine this applies to him as well: Barbara, you still don’t seem to understand that I don’t take instruction from you. I will continue to point out what I see, and what I see here is that you are continuing to do what you have done since you moved here – attempting to defend Eugene Delgaudio’s immoral and increasingly indefensible behavior. Suit yourself, and enjoy your Thanksgiving celebration.
Guys, while a “perfect” choice by the LCDC might end with a different result, the old “blame Sterling for not voting how we want out here in the entitled Holy Land” doesn’t work too well, as you all may be loath to notice.
A majority, not a plurality, elected him in a three way race. You lost, you’re pissed, and neither one of you can vote there. Move in, or move on.
Hey, I’ve been complaining about him for years. It’s the LCDC and the voters in Sterling that have to do the real work of getting rid of him. So far the LCDC has not given Sterling voters a good enough choice to do the job.
And so do you. Here we are. I’m not disagreeing with you.
The LCRC leadership doesn’t say anything because most of them agree with him. And the LCDC has yet to find a way to get rid of this idiot. That says just as much about the failings of the LCDC as it does the LCRC. Lloyd just posted another fine example of Delgaudio’s craziness at TC. You now get four more years of that crap from an elected official. Enjoy.
Lol, a happy Thanksgiving to you as well.
David: Move to Sterling. Run against him. Have everyone you know move there too, so they can vote for you. Win. Set the world to rights in your own image.
Then find something new to crusade about (like maybe why the LCRC should put up candidates you approve of, in districts that you don’t live in, can’t vote in, and wouldn’t vote for ANYWAY?)
Please, try and have a happy Thanksgiving. You and Jonathan may not be blessed with absolutely everything you want in a perfect world, but you are surely blessed with more than many people on earth.
Happy Thanksgiving to you.
As much as I might agree with you on the narrow question of LCDC performance, this is and always has been a much larger issue than electability. Mr. Delgaudio’s defenders have provided a lengthy discourse on why they think it’s ok to support him, and why people vote for him, over on Stevens’ blog – a discussion that I think can be summed up with “he’s good at playing people.” Even if he were to have an opponent whom you would deem flawless (this would exclude most of humanity out of the gate, but never mind), that would still be true, and he could also provide another third party candidate for insurance.
This is not about the election(s), but about a continuing pattern of behavior and the willful defense of that behavior by an entire party. The question I have is why the local Republican committee and other leaders find it acceptable to have a sitting elected official representing their party who engages in behavior like this. By allowing this to go on term after term, they have collectively given their tacit approval for open, mockingly brazen, lying. Character isn’t even a passing consideration. If it were he would never be the Republican candidate in the first place.
You have no one to blame other than your local Democratic committee. Three flawed candidates in a row against a guy that could absolutely be beaten. And with the people being discussed for LCDC Chairman, expect the trend to continue.