T Boone Pickins is an IDIOT and LIAR

[gaiilonfong]

He blames the consumer on everything, but he was a GREAT geologist and has no regrets


OH REALLY what a jerk and reTHUG troll

He also said the PIG Palin was incredibly smart about energy....YEAH RIGHT!

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. I turned the channel as soon as he came on

It blows my mind that he is given any credibility whatsoever by our 'media'. What a joke.

[Coyote_Bandit]

2. Not defending Boone Pickens here but

consumers are indeed to blame for a whole lot of stuff. SUVs. Chemically altered and genetically engineered food. Wal-Mart and their cheap Chinese imported crap (and with it the further decline of our manufacturing base) - and their undercompensated workforce.

If people (including many who can afford much better) didn't buy this crap then companies would quit selling it. And Wal-Mart would never have built an empire.

And some of those foreclosures are because consumers bought houses they simply could not afford - or borrowed hundreds of thousands of dollars without understanding the terms of its repayment.

[Stinky The Clown]

3. You're right. I think we should round up all consumers and send them to the camps

Consumers are the root of all our problems.

And if the camps don't work on their stupid asses then .... well ....... we gotta get tough on them.

[underpants]

4. Consumers are easily coerced

there was never any demand for SUV's but Detriot was able to create it.

Advertising works. Hell when I got back from the Army in '93 Walmart was "Made in the USA" only---remember that? no one else does.

Parade magazine (I know I know) had a full food issued today. Amongst other things 33% said they ignore expiration dates on FOOD. People have been so twisted that food, the prime function of existence, is blown off by them.

I could go on but look at the tremendous marketing efforts of the diamond industry that inflated demand for a virtually unlimited item. They did it with direct marketing in high schools in the 50's and flat out create demand for engagement rings in Japan.

"Happiness Machines" on youtube is an hour long BBC documentary that explains the creation of PR by Edward Barnays. Facinating stuff.

[mediaman007]

8. I'm watching "Happiness Machines" for the second time today!

Wow! There's are "force" at work here.

[underpants]

11. Yeah it is truly eye opening

I haven't got to the next segment but it looks very interesting

Two: The Engineering of Consent
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/century_of_the_self_episode_2.shtml

[Atman]

10. There was never any demand for SUVs? Nor was there for television or the internet.

There is never a demand for something that doesn't exist. It takes risk-takers to envision a market and fill it. Does that mean that all products that come to market are good? Of course not. But to say there was no "demand" for a product which sold millions and millions of units is perhaps a misunderstanding of what "demand" means.

Now, maybe there was no NEED. But once Americans got there hands on SUVs, there was BIG demand. Was was lacking was any sort of LEADERSHIP from the policy makers in Washington, who should have been mitigating the demand by taxing the hell out of gas guzzlers instead of offering breaks for their buyers.

.

[underpants]

12. Okay I skipped over NEED

we got past that a long time ago-in terms of this century and consumerism.

The Demand was manufactured and what wasn't manufactured were good efficient cars. Ford let the cashcow Taurus dwindle away to nothing.

[mediaman007]

7. Don't you find it ironic that the solution to our crisis, according to

Treasury Secretary Paulson, is to get more money to banks to free up more credit? More credit is the solution to the problem?

Don't tell me that the consumers are only ones to blame. Credit and propaganda (marketing) encouraging people to buy what they don't need should share the blame.

[Atman]

13. I just saw a Hyundai dealership offering "Gauranteed Approval with NO CREDIT CHECK."

NO CREDIT CHECK? I know they're desperate to move vehicles, but holy shit...don't they ever learn? If you have to rely on a "no credit check" gimmick to get a loan, you don't qualify for the loan!

.

[Coyote_Bandit]

18. Consumers are certainly not the only ones to blame

However the simple fact is that over two thirds of our GDP is ***CONSUMER SPENDING***. Much of which is financed by credit.

Making access to credit more widely available right now will, in the short term, afford some measure of economic stability. Why? Because folks can keep spending and buying stuff they could not otherwise afford - which means that the folks selling it can keep their jobs and incomes (which they will in turn spend). That means there will be less economic contraction in the short term.

It is the obligation of the consumer to investigate and inform themselves about their intended purchases. To blame advertising for poor consumer choices is to excuse consumers who are (1) too lazy to research products and sellers, (2) stupid enough to accept a sellers representation at face value, (3) lacking in financial self discipline and/or (4) unable to distinguich between their wants and needs. Caveat emptor. Buyer beware. The principle has been around and well recognized for centuries.

Today, fewer than one in ten Amerikans work in the manufacturing sector in any capacity. We can't make our own socks and skivvies and thanks to just in time inventory systems there isn't much of a stockpile sitting around waiting for distribution.

That didn't happen overnight. Our manufacturing capabilities have been dying for decades - sacrificed by consumers and industry alike in the bid to offer goods at cheaper prices.

Want to change that? Teach your kid to value and respect blue collar work. As a nation we don't do that very well. We think blue collar work is dirty and it is beneath us. We tend to look down on blue collar workers. Never mind the fact that a good plumber can earn more in an afternoon shoveling sh*t than a white collar call center worker can earn in a week. And his earnings will match or exceed that of many mid and entry level managers.

The only long term solution to our national economic problems is to rebuild our manufacturing base and the infrastructure that supports it. That ain't happening until we have something to sell other than services. It isn't happening until we become energy independent. It isn't happening until we recognize the folly of pursuing a global economy without affording protections to our own workers and industries. The ultimate end of a global economy is a single worldwide standard of living which suggests that our prosperous nation will be poorer in a global economy. Most importantly, it isn't happening until our nation is once again united as a community.

I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen. Why? There are long term deep ideological divisions within this country. There is a committment to ideology over practicality. Compromise is not valued. Everyone wants to win regardless of the cost to another. As a nation we do not currently have the personal or political will to make the changes necessary for long term economic recovery.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. This is not consumer credit they are talking about

but I am sure you knew that

Interbank lending and COMMERCIAL paper is what they are talking about

Consumer credit is way LOW in their priorities, if even there

[Two Americas]

16. I strongly object

I object to blaming the people, those with the least wealth and power to affect society, for social problems.

Billions are spent to influence public opinion, and corporate capitalism controls the "choices" that working people have available to them. As Democrats, we seek to alleviate social conditions to allow people to do better, we don't blame people and look to reform them in order to improve society. That is the right wing point of view.

In farm country, no one is buying SUVs other than the upscale suburban transplants, and half of them, are "liberals." People are not "choosing" cheap imported crap, until recently in regard to food they had no way to know where it was coming from, and the choices in the supermarket are controlled by powerful players who market that which provides the greatest immediate profit, not what the consumers (formerly known as "free citizens") need or want.

"If people didn't buy this crap then companies would quit selling it" is a supply-side free market right wing argument, and should get no serious consideration by Democrats.

WalMart built an empire on de-regulation, easy credit, and by strong arming and bribing local governments and by employing monopolistic strategies and bullying competitors out of business.

You round off your contemptuous and slanderous rant against the people and your promotion of free market libertarianism by blaming poor working people for the mortgage fiasco. I trust that no honest and informed observer needs any help seeing through that malicious and reactionary lie.

Blaming the people is contradictory to the traditional principles and ideals of the Democratic party and the labor movement. It is the very essence, the underpinning and foundation stone of the right wing political and economic philosophy - "stupid peasants have no one to blame but themselves for their misery."

[Coyote_Bandit]

19. .

Personal responsibility is a recognition that choices have consequences. Cause and effect. Recognizing and acknowledging consumer failures is something very different from placing blame. What I am saying is that consumers made bad decisions because for whatever reason they were not prepared and lacked the resources to make good decisions. Acknowledging that they failed the test is something very different from saying they should be punished because they failed the test. That is the distinction between acknowledging fault and placing blame.

Many consumers have made poor financial decisions. And if they don't realize that then they are likely to repeat those same mistakes in the future. It is the obligation of the consumer to investigate and inform themselves about their intended purchases. To blame advertising for poor consumer choices is to excuse consumers who are (1) too lazy to research products and sellers, (2) stupid enough to accept a sellers representation at face value, (3) lacking in financial self discipline and/or (4) unable to distinguish between their wants and needs. Caveat emptor. Buyer beware. The principle has been around and well recognized for centuries.

Supply and demand is a basic economic principle. Greater supply lower prices. Greater demand higher prices. Widgets that are sold come at a cost. A successful business will sell the widget for its cost, plus a share of the overhead cost plus a small profit margin. If nobody buys the cheap chemically contaminated Chinese made widget then it goes away because the business has no incentive to sell it. And if folks choose not to buy anything from that particular business because of its operating practices then the business goes away. Basic economics. Consumer driven results.

Last time I checked out my local Wal-Mart parking lot it was full of newer high dollar vehicles. Not many old jaloppies to be seen. Looked to me like the folks who were shopping ther could easily have afforded to patronize one of the local stores.

I don't give a damn about ideaology. The work of government is inherently practical. All I want is a government that works. Generally Dems have a better approach and are more successful in achieving practical measurable results.

[Two Americas]

21. for whom?

A government that works for whom?

Working competently and practically for the wealthy and powerful few - an ever-present danger - is quite different than working competently and practically for the many - the working people.

The right wingers say that by helping the wealthy and powerful few, that benefits will trickle down to the rest of us. Too many Democrats act as though they agree with that view. They say that the people deserve no better than whatever they are able to wrest from life in a dog-eat-dog free market chaos, and that they have only themselves to blame for their misery.

We on the political left say that it is the accumulation of wealth and power in the hands of the few that is the source of the suffering by the many. We say that helping those on the bottom should always be the priority, helping the producers, the workers, rather than the speculators and investors, and that we are fighting for justice and equality and for a cooperative and compassionate society. Is that "ideological?" The right wingers say that it is, and ask us to "transcend" ideology and partisanship, because they know that this will ensure that wealthy power and privilege will then remain with those who already have those.

For whom the government is working is more important than how well it works.

[Coyote_Bandit]

24. "Government

of the people, by the people and for the people."

That is not limited to red people or blue people or liberals or progressives or repubs or rich or poor. It includes ***ALL*** the people - even those wealthy and powerful few that you seem to detest.

We have lost our sense of national community. Instead of seeing ourselves as a nation we see ourselves as competing groups - each having an agenda and seeking to prevail over competing interests regardless of the impact on our fellow citizens. And that is part of the fucking problem. We no longer care how our own agenda impacts our fellow citizens - because, by God, we are right and to hell with them. Compromise has become a dirty word. We value our ideology over the ability of our government to serve the needs of all of its citizens.

Any government that works to serve the interests of only some of its citizens is deserving of failure. Competing interests of all groups must be considered with the goal being to advance the common good - not the good of any particular political, religious, socio-economic or other group. Policies ought not be viewed as either black or white (or red and blue). There are many, many shades of grey (purple too).

I presume that view is entirely too encompassing for you to consider it the least little bit progressive. Oh well. Whatever.

[Two Americas]

25. how about 99%

In the real world, the interests of 99% of the people - those who have to work for a paycheck to live - are at odds with the interests of the 1%. True, some 10% of the people or so - many of them self-described "liberals" - carry water for that 1% and fully half of the population has been induced to vote for the interests of that 1%.

But the idea that we need to compromise, and that all people need to be considered, almost always means complete surrender to the whims and desires of a very small privileged segment of the population. There is an insufficient amount of divergence of interests within the working class to explain the rancorous political climate.

Serving the needs of all of the people means defending the working people from the ravages and predation by the wealthy and powerful few - always has been the case, and probably always will. Is protecting the working people an "ideology?"

I fully agree that politics need to be "viewed as either black or white." We have no choice about that, though. We didn't start the class war. responding to it is not ideological or "black and white" thinking, it is a recognition of reality. When a person is drowning, you save them or you don't - there is no gray area. That has nothing to do with ideology nor "black and white" thinking.

Who is this "we" you are referring to and what is the "ideology" that you think is causing the problems?

[Coyote_Bandit]

29. You attribute comments

to me which I did not make. I said that politics ought ***NOT*** be viewed as black and white. We need to work to rebuild a sense of national community and understand how our own agenda impacts others. But then my commentary clearly isn't important to you. It is quite clear that you have an agenda which you would like for me to adopt. You support a class war and seem to have little interest in restoring a sense of national community. I do not share your agenda. I think it is possible to balance competing interests, compromise, and work toward a common good that serves the interests of ALL classes and all citizens. I have no desire to advance a political agenda that does not work to advance the common good of all our citizens. Seems there is no need for further discussion here.

Peace.

[Two Americas]

30. the well being of the people?

That is my agenda.

[Coyote_Bandit]

31. It would seem

that you don't give a damn about the "wealthy and powerful few". Which suggests that you do not appear to be interested in serving the interests of ***ALL** the people and working for the common good.

How dare I suggest that "government of the people, for the people, and by the people" really does include ***ALL*** the people? IMHO, it is bigoted to suggest that government ought not serve and include certain groups (blacks, gays, women, the homeless, etc.). The same is true with respect to the wealthy (whatever that means).

I'm not buying your class war sales pitch. I believe government can and should try to balance the competing interests of ***ALL*** - including the wealthy. Apparently such inclusion is far too progressive.

[Two Americas]

32. be serious

I am not concerned about a third yacht or a seventh home for a relative handful of people, is that is what you mean.

No one is talking about roasting wealthy people on a spit over an open fire.

The upper 1% deserves 1% of our concern. That is fair, is it not?

I am not giving a "sales pitch." Hearing everything as a sales pitch is to betray a certain concept of how we discuss social issues, and that dismissive remark could be applied to anything anyone says.

[Coyote_Bandit]

34. Wow

I bet you have more concern for a hang nail or a stubbed toe.

The interests of the "wealthy" are deserving of no more or less attention by government than than those of anyone else. Apparently you think differently. Which suggests to me that you do not think government should honor the Equal Protection clause and treat the interests of all its citizens equally.

[Two Americas]

36. who are you arguing with?

What are you arguing?

I would not deny the wealthy food, shelter, health care nor equal rights and protection under the law. What else is it that you think they deserve? What else is it that you assume I am saying? People who happened to be wealthy are entitles to all of the same benefits of public resources and infrastructure as anyone else - send their kids to public schools, use the public roads, receive Social Security, enjoy public parks, have police and fire protection, public food safety inspection... I am not and would not say otherwise.

Perhaps you have swallowed the absurd "class warfare" arguments from the right wingers? I can't figure out what your problem is with what I am saying.

No one suggested attacking or harming the wealthy.

[Coyote_Bandit]

41. Well Let's See

I pointed out that consumers as a group share responsibility for our current economic crisis.

You excuse consumers - seemingly without exception - for poor decisions and imply that any suggestion that their financial decisions have consequences is "contemptuous and slanderous."

There is a difference between consequences (a cause and effect relationship) and punishment (third party or societal retribution for the purpose of reform and prevention). I try to point out that distinction and the simple fact that the work of government to serve the common good is inherently practical.

You respond by saying "For whom the government is working is more important than how well it works." That statement clearly implies that you think government has no obligation to serve the interests of some of its citizens.

I respond by pointing out that government has a duty and obligation to serve the needs and interests of all and to work for the common good. When government works to advance the common good of the nation rather than any particular group (even a majority group) then government does serve the interests of all of its citizens. It is only then that government treats its citizens equally - something required by the Equal Protection Clause. Apparently that was a bit too inclusive.

You respond by suggesting that compromise between the wealthy and the masses is a surrender. You indicate no desire to work to rebuild a sense of national community. Your stated interest is in serving the interests of the masses. You suggest that the group you identify as the wealthy 1% is deserving of only 1% of our national concern.

I stand by my position that (1) consumers as a group do share some responsibility for our current economic crisis and (2) our government ought to be a "government of the people, for the people and by the people" whose work is inherently practical and whose object is to serve the common good of the nation.

Serving the common good of the nation is something very different from serving the individual or collective good of any person or group within that nation. The interests of all must be considered and given weight. No particular interest should be sacrificed just because the particular group who most benefits is in the minority. That includes blacks, hispanics, Native Americans, immigrants, illegal workers, gays, the disabled. I suspect you have little problem acknowledging that the common good of our nation has been served by advancing some of the interests of these groups who are minorities in our national population. The same is true with respect to socio-economic classes. Our national common good is not served by always deferring to the interests of one group or class at the expense of the others. Sometimes serving the interests of the masses (or the wealthy) is best for the nation and sometimes it isn't.

I think I've stated my position - and the reasons for it - clearly. You don't have to agree - and it should be obvious to you by now that I do not agree with your class based agenda.

Peace.

[Two Americas]

44. you are not responding

What I said has nothing to do with minorities, nor with whether or not consumers make smart decisions.

Wealthy people are not some abused, persecuted or suffering minority. Nor have I suggested that anyone be denied equal protection under the law.

Certainly people make stupid decisions. I didn't say otherwise. I challenged the assumption that this is the root cause, or even an important cause of our social problems.

To deny either of those is to deny reality. What observer of modern American society can deny that money buys power, influence and justice and that this distorts and corrupts government and obstructs justice and has serious negative impacts on most of the people? This is not some radical doctrine I am saying, it is in line with the traditional principles and ideals of the Democratic party and the Labor movement. I support both. If you do not, then we would be seeing this differently.

You seem to be arguing that the people with the least power should carry the most blame, and those with the most power need the most protection. I am not sure that this is what you are arguing, because you are not being very clear. If that is what you are arguing, I am taking the opposite point of view.

[Coyote_Bandit]

49. I can only conclude

that either (1) you do not understand my position, (2) you choose not to understand my position, (3) you do not respect my position, (4) you simply wish to argue, or (5) you are unwilling to allow this discussion to lapse until I agree with your position. Guess what? That ain't happening.

I have responded - just not in the manner you desire. Oh, well. Whatever. I don't care whether you agree with me - and I am not a zealot hell bent on converting others to my viewpoint. My beliefs do not require your approval, your agreement, or your understanding - and I have no obligation to validate your beliefs ragardless of how sincerely you hold them. Get over it.

Are you unable or unwilling to agree to disagree - as I have suggested several times in this thread?

Peace.

[Two Americas]

50. no problem

Just responding to your posts. Still not sure what you are saying.

[ieoeja]

39. There is a real argument to be made for the government not concerning itself with their wellness.

The rich and powerful can look after themselves.

You have to respect their rights, of course. But how much better off would the average American be today if our foreign policy in Latin America wasn't designed to keep those countries in poverty to serve as cheap labor for businesses owned by Americans?

Furthermore, how badly would have the owners of those multi-nationals suffered? In reality, they would have more consumers of their products. They would probably be much better off. And likely be paying lower taxes as there would be less military need and less poverty to contend with in this country.

[Coyote_Bandit]

42. See

my response 41 above.

[Two Americas]

43. you aren't responding

What is your disagreement with what ieoeja just said, for example?

[spin]

33. What if Al Gore had proposed the Pickens Plan...

Would you have supported it?

I understand the dislike T Boone Pickens generates among Democrats. I also realize that he would benefit from his plan.

But as I look at the plan, much of it makes sense. We do need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and in order to do this we need a bridge to green energy.

The research I've done on natural gas and the knowledgeable people I've talked to show that it is cleaner than the fuels we use today and that it increases engine life. Of course, I am in favor of wind power and other green energy sources, but they do appear to be a decade or more in the future.

There is always the possibility of new sources of energy that you rarely hear discussed like:

Nuclear power plants smaller than a garden shed and able to power 20,000 homes will be on sale within five years, say scientists at Los Alamos, the US government laboratory which developed the first atomic bomb.

The miniature reactors will be factory-sealed, contain no weapons-grade material, have no moving parts and will be nearly impossible to steal because they will be encased in concrete and buried underground.

The US government has licensed the technology to Hyperion, a New Mexico-based company which said last week that it has taken its first firm orders and plans to start mass production within five years. 'Our goal is to generate electricity for 10 cents a kilowatt hour anywhere in the world,' said John Deal, chief executive of Hyperion. 'They will cost approximately $25m <£16m> each. For a community with 10,000 households, that is a very affordable $2,500 per home.'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/09/miniature-nuclear-reactors-los-alamos

[Coyote_Bandit]

35. Interesting

Thanks for the link.

My personal opinion is that any long term economic solution in the US will require (1) rebuilding our manufacturing base, (2) rebuilding the infrastructure to support it and (3) becoming energy independent. I'm not quite sure how we can do that. Truth be told, I fear that our nation lacks both the personal and political will to do so.

As a nation we seem more focused on managing the current crisis than in fashioning and implementing long term solutions.

We've accepted the inevitability of a global economy without realizing that its logical end is a single worldwide standard of living which will require a transfer of wealth from richer nations to poorer nations.

[spin]

40. I agree...

Our country seems to be run like the corporations that possibly control it. Both the government and the corporations rarely think beyond the next quarter.

But we do need to improve our infrastructure.

10 October 2007: In a well-publicized 2005 report, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) concluded that 27 per cent of the almost 600,000 bridges in the US are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. The report estimated that it would cost US $9 billion annually for 20 years to fix the bridges alone. The collapse of a major bridge in Minneapolis in August 2007, which underscored the warnings of the ASCE study, was only the latest high-profile infrastructure failure in the US.
http://www.citymayors.com/development/us-infrastructure.html

And if we fund infrastructure improvements we will create jobs throughout the entire economy. The government could pump money to the workers rather than the big corporations and financial institutions. Good paying jobs would reinvigorate the sales of homes, cars, consumer electronics and home appliances and pull us out of this recession. We would travel on safer roads and benefit from an improved power grid. We could improve our internet network and upgrade to a higher speed internet for everybody.

We could develop green technology and sell it to the world. We could easily become the worlds leader in solar power, wind and wave power and many other green technologies. Again we develop our country and provide good paying jobs for workers. It may take a decade or two to truly replace fossil fuel but we will be a wealthier and more secure country for the effort.

If we develop a forward looking approach to solving our problems we may be able to maintain our standard of living while the technology we develop may raise the stand of living in the poorer nations.

[karynnj]

46. Gore - on one of the talk shows had problems with Pickens plan.

I think that if the plan was amazingly good and solved the energy and global warming, people like Gore and Kerry would back it because they genuienely care.

In reality what Pickens' plan represents is that alternative energy has achieved mass as an issue, something Gore and others worked hard for. That leads to people coming out to profit from it - and a big one is Pickens.

[globalvillage]

5. He was a scumbag when he funded the swiftboat liars

A scumbag when he welshed on the bet about his lies, and he's a scumbag today. I wouldn't waste a minute of my time listening to anything that jerk has to say.

[desktop]

6. Pickens only motivation is power and ego

As Pickens has said, he has all the money he needs, although he has lost a bundle recently on his poor decisions. His motivation now is to have America come to him and his ideas of gas and wind power. T Boone Pickens needs to just fade away and let Americans who really care about Americans decide our future, not someone with a proven ulterior agenda and a deceitful background.

[CanSocDem]

9. Is T. Boone Pickens the new Nader...???

Just so I know.

.

[karynnj]

47. That is an insult to Nader

Now, Nader was trouble in 2000 - but in the 1960s he was a real consumer advocate. Pickens has been a creep since forever.

[blogslut]

14. You'll get no argument from me

I come from a town that's been fighting Boone for 20 years. He is a real-life Daniel Plainview. He comes on with smooth talk and big promises and before you know it, he's drunk your milkshake. His little wind farm scam must be stopped.

[tjwash]

15. Why? Is he sore because his little attempt at a 200 miilion dollar cash grab went down in flames?

That asshole was the one that funded prop 10...fuck him

[suede1]

17. Any shrimp boat liar for truth, sucks!

[Zenlitened]

20. How dare you insult that great man! Why, he single-handedly invented...

... wind!!!

:sarcasm:

[CTyankee]

22. But doncha just love to hear him

talk! That accent gets me every time...

[AlCzervik]

23. Pickens is in it for himself only, i got polled abut the prop he had in California

it took the gal a little to find the sponsor but she eventually did and said his name "Oh hall to the no, i don't care if wants to write me a check for a million dollars, no way"

[SemiCharmedQuark]

26. I was disappointed that Jon Stewart seemed so enamoured with him

Something like "If you had a whistle, my entire audience and I would follow you out of the studio" or something. I know, comedy show, but still...ew.

[123infinity]

27. There are reasons to dislike him but he's not an idiot and he's not a liar.

Do I detect a twinge of jealousy?

[karynnj]

28. He definately IS a liar - and gave millions to other liars

He is not an idiot - If his plan doesn't work for the stated goal --- it may not be his real goal. He is scum.

[LSK]

37. I really really really want to ask him about his choice in 2004

[karynnj]

48. Exactly,

Rather hard to take his newfound energy independence seriously - when Kerry made that an issue.

[Iggo]

38. He may be a liar...

...be he ain't no idjit.