It’s Christmas every day with Brian.

Saturday, January 27th, 2007 @ 9:21 pm | Clueless Conservatives

Iowa’s biggest idiot, Brian Pickrell, isn’t at it again, not at all. It’s just that I haven’t read his page for a few months. When you accept that his blog is an eternal spring of mind-boggling stupidity, you know you can always go back later. Today I noted he’d linked to us again, still under the strange delusion that we’re smelly pot-smoking hippies, so I thought I’d go find an example of him blatantly lying. Took me about four minutes.

Check out this dissembling over the minimum wage bill:

It’s interesting to watch how the left is spinning this like crazy, but remember the rhetoric before this happened: the minimum wage was a done deal, they just had to go through the motions. Now, however, it’s the Democrats who put a halt to it because, of all things, they realize that you know, the minimum wage might just hurt small businesses after all.

The Democrats put a stop to it??? Brian fucking quoted the NY Times saying:

The 54 “yes” votes were six short of the number needed to shut off debate and move on to consideration of the bill, which easily passed in the House two week ago.

Can Brian honestly be that stupid? For clarification later in the article he could have read this:

All 43 “no” votes on the motion to end debate were cast by Republicans. Five Republicans joined 47 Democrats and two independents in voting “yes.”

What a disgraceful caricature of a human being. Proud and cowardly at the same time. Loud yet ever in retreat from those who would shut him up. “Patriotic” yet in complete ignorance of the principles this country was built upon. Occupying an alternate magical universe where the past six years has seen Bush “reaching out” to Democrats only to be repeatedly rebuffed. Wrong over, and over, and over again, yet still believing himself to be deserving of credibility.

Is it any wonder he can only make weird jokes about tea-smoking hippies, and yet never attempts to challenge us here at Iowa Liberal over the facts?


Update:  As one can see by the comment thread, I got Brian’s goat enough for him to try a challenge.   One would generally try to have a leg to stand on before entering a debate, but no such impediment bothered Brian.  Enjoy.

24 Responses to “It’s Christmas every day with Brian.”

  1. Brian Says:

    I suggest you read it again. The Democrats pulled it from consideration in the Senate because they didn’t have the votes…something they were always critical of the Republicans for doing.

    So what I said is accurate: they put a stop to it because there’s no way this bill passes the Senate.

    Get a fucking clue before you comment on something, man. You have no idea what you’re talking about 9/10ths of the time.

  2. jeromy Says:

    They didn’t have the votes to override the REPUBLICAN filibuster. Why exactly is that so difficult for your addled brain to process?

    You claim that Democrats did the same? Really? How many times did Democrats complain about bills being pulled from consideration AFTER the Democrats pulled a filibuster on those very bills? “Hey, you pulled the bill we were trying to kill!” I suspect you’re entirely full of shit, but feel free to offer some back-up for your ridiculous claims.

    Oh, and “Hey, why don’t we just make the minimum wage $20 an hour!” is not clever. The Democrats are merely trying to match inflation. Then again, if you didn’t rely on continuous lying mixed with outrageous stupidity, you wouldn’t have a blog, would you?

    C’mon, Brian. Let’s have it. Stand up and fight for once instead of running like the pitiful coward you’ve been. Your insults hold no weight when I know you’re two seconds away from bolting out of here.

  3. jeromy Says:

    Also, note the shifting:

    “The Democrats pulled it from consideration in the Senate because they didn’t have the votes…something they were always critical of the Republicans for doing.”

    Brian’s original claim:

    “Now, however, it’s the Democrats who put a halt to it because, of all things, they realize that you know, the minimum wage might just hurt small businesses after all.”

    Ah, the life of a rightwinger. Not having to be accountable for your own words, even when they’re on the same fucking page you’re commenting on. Being able to lie continuously and expect your credibility to increase. What a pathetic report on the human condition.

  4. Brian Says:

    There was no filibuster. That’s where you’re getting confused.

    The Democrats in the Senate, not the House, mind you, wanted to add some tax breaks for small businesses, which is contrary to what the House wanted. That’s where the 60 votes comes in, as they have to get their bill to match the one in the House. They didn’t have the votes to do it, so they yanked it for later consideration, rather than have it go down in defeat.

    Many times Frist did the exact same thing, and the Democrats foamed at the mouth over it, because, as you said, they were trying to kill the bill. That’s not the case here. Republicans were more than willing to vote on this bill, but Reid said “nah”.

    You really ought to get your news from other places than the DU and Daily Kos.

  5. jeromy Says:

    The 60 votes were required to end the debate and put the bill up for consideration. 43 Republican Senators voted against ending the debate. That’s what a filibuster is. This doesn’t come from Daily Kos or DU (which I *still* do not read). It comes from the goddamn article you originally cite. Not only did you fail to read it the first time, you’ve failed to process specific quotes from the article precisely to that effect.

    I guess that’s why you run away from fights. If you stay, you just lie and make things up out of thin air. Do you have *any* support for anything you have said? It just amazes me how you can blame Democrats for the actions of 43 Republicans, and that you’ll blatantly invent an alternate reality to support it.

    Dude, you need psychological help.

  6. jeromy Says:

    Note that Brian’s comments appear without interference on our blog. I made one very short comment consisting mostly of a quote from the NYT article that went to moderation, and Brian killed it.

    It’s hard work being a toadie for Dear Leader.

  7. Brian Says:

    The sixty votes in this case was a procedural vote, not a filibuster. It has nothing to do with whether or not the bill is accepted, and it has nothing to do with whether or not the bill is defeated. All it means is that the bill will continue to be debated and amendments offered. Forty-three Republicans voted to keep the debate open, yes…but because they wanted to soften the blow against small businesses. It’s exactly the same kind of thing that Reid used to cry like a baby over, and now he’s doing the exact same thing.

    As for your comment that you supposedly left, I never saw it. See, unlike you, I get a lot of traffic and I get a lot of comment spam. If you left a comment, I may have accidentally threw it in the trash with the other couple hundred pieces of junk I got today. I just love how you cry about a comment that didn’t make it and assume I’m censoring you.

    Well, sad-sack, you can look at any number of comments on my blog, and you will easily see that I let comments in that disagree with me. So quit crying “Oh, Brian is blocking my (moronic) comments!!”, smoke yourself some tea, and calm the fuck down.

    As for running away from fights, I don’t know where the hell you get that. If I was running away, I sure as hell wouldn’t be commenting on here. But see, don’t confuse my sometimes not commenting on some boneheaded thing you wrote as my not “fighting” with you. I make it a personal policy not to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed person, and you and your hippie friends here certainly are unarmed in that department. Just reading the crap you write makes my head hurt, it’s so damn stupid.

    If you ever make a legitimate comment or observation that bears discussing, believe me, I’ll debate you…but as I said, the stuff you write here 99% of the time isn’t worth my time.

  8. John Says:

    this is one of those totally entertaining cases where far-right dudes don’t like the way the reality of the situation sounds so they try to cast aspersions

    minimum wage is an issue on which America generally agrees with the Democrats. Far-right people think Americans are stupid on this issue (or “misinformed,” or – this is my favorite “misled by the evil bogeyman MSM”), and that the noble GOP is protecting America from itself. These are the same people who bitch and moan about the “nanny state” when it suits there purposes. Has there ever been a more furiously flopping fish than the American right mach 2007? The only card they have left to play is the “you sound so unhinged!” card, and that dog stopped hunting about three years ago. I wonder when they’ll notice that?

  9. John Says:

    their purposes, sorry – hazards of typing pre-coffee

  10. jeromy Says:

    Brian, one thing will never change, I guess, and that’s your ridiculous excuses for deleting comments and running away from debate. You may have the amnesia of convenience, but that’s not a substitute for credibility. I don’t believe you about the comments because you’re a proven liar, and I don’t believe your pre-baked excuses for running away *every* time because you always run at the precise moment you run out of bullshit.

    I asked you to verify *anything* you’ve said. You didn’t. What you did was alter your story to fit the facts a little more closely. That ridiculous rambling about “they have to get their bill to match the one in the House,” was discarded rather quickly, wasn’t it? Of course, being a liar by nature you can’t just fess up, you’ve got to try to slime your way out of it.

    So now it’s “a procedural vote.” That’s what a filibuster is, dipshit! It’s the vote to end debate and put the bill up for a vote, which is what 43 Republicans refused to do. Yes, they’ve got amendments they want to slap all over the bill, but what are you telling me that I don’t already know? Nothing. What are you telling me that contradicts what I’ve said? Nothing. And what have you offered to prove your allegation (which you have already tried altering) that Democrats are responsible for halting the bill because it is they who “realize that…the minimum wage might just hurt small businesses after all.”

    What you’ve proven, Brian, is that you’re a liar who not only has convenient amnesia but who will even contradict his own words when they’re visible by simply scrolling upwards on the page. You can’t just admit you fucked up, and now you’re stuck making things up out of thin air and changing your own words and trying to pretend you don’t soon plan on running back over to your blog with your ass beaten black and blue.

    What’s your other choice? Stay here and lie more? Bring it on, idiot. It’s really entertaining to see somebody as fundamentally dishonest and dimwitted as you pretend you’re too smart to waste your time with me. If you think something I say is stupid, feel free to actually bother proving it.

    Or maybe you’ll finally process the fact that you’re outmatched, and that you’re just a blowhard propagandist?

  11. Brian Says:


    I stand by everything I’ve said. Where have I been proven wrong on this? Nowhere. You obviously don’t know what a filibuster is, because this wasn’t one.

    Chose to believe me or not over your comment, I couldn’t give a damn less. It is, after all, my blog and if I want to let a comment through or delete it, that’s my choice. But I don’t do that unless it (the comment) violates my site policy. Rare is the case when that happens, but it does. If you left a comment, I honestly didn’t see it and probably deleted it as spam with the other couple hundred messages yesterday.

    In any case, back to the bill. Here’s how it works:

    The House proposed a minimum wage bill. That bill then went to the Senate, where they were debating their own version and trying to get it to match, as close as possible, the House bill. When amendments were offered in the way of tax breaks, Reid saw that he didn’t have the votes to pass the bill as it was (matching the House bill), so he pulled it. It’s exactly the same thing that Frist used to do and the Democrats used to bitch and moan about, which was my point.

    But call it whatever you want, it was not a filibuster.

    Regardless, this minimum wage bill as it stands in the House is DOA. It will not make it through the Senate in its present form. I have less of a problem with them increasing the minimum wage if they do indeed give small businesses some kind of tax relief to offset the additional labor costs. It’s not a zero-sum game, where an employer just pulls an extra $2/hour out of their ass, it has to be made up somewhere, be it in the form of higher prices or cutting back on your workforce, or both.

    I’ve been in this kind of work environment for twenty-some years, and I know what the heck I’m talking about. I’ve seen it too many times to count, that every time you raise the minimum wage, you hurt the people you are trying to help by raising their cost of living, by cutting their hours or, worse yet, throwing them on the unemployment line.

    Fair enough? I’ll debate you on this issue till the end of time, because I know I’m right. I’ve seen endless articles, reports, etc., and I have the luxury of real-life experience in management to back me up.

  12. mike Says:

    You’re employed?

  13. jeromy Says:

    “You obviously don’t know what a filibuster is, because this wasn’t one.”

    Wow, what a stunning argument. It isn’t because it isn’t! Oh, your logical weaponry, Brian. 43 Republican senators vote against ending debate unless they can slap a pile of amendments on the bill, and it’s not a filibuster. Pray tell, Brian, what do you think a filibuster is? And what happens to the bill when the filibuster is successful? All this talk of “they knew they didn’t have the votes…” but all the Democrats plus several Republicans were ready to have a vote on it.

    I see you’ve returned to the “they needed to match the House bill” wackiness. Please provide a source that illustrates what the hell you think you’re talking about. I know you’re full of shit, but apparently you need it proven to yourself that you’re clueless.

    As for this, “They complained when the Republicans did it…” shtick, you still dodged my earlier question: what bills did Democrats try to kill, and then complain when they succeeded? You’re clearly against the minimum wage increase and thus are happy that your Republican shitbird friends succeeded, but you still want to pretend that the Democrats are doing something to you they didn’t like done to themselves?

    And nice try trying to shift this into a debate on the minimum wage itself. We can have that debate, sure, Brian, but that was *not* the original argument, so don’t go wandering off there, bucko. Stay focused, provide evidence and some semblance of logic, or else admit that you’re full of shit. The minimum wage bill soared through the House and got stopped by Republicans in the Senate, and you’re happy they did.
    Democrats did *not* put a halt to anything. They were trying to go to vote and the Republicans refused.

    Face it, Brian, there are those concerned with reality, and then there are the 30% like you that still think Bush and the GOP are the best thing since fire and the wheel. You lost the majority because you can’t help lying and making things up. People tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but when reality left you behind, so did they.

  14. rexusnexus Says:

    Brian says: “But call it whatever you want, it was not a filibuster.”

    FILIBUSTER: “As form of obstructionism in a legislature or other decision making body, a filibuster is an attempt to extend debate upon a proposal in order to delay or completely prevent a vote on its passage. The term first came into use in the United States Senate, where Senate rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless a supermajority group of 60 Senators brings debate to a close by invoking cloture.”

    Thus, this was clearly a filibuster. Republicans refused to allow an up or down vote on the bill until the Democrats made concessions (i.e. allowed tax breaks to be attached to the bill). Democrats had absolutely nothing to do with stopping the minimum wage increase. They certainly didn’t come to any epiphany about the minimum wage increase hurting businesses. If anything, the opposite is the case, as the Democrats refused to buckle to Republican pressure to include tax breaks as a part of the bill — had the Democrats been worried about the negative impacts a minimum wage increase would have on business they would probably have viewed the tax breaks as a fair way of mitigating those impacts.

    Brian: “It’s exactly the same kind of thing that Reid used to cry like a baby over, and now he’s doing the exact same thing.”

    I have absolutely no idea what this is referring to. Frist used to cry like a baby because Senate Democrats filibustered some of Bush’s judicial nominations (as an aside, this complaint was rediculous because Republicans prevented votes on ten times as many Clinton nominees . . . Bush has had it relatively easy, especially for non-Supreme Court court nominees.) Now, Senate Republicans are preventing the Democrats from moving forward with their adgenda, which has a clear mandate given the overwhelming results of the last election. If anything, this makes teh Republicans look like hypocrites, not the Democrats.

    As a last note, no one, Republican or Democrat, should bitch and complain about the filibuster — it is a valuable procedural rule that ensures that a bare majority cannot impose their will without making consessions to the minority. Perhaps the most egregious example of Republican malfeasance in this regard was their nearly-carried-out threat of eliminating the filibuster rule. That threat was one in a long list of examples demostrating the extent to which the right wing’s thirst for power is unconstrained by the lessons of history.

  15. jeromy Says:

    Thanks, Rex. And let me be clear, I’m not railing against the existence of the filibuster rule at all. It should be exercised with restraint, but it can serve an important purpose.

    What I’m criticizing is Brian’s attempt to have it both ways. He’s happy Republicans killed the bill, but he wants to paint Democrats as being the ones who actually did it, AND he wants to play Republicans as victims too. There isn’t a shred of coherence in Brian’s entire canon of squawking here.

    The purpose, since lying propagandists like Brian sure as hell aren’t serving logic or facts, is to prevent Republicans taking the heat for blocking a minimum wage increase. I say Republicans filibustered the bill, own up to it and move on.

  16. rexusnexus Says:

    Thought you might be interested in this article, originally from the NYTimes:,_i_rssPage=5025ac56-c98f-11d7-81c6-0820abe49a01.html. Even though it’s a year old, I think it remains relevant in any assesment of how serious this guy should be taken (read, “not at all”).

    Apparently, Mr. Pickrell is an admitted Walmart shill and plagiarist.

  17. Brian Says:

    That’s if you believe what the author of that article wrote. Everything he wrote about me in that article was a blatant lie, and he reported the story as he wanted to report it. The New York Times hates blogs (on either side of the political spectrum), and Barbaro hates Wal-Mart, so this was a perfect little hit piece for them to do.

    He ignored the things I told him, that the sentence in question was supposed to be in the quote box, and that the rest of what he was talking about WAS in a quote box, along with the relevant links. That is how blogs show their sources, yet he ignored it. I stressed very hard to him that that one sentence was supposed to be in the quotes along with the rest, but I must have made a coding error that left it just outside of it. That one sentence is the basis of his entire story, and it’s a complete lie on his part.

    I told him that I received press releases from BOTH sides of the Wal-Mart issue (still do), along with press releases from BOTH political parites, and he didn’t report that. That’s how I stay informed, along with reading the news and such. Apparently, that’s just not up to the standards of the media, who happily reprint press releases spoon fed to them by any number of sources without attribution.

    I’m not saying one bit that a filibuster is bad, but this wasn’t a filibuster. Nobody was talking for hours on end, and Republicans wanted to add amendments (along with a handful of Dems). Knowing full well that the bill was not going to pass as it was currently written, Reid yanked it from the floor.

    I can’t remember the specific bill, but I know there were at least two times that Reid took the floor of the Senate in the past year and cried about Frist doing the exact same thing. My point is the double standard, that it was pure evil when Republicans do it, but it’s perfectly ok when Dems do it.

    For the record, I think the minimum wage is a bogus issue. It doesn’t help the poor, and I think (I’ve seen it, actually) it hurts the people it’s supposed to be helping.

  18. Brian Says:

    Oh, and his comment of “several sentences” over several days? He never pointed to anything else. His only “proof” was that one sentence, and he based his reporting on that.

  19. jeromy Says:

    “I’m not saying one bit that a filibuster is bad, but this wasn’t a filibuster. Nobody was talking for hours on end, and Republicans wanted to add amendments (along with a handful of Dems). Knowing full well that the bill was not going to pass as it was currently written, Reid yanked it from the floor.”

    Source, Brian? Why were the Democrats ready to vote on it if they knew it wasn’t going to pass? How can you keep forgetting that 43 Republicans stopped it from going to a vote?

    You are clearly unable to process what you’re being told, and somehow think by repeating your disproven junk again, it’ll be more convincing. Now it’s not a filibuster because “nobody did a bunch of talking.” The truth is that filibusters are formalities, and that the debate is not actually expected to go on ad infinitum, it’s the threat that counts. The vote to end cloture determines whether there’s a filibuster or not.

    Brian, how can you feel so hot about yourself when you can’t even address the points made to you? Now we hear that you can’t remember when Reid cried over Frist pulling a bill Reid was trying to kill?

    We’ll assume that’s another one of your pathological lies. Not to mention that you can’t even explain why Reid would be complaining if the roles were reversed. Are the Republicans sad the minimum wage bill died? No, they’re fucking happy, just like you.

    Really, Brian, I know you can’t choose to be smarter, but why the hell can’t you just be honest? Why must logic be thrown out the door because you’re ashamed to admit you’re full of shit?

  20. John Says:

    The New York Times hates blogs (on either side of the political spectrum)

    the beauty of this righty delusion is that it’s a delusion both of persecution and grandeur – you get two for the price of one, plus the bonus irony of righty bloggers sounding like self-righteous anarcho-syndicalists (“they FEAR the POWER of the PEOPLE” – stick it to ’em, armchair generals!)

  21. John Says:

    came back to close my tag but let me ask while I’m here: if that story in the NY Times is a lie, Brian, why don’t you take ’em to court? Eh? Could it be because they’re telling the truth and can back up their claims in an environment where bluster won’t count for jack?

    There’s nothing illegal about the whoring you did for Wal-Mart, B. But it’s shameful to be a whore and lie about it. Ho it up, man – nobody’s gonna judge you!

  22. rexusnexus Says:

    Read about cloture here:

    You see, once a bill is in front of the Senate floor for consideration, debate will continue on the bill until one of two things happen (1) a cloture vote succeeds, allowing an up or down vote on the bill, or (2) the bill is removed from consideration. If the bill is removed from consideration because over 40 Senators decide they will not allow cloture, what you have is a filibuster.

    Here is what happened with the minimum wage bill (via

    “The first thing the Senate did after the House overwhelmingly passed a minimum wage increase was to load up the bill with tax breaks for business. Then they began a seemingly endless debate on amendment after amendment, many of them irrelevant to any wage boost, that has stretched into the better part of two weeks. . . .

    Republicans view the debate on the minimum wage as a two-fer: they can both prevent (or at least dilute) an increase in the minimum wage through legislative minutiae and also forestall what will be an unpleasant conversation for the party over Iraq.”

    So, you see Mr. Pickrell, what we had here was a filibuster by Republicans in order to prevent the passage of a minimum wage increase, with the added benefit of preventing debate on Iraq. The Republicans were using Senate procedural rules to advance their agenda.

    Of course, here’s what Harry Reid had to say about it, just before a cloture vote today: “If cloture is not invoked, we’re through with minimum wage.” This wasn’t whining; it was a warning to Republicans that he, as Majority leader, would not allow Republicans to use delay tactics to prevent the new Democratic majority from continuing with their legislative plan. What happened after the warning? The Senate voted 87-10 to invoke cloture, as you no doubt have already seen, allowing an up or down vote on the bill later this week. It should be noted that some of the tax relief Republicans were pushing for was inserted in the final version of the bill, making it likely that it will pass and go back to the House, where it will likely be met with stiff resistance.

  23. mike Says:

    And what’s with the phoney concern for small business? Republicans only seem to give a shit about small businesses when wage issues arise. Other than that they’ve got no problem with Wal Mart bullying their way into a community and destroying downtown.

  24. Brian Says:

    And what, exactly, would I have sued them over? It would have been my word against his, as it was a phone interview.

    And make no mistake, the NYTimes doesn’t just hate conservative blogs, they hate liberal blogs, too. Why? Because 1) we are in a position to prove them wrong, 2) we are putting a huge dent in their circulation (why do you think they keep laying off workers?), and 3) it means they’re no longer the only game in town.