JournoList- Where the Liberal and Progressive Press Gets Its Instructions For Obama Protection Talking Points

In 2008 no matter what story, what allegation, what Liberal, Socialist, Progressive story came out, it was certain that what passed for journalism, would bury, cover up, or excuse any embarassing about Obama. The worst of it was chastizing and blackballing anyone not following the Protect Obama story line.

We all remember when Sarah Palin was intriduced as the Republican VP Candidate, the liberal, progressive propagandists descended on Alaska like a heard of Locusts. More in-depth searching and storylines came out on Palin than Obama. The Propagandists put a shield around Obama to deflect any story.

By a shear slip of the tongue, Gearge Steph. ask Revvum Wright about BO and solicitied the wrong story line answer. The propoganists at JournoList went in to hyper drive to deflect the story and bury it, successfully.

Now finally the almost real press has exposed JournoList for what it is, an Obama Propaganda Machine. Several articles came out on Memeorandum.com today exposing this fraud (my personal view of it). Here’s a story of many:
http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2010/20100720063825.aspx

Media Liberals on ‘JournoList’ Plotted to Bury the Jeremiah Wright Story
By: Tim Graham
July 20, 2010 18:21 ET

The Daily Caller has another scoop on the leftist JournoList e-mails on Tuesday, recalling when liberal scribes all wanted the Jeremiah Wright story to be dead and buried in the spring of 2008. Jonathan Strong explained “Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.”

Stephanopoulos asked, “Do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?”…The tough questioning from ABC left many of them outraged. “George [Stephanopoulos],” fumed Richard Kim of the Nation, is “being a disgusting little rat snake.”

In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”

Michael Tomasky, a writer for the Guardian, also tried to rally his fellow members of Journolist: “Listen folks–in my opinion, we all have to do what we can to kill ABC and this idiocy in whatever venues we have. This isn’t about defending Obama. This is about how the [mainstream media] kills any chance of discourse that actually serves the people.”

“Richard Kim got this right above: ‘a horrible glimpse of general election press strategy.’ He’s dead on,” Tomasky continued. “We need to throw chairs now, try as hard as we can to get the call next time. Otherwise the questions in October will be exactly like this. This is just a disease.”

The most eye-opening quote may come from Chris Hayes, a regular guest and occasional guest host on The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC, writing about how America is a murderous, torturing giant, and that’s much more outrageous than Wright. In fact, Hayes echoed Wright’s sermons:

Chris Hayes of the Nation posted on April 29, 2008, urging his colleagues to ignore Wright. Hayes directed his message to “particularly those in the ostensible mainstream media” who were members of the list.

The Wright controversy, Hayes argued, was not about Wright at all. Instead, “It has everything to do with the attempts of the right to maintain control of the country.”

Hayes castigated his fellow liberals for criticizing Wright. “All this hand wringing about just how awful and odious Rev. Wright remarks are just keeps the hustle going.”

More of the story at the link:

430 Comments

  1. Shorter Yorkshire: Professional journalists are sick of manufactured pseudo-scandals – what a scandal!

  2. Uh-huh.
    It’s a pseudo-scaldel if it’s a commie, racist . It’s a real scandle if it’s a republican (small R). Okay Pho, name the last conservative who murdered a million people. Was it Reagan? Or pol-Pot? Oh wait, I was there, it was Pol-pot. I watched those wonderful socialist pinko bastards murder people just cause they didn’t do what they wanted. Do you know what? I don’t care if you don’t do what I want or agree with me. Go your own way. But let me go my own. Got a problem with that or would you rather put me in a killing field? (answer soon to come)

  3. Indeed. A pseudo-scandal = wondering if a potential future president shares the views of his racist, anti-Semitic nutjob self-described mentor.

  4. No, a “pseudo-scandal” is something which is hysterical scaremongering about trivial matters based on innuendo rather than evidence, and usually containing dogwhistles.

    As opposed to, say, lying about wars and torture.

  5. Liberal bias? What liberal bias? There’s no such thing as liberal bias. Didn’t you get the memo from Media Matters?

    When liberal objective journalists get together in secret and conspire to protect an unqualified Democrat pretender from the consequences of long term relationships with domestic terrorists and racist bigots spouting Marxist dogma in the name of Jesus, and do so by issuing coordinated bogus accusations of racism against anyone who would question Barack Obama’s fairytale origins, well, that’s not bias, that’s just middle of the road, good old common sense expressed by the most professional philistines working in print and broadcast media today.

    Ya got that comrade?

  6. Indeed. Innuendo = factual video and written evidence. Y’know, stuff that counts as evidence in a court of law.

  7. Hube, these so called “liberals” are the least liberal people I’ve ever met. They think only of Race or class or income or color or whatever. There is something really wrong with people who always think negative about their fellow man. They always think “agenda” not realizing most of us have no agenda, we just want to live our lives whithout being told by others we are wrong, too white, Christian (like it’s bad), stupid, idiots, greedy, homophobic or whatever. I just want to live free, and I will not stop another man from doing so. Yes, I pay my taxes. Yes I help my fellow man, my family, community, state and federal government. But I am pissed off at being deamonized because I had a successful career. I will help anyone but please don’t spit on me while I do.

  8. Hube, these so called “liberals” are the least liberal people I’ve ever met.

    Indeed. In a nutshell, they believe what Frank Burns once told Hawkeye and Trapper in an early MASH episode: “Individuality is fine — as long as we all do it together.” IOW, to them, freedom is great — until you disagree with them. Then you must be destroyed.

  9. Uh-huh. Have you idiots read “Flat Earth News” yet?

    Didn’t think so…

  10. I was waiting for another brilliant post from Pho (or perhaps the great intellect of Whistler) but now I must go to bed. Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow, creeps in its petty pace from day to day, and all our yesterdays have lighted fools to dusty death. Out, out brief candle. Life is but a shadow, a poor playyer who struts and frets his hour upon the stage. It is a tale told by idiots. Full of sound and fury, signifying…….. Goodnight.

  11. BTW – not a single comment about how Fox’s lies got Sherrod fired?

    Cowards…

  12. Mr Graham wrote:

    In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”

    And that meme continues today. Our good friends at Pandagon use the “you’re a racist!” argument virtually every day: a site search for “racism” pings seven articles in seven days, from the 14th through the 20th.

    The racism charge is a great argument-killer: the respondent winds up having to defend against the accusation, and stops arguing his point. And it’s intellectually lazy as well: the accuser simply uses it, rather than having to do the harder work of defending his position.

  13. BTW – not a single comment about how Fox’s lies got Sherrod fired?

    Idiot. It was Andrew Brietbart, not Fox, and he claims he received only the segment he posted. And why didn’t the NAACP (which said it had the whole tape) and the WH actually investigate the matter instead of reacting so viscerally? Oh right — that’s what they DO regarding accusations of racism!! Nevertheless, you were saying? http://colossus.mu.nu/archives/303821.php

    Speaking of cowards, no word about how the JournoList Stalinists wanted the FCC to shut down Fox? How they conspired to use “racist” at any criticism of Obama/Wright/whomever?

    Coward.

  14. Pho’s right. FOX really screwed up that story. They didn’t dig deep enough and I blame Andrew Breitbart. But still it was FOX’s lack of investigation which put egg on their faces. As Dana Pico pointed out, this constant “racist” shit helps no one.

  15. Jonah Goldberg today:

    I think she should get her job back. I think she’s owed apologies from pretty much everyone, including my good friend Andrew Breitbart. I generally think Andrew is on the side of the angels and a great champion of the cause. He says he received the video in its edited form and I believe him. But the relevant question is, Would he have done the same thing over again if he had seen the full video from the outset? I’d like to think he wouldn’t have. Because to knowingly turn this woman into a racist in order to fight fire with fire with the NAACP is unacceptable. When it seemed that Sherrod was a racist who abused her power, exposing her and the NAACP’s hypocrisy was perfectly fair game. But now that we have the benefit of knowing the facts,the equation is completely different.

    In one of the recent Journolist belches we saw how creatures like Spencer Ackerman see nothing wrong with randomly charging innocent conservatives with racism in order to send a message. This is a deplorable tactic conservatives regularly and rightly deplore when used by liberals (we usually have less proof than we have in Ackerman’s confession). I see no reason to emulate this tactic and I very much doubt that was Andrew’s intent. Some emailers on the other hand seem to come close to making the case for this kind of thing. As I’ve argued countless times before, this sort of politics is almost always counter-productive and quite often grotesque. Embracing the tactics you condemn in others requires, at minimum, that you stop condemning it in others. It also has the potential to sell your soul on layaway.

    Meanwhile, as a matter of politics, I think this episode demonstrates that this White House is a much more tightly wound outfit than it lets on in public. The rapid-response firing suggests a level of fear over Glenn Beck and Fox that speaks volumes.

    I agree.

  16. Good quote, Hube. I too agree with Goldberg. The racist tactic is deplorable and used too often to deflect criticism rather than point out actual racism. I don’t like it used on us and therefore, would not use it on them. I still contend that the NAACP is the most vocal group of racists around, and what could be more racist than the Congressional Black Caucus which entire determination of who can join is soley based on the color of their skin?

  17. Thus far I haven’t read one mainstream conservative writer who isn’t sympathetic to Sherrod based on the full context/tape. Not saying there aren’t any out there who aren’t sympathetic, but I sincerely doubt we’d see similar sentiments from the Left.

  18. Hube, there is no doubt we would not see these sentiments from the left. Here’s a quote from JournoList:

    If you were in the presence of a man having a heart attack, how would you respond? As he clutched his chest in desperation and pain, would you call 911? Would you try to save him from dying? Of course you would.

    But if that man was Rush Limbaugh, and you were Sarah Spitz, a producer for National Public Radio, that isn’t what you’d do at all.

    In a post to the list-serv Journolist, an online meeting place for liberal journalists, Spitz wrote that she would “Laugh loudly like a maniac and watch his eyes bug out” as Limbaugh writhed in torment.

    In boasting that she would gleefully watch a man die in front of her eyes, Spitz seemed to shock even herself. “I never knew I had this much hate in me,” she wrote. “But he deserves it.”

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/#ixzz0uK0XYPzY

    You see Hube, they don’t see us as political opponents, but rather as sub-human enemies worthy only of death. Very sick indeed.

  19. Yorkshire: “In 2008 no matter what story, what allegation, what Liberal, Socialist, Progressive story came out, it was certain that what passed for journalism, would bury, cover up, or excuse any embarassing about Obama. The worst of it was chastizing and blackballing anyone not following the Protect Obama story line.”

    The evidence you present, Yorkshire, is hardly sufficient evidence for your conclusion, except in the minds of the fanatical right who fear Obama’s intellect and politics, so will do anything to take him down, this being just one of many examples.

    It won’t work, because this is a continuation of the classic ‘guilt by association’ game that the Right is wont to play, at every turn. Folks see through this BS! This, folks, is clearly propaganda, the pot calling the kettle black.

    FoxNews are the supreme propagandists we have in action as we speak. Their take down of Sherrod, as PiaToR mentioned, on carefully edited videos that disguised the truth, or the take-down of ACORN using a sting operation together with carefully edited evidence, are just two of many glaring examples.

    It is actually hilarious to see here the greatest propagandists in our nation today, the right wing radicals exemplified by FoxNews, complaining about some minor efforts from the other side.

    For right wingers who wish to monitor their own FoxNews propaganda, I suggest this reference.

    Special for Yorkshire:

    A federal judge denied Fox News Channel’s request to block sales of a book by liberal humorist Al Franken that mocks the networks motto, “fair and balanced.” In dismissing the suit, the judge said, “It is ironic that a media company, which should be protecting the First Amendment, is seeking to undermine it.”

    That says it all about FoxNews!

  20. It’s difficult to believe you cretins at times.

    You have a black woman in the Obama Administration who had a fake video put out about her which played into the “blacks are out to get whitey” narrative so believed of you idiots screeching about Obama, and which aired on Fox without checking precisely because it played so well into that narrative. As it turns out, the video was fake, as could be found from simple fact checking which was not done.

    And instead of asking “hey – why were we so quick to beluieve it?” you’re turing it into “liberals are the real racists!”.

    Andm, of course, you don’t dare tie it into the NAACP criticisms, the faked up “scandal” about supposed New Black Panthers, or the Tea Party Express leader who sent out a racist “satirical” reply to the NAACP – proving their point.

    Unbelieveable.

  21. Hoagie uses the old ‘red herring’ trick: “You see Hube, they don’t see us as political opponents, but rather as sub-human enemies worthy only of death. Very sick indeed.”

    John, do you honestly expect anyone with an ounce of gray matter to be fooled by your shenanigans here? Oh wait, Hube was fooled. Hilarious!!!

  22. “Unbelievable” is right, PiaToR, unless one is a right-winger fan of FoxNoise, you know, the type with a big brass ring in the nose!

    But I have to vilify the Obama administration on this one, actually Tom Vilsack, who picked up on the FoxNoise vendetta and promptly sacked Ms Sherrod. What is this all about?

  23. Here is the whole story, up to this minute!

    It speaks ill of Breitbart, FoxNews, Tom Vilsack, Barack Obama, and speaks volumes about this wonderful woman Ms Sherrod, whose own father was killed by southern racists, but who has gone on to live an exemplary life!

    Ms Sherrod must be reinstated immediately, and with overwhelming thanks for what she has done with her life. For shame on all the above named idiots, Hube included for his racist Maori-hater remark just made!

  24. Holy crap, Pho. I agreed with you. Both FOX and Breitbart were wrong, wrong, wrong. Okay? That is not to say they are both always wrong, wrong, wrong as you (and others) are so apt to portray.

    Perry, that is not a red herring. My statement reflects they way the leftists (even here) vilify and de-humanize their opponents. What the hell do you think all the charges of “racist” are about? They are attempts at making a political rival an eeevil enemy not worthy to talk to or even consider.

    I’m wondering why “journalists” would consider themselves Liberal let alone need their own blog. Wouldn’t Objective be a better handle for a real journalist? I can see Liberal commentators, but Journalists? To me that is unsettling.

  25. Perry, I think Hube is just giving back what Pho often does himself. Like when his last line of a post would be something like “America murders and tortures civilians”.

    We already know Pho thinks President Obama is a war criminal for killing civilians with drones. I can only assume he thinks Obama should be arrested, taken to The Hague, tried and executed for Crimes Against Humanity. After all, that is the fate of war criminals, is it not?

  26. Let’s correct the record here. FOX and Brietbart didn’t lie. They aren’t responsible for mistreating Shirley Sherrod, they simply played tape of her, giving a speech to an NCAA audience.

    That was her on the tape and those were her words, and those were NCAA members laughing at her tale of racist behavior toward a white farmer. Nor did either FOX fail to include Sherrod’s explanation of how the experience opened her eyes to her own racial prejudice, and they can prove it. They played the tape of her conversion and they discussed it on camera both in a news segment and during commentary segments.

    FOX and Brietbart didn’t fire Sherrod, the leadership at USDA in collusion with Obama’s White House did that. They deprived the woman of her legal rights rights. Where was her right to due process, or her right to a fair hearing?

    No, all she got was a series of demanding cell phone calls instructing her to pull over to the side of the road and send in her resignation via Blackberry, because the White House wanted it immediately, least she become an embarrassing topic on the Glenn Beck show.

    Well, Shirley Sherrod was a featured topic on Glenn Beck anyway. Last night he defended her, called attention to her words of self-realization, praised her progress from racist attitudes to a more compassionate understanding of the human condition regardless of race.

    Beck condemned the USDA and the Obama White House for jumping to conclusions, and he pointed out the hyprocrisy of the NAACP, and their double standards.

    Look for Jonah Goldberg to retract his statement above, or quickly walk back from some of his more aggressive criticisms. He’s gone off half-cocked again.

    BTW, Perry you don’t have a moral leg to stand on. You rightly praise Shirley Sherrod for facing up to her racism and overcoming it, but you indulge yours in condemning “southern racists” which is a recurring slur in your comments, and you defend Phoney in the face of his almost daily race baiting. He does it so often that one might suspect that he’s channeling Spencer Ackerman, if not, then they’re certainly on the same page.

  27. Perry:
    Ropelight, stop your lying!!!

    Obviously Perry who claimed to not watch FOX, then does watch FOX didn’t see Beck or O’Reilly call for her not to be fired.

  28. Obviously Perry who claimed to not watch FOX, then does watch FOX didn’t see Beck or O’Reilly call for not to be fired.

    Obviously Perry has no interests in the myriad of facts that run counter to his agenda. And ropelight didn’t lie.

  29. Perry, only 3 exclamation points? What’s the problem?

    Are you beginning to feel the ground slipping away under your feet? Lost your way in the light of day?

    Are your lies being revealed? Does the exposure of your prejudicial dirty laundry shatter your inflated self-image?

    Do you think that people who make false accusations ought to apologize?

  30. Yeah, Fox running 95 stories on the New Black Panthers is how it’s done!

    Journalism, according to the right, is stoking anti-black paranoia at all costs. After all, it’s about election time. It’s assumed that OF COURSE Rev. Wright was just a massive story and a window into Obama’s mind. But it wasn’t. It was a dead end with no value other than trying to make Obama, one of the most racially enlightened folks on the planet, a Scary Black Man.

    Treating Stephanopolous’ question as “tough” is further sign of how superficial this line of thinking is. It was nationalist red meat, nothing else. Whereas asking Sarah Palin what she reads is “gotcha” journalism. Lectures from the right on journalism are inevitably laughable. We’ve seen what they consider journalism, and it’s a complete joke.

    However, I think it’s amazing that so many on the right are doing a quick about-face on this Sherrod story. It’s about the only good news I’ve heard from the right on race in a long time, and I hope it’s the start of a new, better attitude.

    And let’s all cornhole Vilsack for being such a chickenshit. As Andrew Sullivan said, one of Obama’s virtues is that he didn’t sit around quaking in fear of what the right said, unlike Hillary. Sullivan says, we were wrong, and I don’t know if I’d agree with that yet, but bonehead moves like that do telegraph inordinate fear. I don’t know how high up it goes, but Obama is responsible for instilling a bit more backbone in his administration.

    Nobody worth a damn on the left should fear Glenn Beck. They should only laugh at him. The fact that even Beck couldn’t stick with the narrative is good, but the facts of this case were so blatant that only the KKK could keep pointing the finger at Sherrod. Everybody who says the Obama administration should have looked first before twitching is right.

  31. Henry Whistler defends the group that even NatGeo calls an anti-American militant hate group, the group that calls for killing white babies. Then Henry Whistler alludes to the Democrat terror organization, the organization Robert Byrd recruited for.

  32. Perry:
    Yorkshire: “In 2008 no ………………………………………… ut FoxNews!

    Obviously Perry didn’t read the whole story. Once Journolist was exposed for the frauds and sycophants they were, they have disbanded. If you want to talk about a fraud, it was Journolist.

  33. Obama is the one without Facts on Sherrod just like he was with the Cambridge Police. Remember BO on the the Cambridge Police? Remember he said I don’t have the facts, but the police acted stupidly. DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.

  34. “Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”

    Anything surprising there? Seems to be standard op procedures for lefties, as some of the remarks on this thread demonstrate so nicely.

  35. Question for anyone, pro or con:

    Something which sticks out like a sore thumb is the curious question asked by George Stephanopoulos, which ignited the leftist watchdogs of their version of “objective journalism” to sound the alarm and call for the faithful to assemble and take up their battle stations.

    How in blazes could that softball question so gently lobbed by George S into the strike zone’s sweet-spot as an offering to THE ONE he’s been waiting for be conceived of as such an outrage?

    George asked Barrack, “Do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?” (quotes from Tim Graham’s article above)

    That’s called a tough question, “…The tough questioning from ABC left many of them (JournoList members) outraged. “George [Stephanopoulos],” fumed Richard Kim of the Nation, is “being a disgusting little rat snake.”

    “In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”

    I don’t get it. Was it the mere mention of Reverend Wright in Obama’s presence. Was that the offense considered so grave as to warrant a coordinated program of false accusations of racism as a diversionary tactic?

    Was that the so-called crime which a collection of American journalists thought justified a plot to make false accusations of racism against convenient targets of opportunity in order to shield Barack Obama from his unsavory 20 year history of close association with a racist bigot?

    If so, these people are nuts, certifiably nuts.

  36. “We already know Pho thinks President Obama is a war criminal for killing civilians with drones. I can only assume he thinks Obama should be arrested, taken to The Hague, tried and executed for Crimes Against Humanity. After all, that is the fate of war criminals, is it not?”

    Keep an ear out for the next squeal from beneath the bridge for an answer to your question as to whether or not the Troll will act according to its announced principles. LOL

  37. See, all I ask is that you guys just not make things up:

    “Henry Whistler defends the group…” meaning, I infer, the New Black Panthers.

    No, I didn’t.

  38. I think the Journolist thing was kind of naively stupid…how these guys thought any such discussion would remain private forever kind of boggles the mind. Anyway, Tucker Carlson’s outfit doesn’t like to mention what his reporter thought after joining the list:

    The off-the-record nature of the emails prohibits reporting on what Nagesh said. But for the sake of transparency, much of it was casual political banter, policy discussion and even sports talk; the type of wonkish content for which Journolist became best known among its members. He did not offer the type of quips that the Daily Caller has since held up as controversial and unbecoming of reporters. But his presence on Journolist during that time period (he joined in March 2009, according to a review of the archives, and left the Caller in April 2010) pushes against the theory that it was a liberal cabal. Even Nagesh admits as much.

    “I joined Journolist after [it was exposed in a Politico article] hoping to get an inside view of the left wing media conspiracy,” he told the Huffington Post. “And unfortunately all I found was a wonkish listserv of like-minded people discussing topics that interested them. I found it extremely useful for putting me in contact with sources and exposing me to a side of the blogosphere I wasn’t well connected with.”

  39. The only thing I agree with the libs on is that the New Black Panther story has been overblown. It was, realistically speaking, a one or two day story, tops. But the bigger picture is Rev. Wright. It was perfectly legit for Steffy to ask that question, indeed, rather admirable for someone who used to be Bill Clinton’s mouthpiece.

    As for FOX, let’s not forget that Hannity broke the Wright story over two years ago, meaning about a year before the rest of the press caught on to it. And only FOX pursued it to the degree it should have been, considering the close and very longtime relationship he had with Obama. The Wright story should have been it for Obama, giving Hillary the nod. If a white candidate had been associated for so long with such an incendiary figure, he’d have been a dead duck, and we all know it.

    As for Ms Sherrod, yes, FOX got it wrong initially, but they quickly corrected themselves. Compare that to the Dan Rather/Bush AWOL story, which was discredited within hours, but for which Dan, to this day, has never retracted nor apologized for.

  40. I think the Journolist thing was kind of naively stupid

    The comical thing is the JournoList guys were a bunch of nobodies. As Bill O’Reilly put it – I’ve never heard of any of these guys.

  41. Right, if O’Reilly never heard of them, they are nobodies. Typical right wing arrogance.

  42. “If a white candidate had been associated for so long with such an incendiary figure, he’d have been a dead duck, and we all know it.”

    Rush Limbaugh is one of the GOP’s leaders.

    I propose all politicians who refuse to denunciate Rush Limbaugh be dead ducks.

  43. Yorkshire:

    If you don’t see ropelight’s deliberate lies here , then you are farther gone than I ever realized, as far gone as Hitchcock himself is. I hope I’m wrong about you!

    All ropelight and Hitchcock have going is a plethora of personal attacks, without a shred of evidence cited, indicating over and over that they fear getting into a reasonable debate, with citations to bolster credibility. Theirs then is a position of weakness, always, and they are the last to know what is obvious to the rest of us on here.

    I ask why they do not quote someone’s remark on an issue, then debate it? The obvious answer: They step back from debate, and step forward to personal attacks, as cowards are prone to do.

  44. As for Ms Sherrod, yes, FOX got it wrong initially, ….

    Fox did not get it wrong, they got it right just the way they wanted to, just like with ACORN. They got caught, therefore had no choice but to recant.

    And then the Obama Administration (Vilsack) reacted immediately and sacked an innocent person. Shame on Fox and shame on Vilsack as well. Could it be that the Obama Administration fears Fox? Looks that way! Terrible!!!

  45. Perry:
    Yorkshire:

    If you don’t see ropelight’s deliberate lies here

    I read what Ropelight said, then watched the Beck video, and I don’t know what you’re seeing in RL’s statement that isn’t in the video.

  46. Perry:
    Could it be that the Obama Administration fears Fox? Looks that way! Terrible!!!

    Yeah, right. ROFLMAO Perry, then why did Healthscare and and the new Bank Bill pass??? Explain that???

  47. Perry, you can’t accuse me of lying and then hide behind a log-in requirement.

    You say I’ve lied, well, prove it. Post my so-called lies here, where you made your accusation, or somewhere they can be viewed without a log-in requirement.

    Do one or the other, or retract your accusation and apologize.

  48. Henry:

    As you can see, it is a waste of time debating the likes of ropelight and DNW, because their intention is to spin and twist on the issues, and focus on personal attacks.

    You will note that neither of them uses citations very often. Both are arrogant enough to believe that their word constitutes some sort of truth, so they dare not be questioned. This is a characteristic of absolutists, that you cannot debate with them. Instead, when questioned, one is met with a barrage of nastiness and personal attacks. Just look back on any thread, and you will see the same pattern repeated time after time. Note how they feel confronted whenever asked for a citation, and subsequently rarely provide one!

    Dana politically is a wingnut as well, but at least with him you can usually have a civil discussion, which is what keeps this blog vibrant in spite of the aforementioned discussion killers.

  49. ropelight, here is your lie: “Let’s correct the record here. FOX and Brietbart didn’t lie. They aren’t responsible for mistreating Shirley Sherrod, they simply played tape of her, giving a speech to an NCAA audience. “

    Fox originally played an edited tape of Sherrod’s statement, leaving out important context, and you know it!

    Here’s another of your lies: “That was her on the tape and those were her words, and those were NCAA members laughing at her tale of racist behavior toward a white farmer. Nor did either FOX fail to include Sherrod’s explanation of how the experience opened her eyes to her own racial prejudice, and they can prove it. They played the tape of her conversion and they discussed it on camera both in a news segment and during commentary segments.”

    Here you are attempting to alter the time line, ropelight, which is a lie and you know it!

    Rachel Maddow went after Fox News Tuesday night for its role in propagating the Shirley Sherrod story, but she also criticized the White House for continuing to fall for the network’s stunts.

    After showing repeated instance of Fox News anchors pushing the idea that Sherrod was a racist based on an out-of-context excerpt of a speech she gave to the NAACP earlier this year, Maddow laid into the network.

    “This is what Fox News does, this is how they are different from other news organizations,” Maddow said. “This is why the White House argued months ago that Fox should be treated as a media organization but not as a normal news organization, because they don’t treat news the way a normal news organization treats news. Just like the fake ACORN controversy, Fox News knows that it has a role in this dance….

    Here, read the evidence for yourself !

  50. Now you know how WE feel, Maori-hater.

    Proof, child-molester?

  51. Let’s correct the record here. FOX and Brietbart didn’t lie. They aren’t responsible for mistreating Shirley Sherrod, they simply played tape of her, giving a speech to an NCAA audience.

    That was her on the tape and those were her words, and those were NCAA members laughing at her tale of racist behavior toward a white farmer.

    Oh, bullshit, racist. The tape was edited down from a story which had a totally different meaning. It’s like me editing down your quote above down to

    “[...]Correct[...]. Fox and Brietbart [...] lie.”

    But we know you’re dishonest.

    And their later backpeddling behaviour after it became clear they’d tripped on their dicks does not exonerate them.

    Again

    i, Why was Fox so quick to run such a bogus story?
    ii, Why were their audience – the wingnuts – so eager to believe such a bogus story?

  52. ropelight, more lies: “BTW, Perry you don’t have a moral leg to stand on. You rightly praise Shirley Sherrod for facing up to her racism and overcoming it, but you indulge yours in condemning “southern racists” which is a recurring slur in your comments, and you defend Phoney in the face of his almost daily race baiting. He does it so often that one might suspect that he’s channeling Spencer Ackerman, if not, then they’re certainly on the same page.”

    Citations please! Just a few examples will suffice.

  53. ****Liar Alert****

    Don’t anyone click on Perry’s “read the evidence for yourself!” link. It takes you to a series of Cisco Systems commercials, I quit the site during the 4th sales pitch in succession, with no end in sight and nothing related to the topic here.

    Perry, that was a low-down rotten trick, and I’ll never click on anything from you again. asshole.

  54. Stop diverting and step up to your lies, ropelight!

    You are correct about my link, so I changed the link.

    And then, you owe me some citations in order to prove your malicious charges.

  55. Perry, I’m going to look into the matter, Glenn Beck comes on in a few minutes, I’ll see what he has to say. Then I’ll check out Breitbart and get the scuttlebutt there.

    It looks now, like there was an abbreviated earlier tape of Sherrod which didn’t include her redemption, or that’s the impression I get. I saw it on Glenn Beck’s show last night and he featured her redemption as the central issue.

    I’ll have a comment tonight after I get the latest facts.

    PS: How dishonest can you be? It was your bum link which diverted my attention, that and my early bird special Mexican tostada. Sheesh!

  56. amidst all this confusion let’s not lose sight of what how terribly the writing in this sentence is

    In 2008 no matter what story, what allegation, what Liberal, Socialist, Progressive story came out, it was certain that what passed for journalism, would bury, cover up, or excuse any embarassing about Obama.

  57. figured I’d raise the ante a little with “what how terribly” but do let me know how I’m doin’, it’s not always easy to play with the big boys

  58. Well, cbmc, you could identify where the quote came from so we don’t have to waste time tracking it down. Just sayin’

  59. Perry, I’m going to look into the matter, Glenn Beck comes on in a few minutes, I’ll see what he has to say.

    Oh, yes, do get back to us when you’ve been told what to think for today.

  60. ropelight:
    Well, cbmc, you could identify where the quote came from so we don’t have to waste time tracking it down. Just say

    cbmc has nothing to add, so shoot the message and messenger. Kinda like JournoList did.

  61. Now I’m going to come on here and stick up for Yorkshire. How dare you, ropelight, speak of Yorkshire in this manner? What has he done or said to you to merit such an outburst?

  62. My mean-spirited nasty bastard comment was directed at Perry, the mean-spirited nasty bastard who’s so senile he can’t recall that I referenced Glenn Beck’s show as the place where I saw the Sherrod tape and that Beck defended her.

    Perry calls me a liar for wanting to see what Beck has to say today about what was on his show yesterday.

    And, I’ll decide what to watch on my own TV. Perry, you aren’t in charge of the airwaves yet, I know you think you are, but you’re and old fool and I don’t give a rat’s ass if you approve of my channel selections or not.

    Perry, if you will agree to pay my Direct TV bill, then we can discuss you attempts to censor my viewing habits.

    Till then, go piss in your hat.

  63. Rush Limbaugh is one of the GOP’s leaders.

    Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. 1) No one in the GOP has had the sort of close, 20 year relationship with him that Obama had with Rev. Wright. And, 2) Rush hasn’t said anything nearly as inflammatory as Wright.

  64. I propose all politicians who refuse to denunciate Rush Limbaugh be dead ducks.

    What a dumb comment.

  65. Perry:
    Right, if O’Reilly never heard of them, they are nobodies. Typical right wing arrogance.

    Quit whining.

  66. OK, I checked out Brietbart and Glenn Beck. Beck was delayed about 10 minutes while USDA’s Tom Vilsack held a press conference.

    Breitbart’s Big Government web site has the Shirley Sherrod videos posted, and Beck’s TV show yesterday aired the same brief clips taken from Sherrod’s 45 minute speech to the Georgia NAACP’s 20th Annual Freedom Fund Banquet held on March 27th.

    Both included her account of her overtly racist response to the white farmer, but both also included the initial portions of her subsequent redemption anecdote.

    Brietbart mentioned it in his article and Beck featured it on his TV show. The NAACP was in possession of the entire video of Sherrod’s speech all along, but rushed to condemn her publicly. The White House followed with their own reaction, which they now deny, but which was reported by Sherrod.

    Them’s the facts folks.

    Glenn Beck actually defended Sherrod vigorously and condemned both the NAACP and the White House for a rush to judgment.

    Now, Perry, just exactly what do you imagine I’ve been lying about?

  67. Both included her account of her overtly racist response to the white farmer, but both also included the initial portions of her subsequent redemption anecdote.

    What a goddamned idiot you are, racist.

    Jonah, the problem with the audience defense made by your e-mailers is that Sherrod told her listeners this before launching into the white-farmer story:

    When I made that commitment [to stay in the South], I was making that commitment to black people, and to black people only. But you know God will show you things, and he’ll put things in your path so that you realize that the struggle is really about poor people.

    So, the audience knew what the up-shot of the story was going to be. In a disservice to everyone, Andrew’s source clipped the video to exclude this key introduction, which would have only added about 20 seconds more in length, but an entire world in additional context.

  68. Wrong sheep shagger, the redemption information was there all along, otherwise how would Beck have known about it?

  69. It’s also amazing that someone can call Sherrod’s speech “her account of her overtly racist response”, and yet think that there’s no problem whatsoever with this sort of thing from a teabagger leader.

    But what can you expect from someone who refers to a Black Democrat President as an “usurper” for no reason he’s willing to explain out loud?…

  70. the redemption information was there all along,

    So you don’t know what the word “subsequent” meant when you used it?

    Let’s recap:

    Sherrod’s full video has an introduction priming the audience to expect a twist, the first half of the story, and then the subsequent half. Brietbart edits out the introduction and the second half, distorting the video into a lie. And now racist here tries to defend the people who initially supported Brietbart by stating that now they include the second half.

    The problem is that racist is still referring to the first half as “her account of her overtly racist response” without acknowledging the introduction that came before it. Dishonest to the core.

  71. So, we have a whole bunch of people decrying the Shirley Sherrod story, which some people got wrong and others apparently tried to manufacture, but were we to turn the subject to the so-called “Rathergate” story, one of us suspects that we’d find all sorts of apologies for CBS News, and an “oh, yeah, they did make a mistake on that one, but nobody’s perfect” attitude.

    York’s original was about JournoList, where Donald Douglas has the story about reporter, Sarah Spitz of NPR affiliate KCRW, reveling in her ability to watch and standby cheering as Rush Limbaugh (hypothetically) died of a heart attack.

    Of course, Miss Spitz quickly apologized, which is something that you do when either you realize that you’ve done something wrong and are genuinely sorry for it, or you’re trying to save your job. I shall not speculate on which of the two motivated Miss Spitz.

  72. This is, of course, only the latest of the revelations via JournoList. Ezra Klein, the founder, shut it down after comments by Dave Weigel, then an employee of The Washington Post, had very negative personal comments about the people he was hired to cover exposed from a JournoList listserv; Mr Weigel resigned from the Post following that.

    It’s pretty obvious with today’s technology: if you put something in an e-mail, it is no longer secret. You may think you have privacy, but you don’t, and you’re an idiot if you put career-damaging stuff into cyber-space, no matter how private you think it’s going to be.

  73. Anyone who wants to satisfy themselves the redemption was mentioned on Breitbart’s video segment has only to go to his site, Big Journalism, and watch the video. Here’s an excerpt from the accompanying article.

    “Context is Everything”
    by Andrew Breitbart

    “We are in possession of a video from in which Shirley Sherrod, USDA Georgia Director of Rural Development, speaks at the NAACP Freedom Fund dinner in Georgia. In her meandering speech to what appears to be an all-black audience, this federally appointed executive bureaucrat lays out in stark detail, that her federal duties are managed through the prism of race and class distinctions.

    In the first video, Sherrod describes how she racially discriminates against a white farmer. She describes how she is torn over how much she will choose to help him. And, she admits that she doesn’t do everything she can for him, because he is white. Eventually, her basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help. But she decides that he should get help from “one of his own kind”. She refers him to a white lawyer.

    Sherrod’s racist tale is received by the NAACP audience with nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement. Hardly the behavior of the group now holding itself up as the supreme judge of another groups’ racial tolerance…”

    Sherrod’s full speech is about 45 minutes long. The segments posted are brief, only about 2 minutes. The first one includes the opening portions of her story of redemption which begins about a minute and 40 seconds in. She talks about how it was revealed to her that the issue isn’t black or white, but one of haves and have-nots.

  74. Phoney, if you’d get you head out of the sheep’s rear end and learn to read, you might be able see beyond the end of your nose, you ignorant ass.

    The redemption is in Britebart’s video, it is the subsequent portion. The redemption comes after the initial fall from grace. The clip begins well into her speech, whatever she may have foreshadowed in her introduction was unknown to both Brietbart and to Beck. The NAACP however did have the entire tape and certainly could have viewed it before going off half-cocked and denouncing Sherrod.

    They both saw the same clip and yes, following Sherrod’s initial overtly racist response to the white farmer, she has a moment of self-revelation and comes to a deeper level of understanding.

    But, of course, that’s beyond your comprehension.

  75. FWIW:
    ropelight:
    Perry, you can’t accuse me of lying and then hide behind a log-in requirement.

    You say I’ve lied, well, prove it. Post my so-called lies here, where you made your accusation, or somewhere they can be viewed without a log-in requirement.

    Do one or the other, or retract your accusation and apologize.

    It’s a repeat of what you wrote above it, and just above where I put the youtube vid. Nothing new was added, subtracted, explained or pointed out.

  76. Well, my best guffaw of tonight is Perry believing BO is afraid of FOX News. If it were a real fear, I would welcome it. He has no fear of his propogandists in the Lame Stream Media because they will lie down like dogs with fleas to protect BO.

  77. Well, cbmc, you could identify where the quote came from so we don’t have to waste time tracking it down. Just sayin’

    it was the first line of the post beneath which all these comments appear.

  78. York, thanks for identifying Perry accusations. He claimed I was lying, but your video clip at 11:26am above of Glenn Beck’s TV show confirms my recollections, just as I recounted them in my “Let’s correct the record” comment at 10:49am above.

    Since then, I’ve checked out Brietbart’s videos and his article. Both are as I described them.

    Perry’s got a bad case of pointing the finger at me when it’s him that’s getting on. He’s become so dotty he can’t tell shit from Shinola.

  79. From CNN’s Political Page:
    Aides: White House trying to distance Obama from Sherrod controversy

    Suggestion CNN, use JournoList 8-)

  80. ropelight:
    York, thanks for identifying Perry accusations. He claimed I was lying, but your video clip at 11:26am above of Glenn Beck’s TV show confirms my recollections, just as I recounted them in my “Let’s correct the record” comment at 10:49am above.

    Just trying to keep the record straight. This really has the Lib’s Bowel’s in an uproar. Suggest two Pepto’s and call yourself in the morning.

  81. Yeah, cbmc, thanks. York dropped a word. It happens, I’ve made a few similar typos today myself, on this very thread.

    When I first read York’s post, I stumbled there too, but after a second reading I understood what he was getting at. The second sentence does provide context and helps to grasp his general point.

    BTW, trying to make a big deal out of a dropped word shows you’re wet behind the ears, kid. But, don’t go away, stick around, I have a vague recollection of some of your previous comments and you’re already better than some of the lefty blowhards here.

  82. The fact is that up to now the free society has not been good for the intellectual. It has neither accorded him a superior status to sustain his confidence nor made it easy for him to acquire an unquestioned sense of social usefulness. For he derives his sense of usefulness mainly from directing, instructing, and planning-from minding other people’s business-and is bound to feel superfluous and neglected where people believe themselves competent to manage individual and communal affairs, and are impatient of supervision and regulation. A free society is as much a threat to the intellectual’s sense of worth as an automated economy is to the workingman’s sense of worth. Any social order that can function with a minimum of leadership will be anathema to the intellectual.

    The intellectual craves a social order in which uncommon people perform uncommon tasks every day. He wants a society throbbing with dedication, reverence, and worship. He sees it as scandalous that the discoveries of science and the feats of heroes should have as their denouement the comfort and affluence of common folk. A social order run by and for the people is to him a mindless organism motivated by sheer physiologism.

    The Ordeal of Change, Chapter 12 ‘Concerning Individual Freedom’ 1966 -Eric Hoffer

    The education explosion is producing a vast number of people who want to live significant, important lives but lack the ability to satisfy this craving for importance by individual achievement. The country is being swamped with nobodies who want to be somebodies.

    The Wall Street Journal, March 23, 1978 Eric Hoffer

    journo-list- the liberal intelligentsia.

  83. The history of this country was made largely by people who wanted to be left alone. Those who could not thrive when left to themselves never felt at ease in America.

    Reflections on the Human Condition, aph. 53 -Eric Hoffer(1973)

    i think it is obvious.

  84. ropelight: “Perry calls me a liar for wanting to see what Beck has to say today about what was on his show yesterday. “

    Exactly where did I specifically say that, ropelight?

    I was very specific about your lies right here!

    So don’t you dare change my accusation to suit your spin!

    ropelight: “Go to hell you mean-spirited nasty bastard. …. Till then, go piss in your hat. …. … asshole”

    ropelight, you have made it quite obvious that you are a small man, characterwise, and weak, and a liar to boot.

    I refuse to play your silly game, as Henry has been patient with you to the nth degree, to no avail. Nothing you say now will obviate the earlier untrue statements you made earlier in this thread, as per my reference above. Now carry on as you wish!

  85. Now, getting back to the original topic in Yorkshire’s post:

    Yorktown quoted Chris Hayes thusly: “The Wright controversy, Hayes argued, was not about Wright at all. Instead, “It has everything to do with the attempts of the right to maintain control of the country.””

    The Right has tried to make a mountain out of a molehill on this Rev Wright situation, by playing the ‘guilt by association game’ to the hilt, so I totally agree with Chris Hayes. Rev Wright is Rev Wright, and Barack Obama is Barack Obama, period.

    Obama, in one of the best speeches he has ever made, in my view, had this to say about himself and Rev Wright:

    And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.

    On one end of the spectrum, we’ve heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action, that it’s based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap.

    On the other end, we’ve heard my former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation — that rightly offend white and black alike.

    I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Rev. Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain.

    Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely — just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

    But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice.

    Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country — a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America, a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

    As such, Rev. Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems — two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

    Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Rev. Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church?

    And I confess that if all that I knew of Rev. Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and YouTube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way

    But the truth is, that isn’t all that I know of the man. The man I met more than 20 years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor.

    He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine, who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God’s work here on Earth — by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

    There comes a time when we choose to take a person at their word, which persists unless there is demonstrable behavior that refutes the spoken word. In this case, there has not been such, except that which is made up by his ideological enemies. I expect that, especially in today’s polarized political environment, when we have the likes of Limbaugh and FoxNews “entertaining” us! Instead of entertaining, I would say ‘tearing us apart’!

  86. assover quotes Eric Hoffer: “The history of this country was made largely by people who wanted to be left alone. Those who could not thrive when left to themselves never felt at ease in America.”

    This may be true for those on farms or ranches, in sparsely populated regions, but it certainly is not true in urban and suburban environments, where most of us live. We depend on each other in an attempt to structure a well organized, well run community, with all the private and public services which every community must have in order to function. Isn’t this obvious to you too?

  87. Perry doing damage control for BO:
    But the truth is, that isn’t all that I know of the man. The man I met more than 20 years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor.

    He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine, who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God’s work here on Earth — by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

    Then why did BO throw him under the bus in the end if he was so great in your’s and his eyes???? Your explanation makes no sense since the two aren’t speaking to each other. In advice columns, it would be what’s wrong with this marriage???

  88. derriereabovealloyedcontainers wrote:

    The fact is that up to now the free society has not been good for the intellectual. It has neither accorded him a superior status to sustain his confidence nor made it easy for him to acquire an unquestioned sense of social usefulness. For he derives his sense of usefulness mainly from directing, instructing, and planning-from minding other people’s business-and is bound to feel superfluous and neglected where people believe themselves competent to manage individual and communal affairs, and are impatient of supervision and regulation. A free society is as much a threat to the intellectual’s sense of worth as an automated economy is to the workingman’s sense of worth. Any social order that can function with a minimum of leadership will be anathema to the intellectual.

    The intellectual craves a social order in which uncommon people perform uncommon tasks every day. He wants a society throbbing with dedication, reverence, and worship. He sees it as scandalous that the discoveries of science and the feats of heroes should have as their denouement the comfort and affluence of common folk. A social order run by and for the people is to him a mindless organism motivated by sheer physiologism.

    The Ordeal of Change, Chapter 12 ‘Concerning Individual Freedom’ 1966 -Eric Hoffer

    Not exactly a recent phenomenon: Plato’s Republic is basically a long treatise attempting to justify the rule by the most fit, the philosophers in Plato’s notions, backed up by the “Guardians,” the military who would enforce the rule by the wise philosopher-kings.

    And today we have those who, motivated by what they see as good and noble ideas, wanting only the best for every individual and society as a whole, would impose their ideas of how we should live on everyone, whether “everyone” happens to agree or not.

    Karl Marx thought that the proletariat would just naturally come together in virtual unanimity, and that there would be no real dissent from the “dictatorship of the proletariat.” Some of our friends on the left are still amazed that not everyone agrees with them!

  89. Yorkshire asked the rhetorical question:

    Then why did BO throw him under the bus in the end if he was so great in your’s and his eyes????

    Because Mr Obama was running for office? :)

  90. Perry wrote:

    The Right has tried to make a mountain out of a molehill on this Rev Wright situation, by playing the ‘guilt by association game’ to the hilt, so I totally agree with Chris Hayes.

    Are people not judged, in part, by the company they keep? Our LORD may have associated with sinners and tax collectors — a redundancy — but he was trying to save their souls. I’m not sure how much effort Mr Obama put into changing the Rev Wright.

  91. Dana Pico:
    Yorkshire asked the rhetorical question:

    Then why did BO throw him under the bus in the end if he was so great in your’s and his eyes????

    Because Mr Obama was running for office? 8-)

    Sounds two faced and hypocritical on BO’s part. But what else is new? 8-)

  92. Perry, still making false accusations and still a shrinking shell of a drooling mean-spirited old fool, uneasy in his dotterage, and unaccepting of the inevitable.

    I’m not clicking on any link you provide, been there, done that, didn’t like the results. If you’ve got an accusation to make against me, go ahead. But do it in the open, gaffer.

    BTW, you’re correct, it wasn’t you, it was Phoney I should have called out. But, likely you already knew that.

  93. “Context is Everything”
    by Andrew Breitbart

    “We are in possession of a video from in which Shirley Sherrod, USDA Georgia Director of Rural Development, speaks at the NAACP Freedom Fund dinner in Georgia. In her meandering speech to what appears to be an all-black audience, this federally appointed executive bureaucrat lays out in stark detail, that her federal duties are managed through the prism of race and class distinctions.

    In the first video, Sherrod describes how she racially discriminates against a white farmer

    Uh-huh.

    “Her federal duties”, right?

    Teeny tiny minor problem which, none the less, goes to show how dishonest Breitbart and the racists such as ropelight running with this actually are.

    The story was talking about a situation in 1986. In 1986 Sherrod didn’t work for the government; she worked for the Federation of Southern Cooperatives Land Assistance Fund, which was specifically focused on black farmers.

    Now, let’s stress that. She is talking about what she did in a previous job, which was appropriate for that previous job, and Breitbart is using it to try and paint it as bias for the current job.

    And, of course, racists like ropelight go for it because it fits in with their narratives about blacks in government.

  94. Eric: Again all I ask is that you guys stop making things up. “Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer,” is pure spin. He’s one of the de facto leaders of the GOP. It’s indisputable. He has a devoted audience that regards him not as an entertainer, but as a great thinker who sees through all the librul lies.

    I mean, this is so indisputable that anybody who pushes the “just an entertainer!” line is a willing accomplice and propagandist. He’s one of the most powerful people on the right, only rivaled by Beck, Palin, and perhaps the Cheneys.

    And he’s without a doubt absolutely a racist bastard. Yet the GOP and I bet just about everybody on this blog will rush to his defense. Incendiary figures don’t mean shit to you guys when it’s the racist bastard you all follow.

  95. Hey, whistler, here’s some news you apparently don’t know: Republican does not equal Conservative. More news you apparently don’t know, whistler: Limbaugh brow-beats Republicans who have nothing to do with Conservatism or the facts. And more news you apparently don’t know: You need incontrovertible proof that Limbaugh is a racist, because I see absolutely zero racism in Limbaugh but a lot of racism in the Party that begat KKK and the Black Panthers and CBC and took over NAACP. I also see a lot of racism in Farrakhan, Wright, Sharpton, Jackson (who called NYC “hymietown”).

    And, yes, if the liberals didn’t have their lies, they wouldn’t have much of an argument for much of anything, generally speaking. As proof of that, just look at blu, NZT, Perry.


  96. assover quotes Eric Hoffer: “The history of this country was made largely by people who wanted to be left alone. Those who could not thrive when left to themselves never felt at ease in America.”

    then perry blathers:This may be true for those on farms or ranches, in sparsely populated regions, but it certainly is not true in urban and suburban environments, where most of us live. We depend on each other in an attempt to structure a well organized, well run community, with all the private and public services which every community must have in order to function. Isn’t this obvious to you too?

    what is obvious to me is your disdain for who you think are the”unwashed”. i think hoffer could have been writing about you perry.

  97. hey, henry (not a scientist) whistler…

    be careful, never know when you might get “punked”… hahahahhaha

  98. You rightly praise Shirley Sherrod for facing up to her racism and overcoming it,

    Now, if only other people could do the same…:

    Check out this nugget in an interview that Shirley Sherrod did with Joe Strupp, in which she comes right out and claims Fox News is using her as a “pawn” in a racist plot to undo the gains African Americans have made:

    She said Fox showed no professionalism in continuing to bother her for an interview, but failing to correct their coverage.

    “I think they should but they won’t. They intended exactly what they did. “They were looking for the result they got yesterday,” she said of Fox. “I am just a pawn. I was just here. They are after a bigger thing, they would love to take us back to where we were many years ago. Back to where black people were looking down, not looking white folks in the face, not being able to compete for a job out there and not be a whole person.”

    This is pretty incendiary stuff. Sherrod is clearly not going away, and now she appears determined to force a larger conversation about the Breitbart-Fox News axis’s broader efforts to stoke white resentment towards the nation’s first African American president.

    We will note that we are still waiting for any coherent explanation from ropelight on why he calls a legitimately elected Black American President an “usurper”…

  99. The poison dwarf is making a big deal out of Sherrod’s actual job at the time of her anecdotal admission of racism and her much recently discussed nearly contemporaneous redemptive self-reflections.

    Phoney wrote, “In 1986 Sherrod didn’t work for the government; she worked for the Federation of Southern Cooperatives Land Assistance Fund, which was specifically focused on black farmers.”

    Which of course seems like a rather curious statement to make considering the brouhaha derived from Sherrod’s refusal to help a white farmer. Perhaps the Sheep Shagger is getting his information from Dan Rather, or the guys at GoebbelsList.

  100. assover complains: “what is obvious to me is your disdain for who you think are the”unwashed”.”

    “Unwashed” is your word not mine, assover. Perhaps then you ought to define it and expand on what you mean!

  101. Another ropelight lie here:“Which of course seems like a rather curious statement to make considering the brouhaha derived from Sherrod’s refusal to help a white farmer.”

    Or are you just uninformed, ropelight? I am leaning toward lying, because anyone who has followed this story, and you have, knows that Ms Sherrod actually did help the white farmer, as he and his wife have stated in their recent interviews. Do you need a citation for that fact, ropelight?

  102. perry,

    so you want definitions? well i could follow your example and change the subject, but in this instance i’ll oblige.

    here is one for you,

    moronasaurus :moronic in a caricaturistic big way.

    does that help?

  103. Perry, didn’t you sleep well last night? Elderly people have a hard time sleeping, maybe you just need a nap, or a nice glass of warm milk, fix up right up old fella, why in no time at all you’ll feel like you were 82 again.

    Are your eyes tired? Feeling a little confused? You’re babbling again.

  104. assover: “well i could follow your example and change the subject, ….”

    Now wait a minute here, assover, you are the one who changed the subject by introducing a word as if I used it, which I didn’t. My response was to engage, an action you obviously find difficulty in doing, instead, change the subject again. Classic trollishness! :)

  105. Hitchcock, there’s almost nothing Whistler doesn’t already know, he’s got a recent comment up (at you know where) bragging about his score on the ACT science test, that’s the one mostly Midwestern high school students take instead of the SAT.

    Whistler must be gettin’ ready to hit the big time in some jumped up cow college this September where I’m sure his superior scientific instincts will be recognized and celebrated.

    If not, boy will those racist professors get an ear full of self-aggrandizing boasting and bragging appropriately dispensed from the Wizard of Iowa’s Wastes.

    So, John, take it from me, Whistler’s down with science and he knows stuff, so don’t go around trying to tell him anything new, or he’ll get testy and call you unflattering names and then maybe even put your imaginary skull in his imaginary trophy case. That Whistler’s got a heck of an imagination.

  106. ropelight: “Perry, didn’t you sleep well last night? ….”

    Won’t own up to your latest lie, will you ropelight? Instead, you fall back on your personal attacks — very weak, also telling of your mentality and your mindset!

    I’m outta here!

  107. Won’t own up to your latest lie, will you ropelight?

    Look how well it worked to deflect him getting called out for his racism…

  108. buh-bye perry.

    all “farmers, those on ranches and those in sparsely populated areas” are likely pondering why you hurriedly left. i am not certain about those in cities “where most of us live” feel about it though.

  109. pho, you are slipping ranks little in your own usurper-ship.

    gilligan, is that you little buddy? lol

  110. My response was to engage, an action you obviously find difficulty in doing, instead, change the subject again. Classic trollishness! :)

    Perry, the moron appears to be posting while ripped off his tits. Arguing logically with him isn’t going to get you far.

  111. Hitchcock: “I see absolutely zero racism in Limbaugh…” And who could believe you would be able to? You’re an aggrieved oppressed white male, after all.

    Again, it’s indisputable. If you haven’t seen it, you either haven’t bothered looking at the mountain of racist bullshit Limbaugh has said (most recently accusing Obama of putting us in recession as revenge against whites), or you don’t want to know about it.

    This game of ignorance has gone on too long to be innocence. You know, and you know damn well, you just don’t give a shit. You’re an oppressed white male, and Limbaugh speaks up for you, and so you are content.

    ropelight: Try not to be a sore loser and let it die. And why are you hating on the heartland? What are you, some coastal elitist? You apparently don’t know much about the amazing scientific work being done at the University of Iowa and Iowa State, among other places. Former University of Iowa neurology professor Antonia Damasio wrote a superb book on neurology I would recommend you read, Looking for Spinoza.

    I mean, surely you’re not going to try standing up with the idea that anybody who supports the scientific consensus on climate change must themselves be a scientist. After all, you gleefully write off actual scientists without a second’s regret. If I were a scientist, it wouldn’t matter the slightest to you. Only the ones who support the corporate agenda matter.

  112. Whistler, don’t act like you know me. I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again, since you have such difficulty regarding your heavy memory loss. My grandson is less than half white.

    And I see absolutely zero racism in Limbaugh but I do see heavy racism in the Democrat Party, top to bottom, as it’s always been.

  113. hitch,

    henry (down with science but not a scientist)whistler, cant be held accountable for his fleeting memory. he has been reading about black holes lately evidently and doing science experiments. the baking soda/vinegar boat experiment has him totally preoccupied.

  114. So accusing Obama of perpetrating a recession to get revenge against white America isn’t racism?

    I’m glad your perspective is not so twisted that you would hate your own biracial relative. That would be pretty sick. But that’s not a free pass. Obama’s mother is white, yet how many of you are giving him a pass on Rev. Wright?

  115. And he’s without a doubt absolutely a racist bastard. Yet the GOP and I bet just about everybody on this blog will rush to his defense. Incendiary figures don’t mean shit to you guys when it’s the racist bastard you all follow.

    Sorry, but yelling “Racism” is the modern version of the old taunt “Your Momma wears combat boots”. It’s been thrown around by you lefties so often it has lost any impact it once had. Rush is no racist, and you haven’t provided a shred of proof that he is.

    Try again.

  116. Jeffrey Dahmer was down with science, way down. He was from the Midwest, liked black boys, and collected skulls too. Remind you of someone?

  117. mr science says:Obama’s mother is white, yet how many of you are giving him a pass on Rev. Wright?

    uhmmm, what? WHAT!!

    … sigh…

    really, it is little wonder why i don’t engage any of the resident lefties with any substantive dialogue? (i mean, besides pho’s accusation that I am obviously dead drunk all the time) :)

  118. Nice work Yorkshire.

    As you relate, the script instructs:

    “… Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”

    So it is written, so it shall be done.

    Fool The First( Tweedle Dum), dutifully enters … stage left, steps forward and delivers his lines.

    “I mean, this is so indisputable that anybody who pushes the “just an entertainer!” line is a willing accomplice and propagandist. He’s one of the most powerful people on the right, only rivaled by Beck, Palin, and perhaps the Cheneys.

    And he’s without a doubt absolutely a racist bastard. Yet the GOP and I bet just about everybody on this blog will rush to his defense. Incendiary figures don’t mean shit to you guys when it’s the racist bastard you all follow.”

    Fool The Second (Tweedle Dee)then makes his entrance, and pipes up,

    “We will note that we are still waiting for any coherent explanation from ropelight on why he calls a legitimately elected Black American President an “usurper”…”

    “Look how well it worked to deflect him getting called out for his racism…”

    Following which, Fool The First (Tweedle Dum) gravely intones,

    “This game of ignorance has gone on too long to be innocence. You know, and you know damn well, you just don’t give a shit. You’re an oppressed white male, and Limbaugh speaks up for you, and so you are content.”

    End of play.

    ” … deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”

  119. “hey, henry (not a scientist) whistler…”

    He may not be a scientist, but he obviously likes to play one on the computer.

    “Henry slips into his waiting lab coat, seats himself in his chair with all the dignity befitting a pretend scientist, and addresses the keyboard …”

  120. Retracto, the Correction Alpaca at Breitbart’s “Big Journalism has posted a correction request dated Jul 21st at 4:46pm’

    Retracto points the finger at Media Matters for false accusations that two video excerpts originally included in Andrew Breitbart’s article were ‘Heavily Edited.’

    “A good faith search of the Media Matters for America website found that the term ”heavily edited” was used no less than 4 times in this article and 5 more times [captured in screen caps below the fold] to describe a video or videos that are not edited in any way whatsoever.

    Both videos clearly represent full unedited excerpts of Sharon Sherrod’s speech before the NAACP.

    To refer to full excerpts as “heavily edited” or even “edited” is misleading and not true.”

    Retractro respectfully requests that Media Matters retract its false accusations and correct the record.

  121. ” The history of this country was made largely by people who wanted to be left alone. Those who could not thrive when left to themselves never felt at ease in America.

    Reflections on the Human Condition, aph. 53 -Eric Hoffer(1973)

    i think it is obvious.”

    The response you got from Perry illustrates the truth of the premise.

    Next time, after you have listened to a neighborhood progressive type rant for a bit on how people need centralized direction and management (recall Hillary on Social Security), ask him if he personally is fit for a life of self-direction and responsibility.

    You can see the panicked whirring of gears in their heads as they try to figure out how they can admit to being so incompetent as to be unfit run their own lives, and yet competent enough to be entitled to plan or participate in planning the lives of others.

    You virtually can see them thinking to themselves: ” Shall I say that many incompetent people thinking hard in unison will provide a morally superior result? No, no, that isn’t a good answer …”

    So, stone silence generally ensues; perhaps followed by a spew of incoherent and intentionally deflective gibberish. Maybe something about public utilities or sidewalks …

    The progressive knows that if it says it is not itself capable of a life of self-direction and responsibility, then it stands in an inferior existential relation to the one who is; and that the progressive therefore can hardly claim genuine moral authority to dictate to someone who is more capable.

    If it claims that no one is capable, then it must account for those who are visibly more successful in running their own lives.

    And if the progressive defensively replies that he is indeed capable of self-direction and responsibility, he must explain why he wishes, in violation of that supposed pinnacle-principle of progressive social ordering – “equality”, to deprive others of that same opportunity, by coercively making decisions for them.

    In the end, “Democracy” is the usual secular mystery religion answer finally trotted out in desperation by the progressive. It sidesteps the moral claim issue for the political, and deflects to something they figure commands reflexive assent, as it usually does, and usually deserves to.

    But democracy for the progressive is not merely the best practical way yet found of keeping political tyranny at bay in a constitutional polity; but rather the ritual proof of community and equality. One nation, under judges, with apportioned distributions for all.

    - We are all going to get old! Don’t you know that!!!! -

    Hoffer is right. Too many sociology majors competing for attention and a roosting place among a population that isn’t generally interested in the free market purchase of very much of what they imagine they have to offer.

  122. Next time, after you have listened to a neighborhood progressive type rant for a bit on how people need centralized direction and management (recall Hillary on Social Security), ask him if he personally is fit for a life of self-direction and responsibility.

    Will they evade the question nearly as much as you evade answering why you called a legitimately elected Black President an “usurper”?

  123. Pico wrote:

    “derriereabovealloyedcontainers wrote:

    ‘The fact is that up to now the free society has not been good for the intellectual. It has neither accorded him a superior status to sustain his confidence nor made it easy for him to acquire an unquestioned sense of social usefulness. For he derives his sense of usefulness mainly from directing, instructing, and planning-from minding other people’s business-and is bound to feel superfluous and neglected where people believe themselves competent to manage individual and communal affairs, and are impatient of supervision and regulation. A free society is as much a threat to the intellectual’s sense of worth as an automated economy is to the workingman’s sense of worth. Any social order that can function with a minimum of leadership will be anathema to the intellectual.

    The intellectual craves a social order in which uncommon people perform uncommon tasks every day. He wants a society throbbing with dedication, reverence, and worship. He sees it as scandalous that the discoveries of science and the feats of heroes should have as their denouement the comfort and affluence of common folk. A social order run by and for the people is to him a mindless organism motivated by sheer physiologism.

    The Ordeal of Change, Chapter 12 ‘Concerning Individual Freedom’ 1966 -Eric Hoffer ‘

    Not exactly a recent phenomenon: Plato’s Republic is basically a long treatise attempting to justify the rule by the most fit, the philosophers in Plato’s notions, backed up by the “Guardians,” the military who would enforce the rule by the wise philosopher-kings.

    And today we have those who, motivated by what they see as good and noble ideas, wanting only the best for every individual and society as a whole, would impose their ideas of how we should live on everyone, whether “everyone” happens to agree or not.

    Karl Marx thought that the proletariat would just naturally come together in virtual unanimity, and that there would be no real dissent from the “dictatorship of the proletariat.” Some of our friends on the left are still amazed that not everyone agrees with them!
    21 July 2010, 9:49 pm”

    At least Plato, unlike Marx, seems to have eventually learned something over time; as appears to be the case if indeed The Republic is earlier than The Laws.

    As a matter of fact the change is pretty remarkable I think, with many of the sentiments and judgments in The Laws seeming to repudiate the ideas in the Republic.

    But of course Plato was actually involved in politics or with political figures, and involved in trying to help other govern well.

    What the festering Marx knew of capitalism first hand seems to have come in significant measure through the financial handouts Engels forwarded him from his own inherited capitalist business.

    Maybe Plato to the contrary, had enough negative personal experience over the years of mixing with dictators and pederasts to have finally adjusted his thinking along somewhat more sound lines.

  124. “Next time, after you have listened to a neighborhood progressive type rant for a bit on how people need centralized direction and management (recall Hillary on Social Security), ask him if he personally is fit for a life of self-direction and responsibility.

    Will they evade the question nearly as much as you evade answering why you called a legitimately elected Black President an “usurper”?”

    Provide the quote and citation and I will be glad to give you the answer.

    You have 20 minutes.

  125. From Patterico:


    New JournoList Leak: Let’s Get Together and Trash Palin!


    Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:56 am

    Your media betters, working in a pack:

    “That’s excellent! If enough people – people on this list? – write that the pick is sexist, you’ll have the networks debating it for days. And that negates the SINGLE thing Palin brings to the ticket.”

    More at the Daily Caller.

    You know, this site is honestly a conservative site: while we certainly welcome our visitors from the left, the site writers are all conservatives, even though they might not agree with each other on every individual point. We don’t pretend to be non-partisan or bi-partisan or that we write from a neutral perspective.

    What the JournoList exposures have done is to expose the lie that the mainstream media gives us, its pretense that they are non-partisan, that they are unbiased, and that they report the news honestly and forthrightly.

    Of course, we already knew about the liberal bias that permeates much (not all) of the MSM, but in their lack of honesty about themselves, they gave our friends on the left a tattered fig leaf of coverage, under which they could claim that hey, Fox News is a conservatively biased organization, but CNN and CBS and the others are all real, unbiased journalism sources.

    In the JournoList listserv, they thought that they had privacy, and there they were open and honest with each other. Well, someone managed to hack in, and the truth we all knew has been confirmed. Melissa Clouthier published a partial list of just who’s on JournoList, and wrote:

    Let’s see, folks from the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time and Newsweek magazine. These are not children. These are people we’re supposed to respect as objective, “smart” (a friend said this about the whole notion of “smart”: I do get weary of the left needing to apply the word “smart” to themselves all the time. To make that distinction, “a smart…conversation” as opposed to all the stupid ones that don’t involve them. because if they don’t involve them, they are by definition stupid…), and fair.

    Uh huh.

    If these people come from a liberal perspective, that’s fine; I just wish that they’d be honest enough to admit it.

  126. We always knew we were dealing with liars, but few of us were willing to call them out as such without incontrovertible proof. Which is of course difficult to obtain, so usually the liars either got the benefit of the doubt, or the presumption of incompetence to shield them from exposure.

    Now we know the filthy scum got together and coordinated their narratives so that one could tell the lie and the others could chime in with praise for the “deeply insightful” but thoroughly bogus revelations, and other members of the secret society could then pile on and reinforce the previously agreed upon cock and bull story.

    These so-called JournoListers should be rounded up and prosecuted under the RICO Statutes as made-men in an organized criminal enterprise.

  127. Provide the quote and citation

    My mistake – I’m getting tweedle-dumb and tweedle-dumber mixed up.

  128. dang nabit.

    i couldn’t see the “play” in real time because i submitted to the role stealthily assigned me. weak.

    its clear to me now. thanks. this was useful.

  129. DRP:
    New JournoList Leak: Let’s Get Together and Trash Palin!

    Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:56 am

    Your media betters, working in a pack:

    “That’s excellent! If enough people – people on this list? – write that the pick is sexist, you’ll have the networks debating it for days. And that negates the SINGLE thing Palin brings to the ticket.”

    More at the Daily Caller.

    You know, this site is honestly a conservative site: while we certainly welcome our visitors from the left, the site writers are all conservatives, even though they might not agree with each other on every individual point. We don’t pretend to be non-partisan or bi-partisan or that we write from a neutral perspective.

    The new JournoList should just say they write in the style of the late great James Michener – Historical Fiction. But I’m loathe to put Michener in a groupthink political hack writers group. I guess it’s best to call them GTPI Group Think Press International. Anyway, my semi-hometown bird cage paper, the Baltimore Sun is only good at keeping the body count of the murder a day Baltimore Shitty.

  130. ropelight:
    These so-called JournoListers should be rounded up and prosecuted under the RICO Statutes as made-men in an organized criminal enterprise.

    Let Ann Coulter write the story.

  131. Lies (And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them) By Al Franken – Look he already wrote a book about JournoList.

    (I inadvertantly wrote by as “bt”. I corrected it before cbmc chastized me for it)

  132. ropelight:
    These so-called JournoListers should be rounded up and prosecuted under the RICO Statutes as made-men in an organized criminal enterprise.

    I’d endorse it, but Eric Holder wouldn’t touch it.

  133. There’s a new JournoList. It’s called the Cabalist, no kidding. It has about 170 members instead of the 400 that were on the JournoList and already there’s a leak.

  134. Oh, and here’s the real story on Tucker Carlson’s Daily Caller and the Journolist.

    Tucker’s note doesn’t bother to mention the actual questions that have been raised: That his stories have misstated fact, misled readers, and omitted evidence that would contradict his thesis. He doesn’t explain how a thread in which no journalists suggested shutting down Fox News can be headlined “Liberal journalists suggest government shut down Fox News.” He doesn’t tell us why an article about the open letter that originated on the list left out the fact that I subsequently banned any future letters from the list. He doesn’t detail why his stories haven’t mentioned that one of his own reporters was on the list — his readers would presumably be interested to know that the Daily Caller was part of the liberal media conspiracy.
    [...]
    My mistake, obviously. But if this series rests on Tucker’s credibility, that’s a soft foundation indeed. At every turn, he’s known about evidence that substantially complicates his picture of an international media conspiracy. He knows I tried to let him in, odd behavior for someone with so much to hide and so much to lose. He knows I let one of his reporters remain a member. He knows I banned — and enforced the ban — on the sort of coordinated letter that served as example one of the list’s conspiracy. He knows — and never, to my knowledge, corrected — that his reporter misrepresented the dates of Dave Weigel’s posts to make it look like things he wrote at the Washington Independent were written at the Washington Post. And that’s not even to mention the more prosaic deceptions of his selective choice of threads, truncated quotations, and misleading headlines.

    But wingnuts have never let little things like “the truth” bother them before.

  135. Dana: “If these people come from a liberal perspective, that’s fine; I just wish that they’d be honest enough to admit it.”

    First, Dana, you have to define just what a “liberal perspective” is.

    This is just another case of folks getting hung up on labels, which then are used to demonize people; this, rather than debate the issues. We see this going on all the time, not only out there in the media, but also right here on this very blog.

    Thus, this so-called “JournoList” is the same thing, an attempt initiated by Tucker Carlson, to demonize individuals who participate in an exchange of observations and ideas, as if it is some sort of a conspiracy of the left to control and manipulate the media and the news. Other than a list of names, where is the specific evidence?

    Let us be honest, there is the same sort of inter communication among the opinion makers on the right, as evidenced by the talking points promulgated instantly amongst them on key issues, as they act in lock step. In fact, I will suggest that this sort of thing is more organized by the propagandists on the Right, taking their lead from Limbaugh and the FoxNews folks.

  136. Eric: It’s too bad that you and your fellow wingers have decided to harden up rather than open up on race. You illustrate that your ears merely close when somebody (liberal) points out racism, and then you blow off the (latest) egregious example from Limbaugh without the slightest concern.

    I mean, you can say, “Sorry…” to me, but it’s you guys who need to do a little listening. The GOP has solidified itself as the party of aggrieved whites in the past couple years, and you may not care, but non-whites are noticing and responding accordingly.

    You guys think it to be axiomatic that Rev. Wright was despicable and Rush Limbaugh doesn’t have a racist bone in his body. You’re sure somehow Wright’s views rubbed off on Obama with no evidence whatsoever from Obama himself, yet you reflexively jump to defend Rush “Halfrican/Magic Negro/Stimulus=Reparations/Recession=Revenge against Whitey/McNabb is only popular because he’s black” Limbaugh.

    “Sorry…” but the man is a racist, and as incendiary as white phosphorus. You can choose not to listen, but the double standard applied towards Rev. White vs. Limbaugh is staggering.

    Asshead: Yes, you don’t engage, and you rarely listen. Refer back to Hitchcock’s comment and do try to keep up, little pom-pom wielder…

  137. The sheep shagger, never one to let “the truth” get in the way of one of his usual deceptions, links to a former Clinton Administration hack (7/22 at 11:01pm) and reproduces a “highly edited” portion of Ezra Klein’s self-serving attempt to defend JournoList and deflect attention away from his criminal enterprise, in response to Tucker Carlson’s clear and concise concluding statement at the “Daily Caller” posted on 7/22 and updated on 7/23.

    (For those who wish to read Klein’s complete article, sans the clearly deceptive “heavy editing,” it appears in the 7/22 WaPo. I’ll have more to say on this topic soon.)
    ——-
    “Letter from Editor-in-Chief Tucker Carlson on The Daily Caller’s Journolist coverage”

    “We began our series on Journolist earlier this week with the expectation that our stories would be met with a fury of criticism from the Left. A hurt dog barks, after all.

    The response hasn’t been all that furious, actually, probably because there isn’t much for the exposed members of Journolist to say. We caught them. They’re ashamed. The wise ones are waiting for the tempest to pass.

    There have, however, been two lines of argument that we probably ought to respond to, if only because they may harden into received wisdom if we don’t. The first is that our pieces have proved only that liberal journalists have liberal views, and that’s hardly news.

    To be clear: We’re not contesting the right of anyone, journalist or not, to have political opinions. (I, for one, have made a pretty good living expressing mine.) What we object to is partisanship, which is by its nature dishonest, a species of intellectual corruption. Again and again, we discovered members of Journolist working to coordinate talking points on behalf of Democratic politicians, principally Barack Obama. That is not journalism, and those who engage in it are not journalists. They should stop pretending to be. The news organizations they work for should stop pretending, too.

    The second line of attack we’ve encountered since we began the series is familiar to anyone who has ever published a piece whose subject didn’t like the finished product: “You quoted me out of context!”

    The short answer is, no we didn’t. I edited the first four stories myself, and I can say that our reporter Jonathan Strong is as meticulous and fair as anyone I have worked with.

    That assurance won’t stop the attacks, of course. So why don’t we publish whatever portions of the Journolist archive we have and end the debate? Because a lot of them have no obvious news value, for one thing. Gather 400 lefty reporters and academics on one listserv and it turns out you wind up with a strikingly high concentration of bitchiness. Shocking amounts, actually. So while it might be amusing to air threads theorizing about the personal and sexual shortcomings of various New Republic staffers, we’ve decided to pull back.

    Plus, a lot of the material on Journolist is actually pretty banal. In addition to being partisan hacks, a lot of these guys turn out to be pedestrian thinkers. Disappointing….”

    [released from moderation - pH]

  138. Whistler, you have no idea what you’re talking about, as Yorkie has proven. And Perry, you have yet again gone to extremes of foolishness to proclaim your ignorance. The “so called” JournoList was given its name by its creator, Ezra Klein. It’s no more “so called” than the Washington Post, and you know it (or you would if you weren’t so adamant in your push to maintain your ignorance).

  139. I’ll accept that there’s room for debate on the Magic Negro thing.

    Ah, but Hitchcock, there you are, using that one example as a method to avoid all further inquiry, and turn your ears off to the voluminous record Limbaugh has assembled.

    You’ve many automatic defenses of the sort, don’t you?

    You guys don’t give a rat’s ass about what went on in Rev. Wright’s church on a daily basis, and you’ll happily consider a few quotes to be all Obama ever cared about.

    Yet you’ve all got loads of wonderful excuses and defenses for Rush Limbaugh.

    Again, I recommend a bit of introspection here. Not that you guys are so well equipped for that, but it’s necessary.

  140. ” … you’re fine with Fox saying in court that they have a perfect right to lie to their watchers…”

    Oh yeah Pokey, you were going to back that one up with statements taken directly from the overturned lower court decision, or from the trial transcripts or maybe the transcript of the appeal (which Fox won); but you never got around to it despite having your knuckles dragged across the cheese-grater as a reminder.

    Why not then, and since you have had a week to come up with it, take this opportunity to finally produce the actual text of Fox’s court room argument which you have been implying you have had, rather than responding to reasonable requests for primary source evidence by just shouting out the same charge in louder voice.

    That way, readers can view the evidence for themselves, and determine just how far from sanity your emotions may have carried you in this particular instance.

    Here is what you said:

    “Fox argued in front of the court that it had a RIGHT TO LIE TO VIEWERS.

    It doesn’t matter what the final result was – the point is that Fox argued in front of the court that it had a RIGHT TO LIE TO VIEWERS.”

    (Hey, you’re not just saying they made a First Amendment argument there are you? You are saying instead that they implied they believed they had a moral right to lie to the public in furtherance of their covert agenda?)

    Anyway, here is what I said the Appeals Court said,

    ” Opinion filed February 14, 2003

    IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

    NEW WORLD COMMUNICATIONS OF TAMPA, INC., d/b/a WTVT-TV, Appellant,

    V.

    JANE AKRE, Appellee.

    Case No. 2D01-529

    KELLY, Judge. ["CASANUEVA, J., and GREEN, OLIVER L., SENIOR JUDGE, Concur."]

    [Excerpts]

    In April 1998, Akre and Wilson sued WTVT alleging, among other things, claims under the whistle-blower’s statute. Those claims alleged that their terminations had been in retaliation for their resisting WTVT’s attempts to distort or suppress the BGH story and for threatening to report the alleged news distortion to the FCC.

    Akre also brought claims for declaratory relief and for breach of contract.

    After a four-week trial, a jury found against Wilson on all of his claims.

    The trial court directed a verdict against Akre on her breach of contract claim, Akre abandoned her claim for declaratory relief, and the trial court let her whistle-blower claims go to the jury.

    The jury rejected all of Akre’s claims except her claim that WTVT retaliated against her in response to her threat to disclose the alleged news distortion to the FCC. The jury awarded Akre
    $425,000 in damages.

    While WTVT has raised a number of challenges to the judgment obtained by Akre, we need not address each challenge because we find as a threshold matter that Akre failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower’s statute. …

    Because the FCC’s news distortion policy is not a “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102, Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower’s statute. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment in her favor and remand for entry of a judgment in favor of WTVT.

    Reversed and remanded.”

    And now, …. drum-roll … for the sake of reason and civil dialog, your quote from, and link to, the text of the Fox courtroom argument that they had a “RIGHT TO LIE TO VIEWERS” :

  141. Perry wrote:

    Dana: “If these people come from a liberal perspective, that’s fine; I just wish that they’d be honest enough to admit it.”

    First, Dana, you have to define just what a “liberal perspective” is.

    This is just another case of folks getting hung up on labels, which then are used to demonize people; this, rather than debate the issues. We see this going on all the time, not only out there in the media, but also right here on this very blog.

    Liberal means different things to different people, and there is no Official Liberal® imprimatur here. But when you see a fairly consistent support for Democrats over Republicans, and for positions further to the political left than right, I think it reasonable to use the term liberal, even if it is somewhat loosely defined. Like Justice Potter Stewart once said about pornography, it can be hard to define, but we know it when we see it.

    Let us be honest, there is the same sort of inter communication among the opinion makers on the right, as evidenced by the talking points promulgated instantly amongst them on key issues, as they act in lock step. In fact, I will suggest that this sort of thing is more organized by the propagandists on the Right, taking their lead from Limbaugh and the FoxNews folks.

    Even if I accept your argument as true, for the purposes of this discussion, the difference is that Rush Limbaugh has never pretended to be anything other than what he is: someone with an opinion, one that comes almost exclusively from the right. No one has ever held that Fox News is really “fair and balanced,” and everyone knows that the editorial slant is conservative. What has been exposed through the JournoList fiasco is that many of those who are pretending to be unbiased, professional journalists are just what we’ve always known: people with a political axe to grind, who are almost exclusively from the American political left.

  142. “paranoid perry”

    according to perry he suspects the right uses contrived action like (obviously) the liberals do. naturally he thinks everyone is as sneaky as he and his liberal friends are.

    yea, i do seem to recall this dope accusing someone on this very forum of spying on him, complete with wild accusations of private detectives.

    who in their right mind would listen to his clownish accusations.

    “paranoid perry” , yea i like that one… :)

  143. Perry wrote:

    First, Dana, you have to define just what a “liberal perspective” is.

    This is just another case of folks getting hung up on labels, which then are used to demonize people; this, rather than debate the issues. We see this going on all the time, not only out there in the media, but also right here on this very blog.

    Why is it that conservatives generally embrace the description “conservative,” yet so many liberals — not all, of course — run from the description?

  144. Henry Whistler, apparently as a means of responding to criticisms, climbs up on a rhetorical cross he has himself fabricated, and restyles himself as,

    ” Henry “Not a scientist so he shouldn’t take the side of scientists” Whistler “

    It’s odd how Henry repeatedly redraws the criticisms that are made of him, seemingly in order to reflect more favorably on himself, and then surrounds the manufactured text with quotation marks.

    Maybe his friends only read his messages …

  145. The term “Barack the Magic Negro” was first used on March 14, 2007, in an LA Times op/ed by David Ehrenstein, a black, homosexual liberal. He used the term to describe how Barack Obama was being used by white Democrats to assuage their liberal guilt.

    Paul Shanklin wrote the song parody, sung to the tune of “Puff the Magic Dragon,” very shortly thereafter and Rush Limbaugh played the song many times on his radio show. Limbaugh predicted that liberal reaction would focus on him instead of on Ehrenstein or on Shanklin and said he would quickly come to “own” the term.

    In Shanklin’s parody, he sings as Al Sharpton, who at the time was a Presidential candidate running against Barack Obama in the Democrat Primary. Sharpton laments that guilty white Democrats will vote for an approachable but artificial negro, Obama, instead of for Sharpton, an authentic black man from the hood.

    Barack the Magic Negro lives in D.C.
    The L.A. Times, they called him that
    ‘Cause he’s not authentic like me.
    Yeah, the guy from the L.A. paper
    Said he makes guilty whites feel good
    They’ll vote for him, and not for me
    ‘Cause he’s not from the hood…

    Any commenter who spends even a minute or two reflecting on the origins of this parody song, as opposed to just judging it by its title, would see that the racism here belongs on those who accuse Rush Limbaugh of offenses for which they are demonstrably guilty many times over.

    And, the more forthright among them would admit that the truth expressed in the parody so outrages liberals because it exposes their racist hypocrisy and leaves them without a way to defend themselves other than to employ even more racism and hypocrisy in witch-hunt against their favorite boogeyman.

  146. Dana writes:

    Perry wrote:

    First, Dana, you have to define just what a “liberal perspective” is.

    This is just another case of folks getting hung up on labels, which then are used to demonize people; this, rather than debate the issues. We see this going on all the time, not only out there in the media, but also right here on this very blog.

    Why is it that conservatives generally embrace the description “conservative,” yet so many liberals — not all, of course — run from the description?

    A couple of casually formulated observations:

    Liberalism, especially the modern progressive version of it can be pretty well defined, and has repeatedly been so by progressives themselves.

    There is a constellation of metaphysical, and anthropological/ethical assumptions which make up a modern progressive worldview, and inform their politically collectivist, therapeutic, interventionist, managerial, and redistributive (room-with-no-exit-other-than-death LOL) agenda.

    The First Humanist Manifesto is as good a document as any other for encapsulating the modern progressive – which has melded with the modern liberal – worldview and presumptions.

    If someone wants to bother with say, Daniel Lazare’s The Frozen Republic, or the comparatively recent European Journal of International Law essay “Reconstituting Humanity”, they are welcome to do that as well.

    For the liberal, [their metaphysical justifications for it aside] politics is the means of managerially reshaping or consciously “evolving” society and the makeup of those populations who have had or will continue to have access to and control over certain resources and liberties of action. This is done on the basis of a free-form, or at least an unrestricted-in-principle re-envisioning of what humanity ought to be according to what are proclaimed as evolving progressive sensibilities and sensitivities.

    There is no assumed natural order or rule of limits to guide them as to what is and is not “appropriate” (to use one of their favorite catch words)

    Blackstone, said the law is the embodiment of the moral sentiment of the people. Thus the ‘as found’, as expressed in the natural community.

    For the progressive, on the contrary, the law is, or should they think be treated as, a sociopolitical instrumentality for the expert reshaping of the populace and the centralized reapportioning and distribution of life chances and access to the material world in a manner they feel appropriate.

    They don’t make apologies for their totalitarianism when they talk among themselves, it’s just assumed as an implied outgrowth of their materialist monism.

  147. Oh yeah Pokey, you were going to back that one up with statements taken directly from the overturned lower court decision,

    Nope, I don’t. I had it to my satuisfaction, and if someone worth respecting asked for more I might track it down further.

    You simply don’t qualify. I’m typing quietly with my gf sleeping in the bedroom, I’m in a good mood, and I really can’t be bothered playing mind-games with a sad little fuck like you today.

  148. DNW: Are you going to interrupt a substantive thread to wet your pants some more over quotation marks that you’re too stupid to see are fanciful?

    I mean, it’s one thing not to get a joke. But to harangue others over your amputated sensibilities is just boorish. Nobody wants to hear it, alright? Leave me and ropelight to our habits of style and hitch up your dress.

  149. Whistler, please let me know when you’re about to provide something substantive. I would like to see when it happens because it’ll be a first for you. And take your blue humor elsewhere. It only titillates liberals and juveniles.

  150. Pokey is asked if he has the goods to back up his hysterically delivered accusations regarding Fox news policy:


    Oh yeah Pokey, you were going to back that one up with statements taken directly from the overturned lower court decision …”

    and Pokey responds

    “Nope, I don’t. I had it to my satuisfaction, and ….”

    That pretty much says it all about you, Pokey: “I had it to my satuisfaction …”

    Just as with the fraudulent George Washington quote you peddled.

    And do keep typing quietly, Pokey; that way your taking sleeping time to not respond to challenges to prove up and document certain matters you find you can’t prove up on and document, won’t disturb the walrus any; as you inadvertently inform the world that what you really care about is patching up your ego deficits by flogging juvenile references to her sleeping form about on the Internet.

    Poor Pokey. Tries to prove he is a man by proving he was born without a sense of honor.

    Typical of the males in your family, are you?

  151. “DNW: Are you going to interrupt a substantive thread …”

    If you were actually interrupted by my pointing out how your deceptive rewrites run to pattern Henry, then you need to get a different computer.

    Now when it comes to interrupted, one naturally thinks of Phoenician in a time of Romans, whose Internet obsession causes alarm bells to go off in the middle of the night, which force him to abandon his bed in order to reassure us he can’t be bothered to respond, since he has some hot chick snoring just a few feet away. LOL

    Next thing the needy-nerdy mutt will be doing is posting nude “Polaroids” of some female online and claiming it’s his “GF”.

  152. Phoney’s GF is his new Goat Friend, after an accidental meeting in the remote pastures where frolicking flocks can be found unattended, the two devotees of peculiar ovine pleasures discovered in each other, more than a mere common interest, if you know what I mean.

    Following a frantic tumble and a shy goodbye the lovers reunited in Phoney’s flat, where they now cohabit and keep the curtains closed, and lay low.

  153. Hitchcock: “Whistler, please let me know when you’re about to provide something substantive.”

    Can any of you guys respond to somebody who actually challenges you? Evidence of Limbaugh’s racism has been provided. No need to tap dance, just respond. If you can’t admit the obvious about Limbaugh, an incendiary GOP leader with blatant racist tendencies, then just leave it alone. But don’t pull a ropelight and tell me I haven’t provided.

  154. Not only has the pretender (Henry “Down with Racist Double Talk” Whistler) not provided, he’s continuing to make false accusations, claim honors he hasn’t earned, and now he’s even stooped to salting his comments with a phrase I used to expose his serial “tap dance and double talk.”

    Whistler abuses, he accuses, he never produces. That’s why he always losses!

  155. http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/limbaugh.asp

    Four “no documentations” out of nine purported quotes. At least two of the four have been proven to be out-and-out lies. In a court of law, when a witness’s testimony turns out to be a lie, the entire testimony is thrown out as tainted and unreliable. If you’re going to use people who continue the lies, then you can be thrown out as well.

    The quote containing “South Africa” is a historical fact. That’s not racist, that’s merely stating a fact.

    The “Bloods and Cryps” quote: are you even serious? Are you claiming those two gangs are black-only gangs? That makes you the racist, not Limbaugh.

    “I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. They’re interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. I think there’s a little hope invested in McNabb and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he really didn’t deserve.”

    I see racism in that: the race-based desires found in the media, as Limbaugh was pointing out. Limbaugh’s statement wasn’t a racist statement at all.

    I do not endorse a Popular Front, nor do I think you need to. It’s not necessary to jump to [Rev. Jeremiah] Wright-qua-Wright’s defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically.

    And I think this threads the needle. If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.

    Falsely calling a Conservative a racist in order to change the subject is an age-old leftist trick. The ends justifies the means, so the leftists can lie all they want so long as they get what they want.

  156. Phoenician in a time of Romans:
    Sad little fuck confirmed.

    24 July 2010, 1:17 am

    sorry to hear about your condition pho. :(
    will you be seeking medical treatment for that? :)

  157. Handcock, I have to take minor exception with your statement, “Falsely calling a Conservative a racist in order to change the subject is an age-old leftist trick.”

    It’s certainly the first response of Democrat scoundrels today, but it’s not “age old,” it’s origins date from the late civil rights era following Lyndon Johnson’s presidency.

    Democrats in Congress refused to approve LBJ’s Voting Rights Act, Democrat racist Robert “KKK” Byrd was prominently opposed to such legislation, as were so many other of his overtly racist Democrat Congressional colleagues , that the landmark civil rights legislation would have failed had not sufficient GOP support rescued it from certain defeat.

    Later, Democrats were quick to rewrite the story of the civil rights movement and blame the GOP for decades of their own long and violent history of Democrat Party racism and terrorism against Negros. It hadn’t been more than a few years prior that Democrats were ostentatiously proud of their racist suppression of the Negro vote as it was then known. Democrats promoted their bids for office by gleefully touting their long records of “keeping Negros in their place.”

    So successful have the Democrats been in rewriting the history of their “Jim Crow” past that few people now recall the GOP was formed expressly to oppose slavery, while the Democrats fought to preserve it.

    Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, but if recent revisionist history is any guide to future perceptions, our children’s textbooks will soon have “The Great Emancipator” riding to victory on a donkey, and conducting the War of Northern Aggression from Chicago.

    Democrats didn’t start courting the Negro vote till after LBJ shoved the landmark civil rights legislation down their throats, while they kicked and screamed, filibustered, and claimed it would destroy the nation.

    But, the important point here is that none of LBJ’s Civil Rights legislation would have passed if LBJ had to rely on the Democrat Party. Both he and American Negros needed a little help from their real friends in the GOP.

  158. John Hitchcock, I apologize for butchering your name. It’s my mistake, it was unintentional, and I regret it. Please accept my apology.

  159. Hitchcock: You should have looked at the link, it’s been updated to separate the ones with questionable documentation. Of course, Limbaugh denying something isn’t worth the air he took to say it, but sources are provided for the quotes.

    But even if you can try disputing 2-4 of them, the bullshit court analogy is cute. That’s still a lot of racist shit from Limbaugh you’re trying to defend. The spinning of the Bloods and Crips thing into me being racist was very special indeed. Want to put that one in a picture frame, I do.

    ropelight: You’re so funny:) Hey, you teamed up with blubonnet to make the case that I wasn’t down with real science, nobody forced you to try it. Really, what were you thinking? Just give it up. I’ve got a science-based agenda, and all you climate denialists, birthers, creationists, scientologists, etc. can go straight to hell!

    [retrieved from moderation - pH]

  160. Pingback: Common Sense Political Thought » Blog Archive » CNN hosts, who would scream bloody murder at the thought they should be subject to “checks and balances,” seem to want “checks and balances” applied to bloggers

  161. Dead wrong again as usual Whistler. blu and I have never been on the same team, she goes to her church and I go to mine, and they’re located at opposite ends of the scientific universe.

    The fact that both of us see through you isn’t indicative of anything except that you’re completely transparent, and we’re not alone, others here see the same blustering blow-hard pretender that she and I have both had occasion to independently mock, and always separately and always for completely different reasons.

    But, you already know all that. You’re just attempting to associate me with blu in an underhanded effort to promote yourself at her expense. You’re a liar and a coward, and you’re willingness to take such a naked cheap shot is proof of your lack of personal integrity.

    Whistler, you aren’t down with science, you’re down with pretending to support science when in fact what you’re down with is defending the very antithesis of scientific inquiry, you’re supporting a bogus in-house exoneration made possible by conveniently dismissing the most incriminating evidence in advance. The fix was in, and you’re support the fraud, nothing more.

    You’ve based your so-called scientific convictions on nothing more than your faith in the infallibility of the high priests of Global Whoring. You’re worshiping at the feet of false prophets. The truth is you’re about a far from science as Algore is from any controlling legal authority.

    But, you’re too ignorant and too arrogant to face up to the reality that’s right in front of your nose, you won’t see it because you’re too frightened to face the implications of what the truth would reveal about your own gullibility. So, go, and try to live with a lie, it’s all you’ve got. And, remember who told you so.

  162. First of all, bias is not demonstrated by a JournoList, it is demonstrated by the output of these media people. Criticizing some policy or behavior of a politician or political party or anyone does not constitute, in itself, as bias.

    Secondly, there are many prominent media names not on that list. In fact, most of them are not well known.

    Thirdly, would you claim that a similar group does not exist on the Right? I would guess it does – we just don’t know about it. For example, Rush seems to have the Repub talking points even ahead of the politicians. In fact, he often leads with them. So there is circumstantial evidence for you.

    This is one more example of the Right trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. It’s all they can think of to do, because they don’t have the issues of the day, except to cut the deficit by withholding unemployment benefit extensions amounting to $34 billion, while being happy to increase the deficit by $700 billion by extending the Bush tax cuts.

    If you heard Repub party leaders Senator John Cornyn and Representative Pete Sessions on Meet the Press last Sunday, you would see that the Repubs have virtually no ideas. It was embarrassing to listen to their poor performance. On the other hand, Dem party leaders Senator Bob Menendez and Representative Chris Von Holland answered every question from David Gregory. Here, listen for yourself!

    The Repubs have virtually nothing new to offer to help this country to recovery, therefore they do not deserve to regain power. I hope the American people can see their idealogical bankruptcy, through their campaign fog, bythe time November election time comes.

  163. Eric: Again all I ask is that you guys stop making things up. “Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer,” is pure spin. He’s one of the de facto leaders of the GOP.

    Sorry, but Rush is NOT a leader of the GOP. He is, of course, a popular conservative entertainer and commentator, but he is a conservative first and foremost, which at the very least puts him at odds with the RINO contingent of the Republican Party. You’ll thus note that Republican and conservative are by no means the same thing.

    PS Sean Hannity makes a similar distinction in terms of his views and who and what he supports.

  164. Perry makes excuses for the JournoListas:

    Perry wrote that, “First of all, bias is not demonstrated by a JournoList, it is demonstrated by the output of these media people.”

    Absolutely true. These media people secretly conspired to defend the Democrat political party and eventually their political candidate by employing the most dispicible racist assaults yet revealed. Perry, if you can’t see that as bias, then you’re pointedly avoiding seeing it.

    Then Perry wrote, “Secondly, there are many prominent media names not on that list. In fact, most of them are not well known.”

    However some are quite well known, others not so much, but all were invited to join the select group of like minded leftists, many employed as so-called “objective juornalists” for establishment media outlets, while others taught professional Journalism, or were professors of the law.

    The following 65 names are confirmed members of the now-defunct JournoList listserv. 1. Ezra Klein 2. Dave Weigel 3. Matthew Yglesias 4. David Dayen 5. Spencer Ackerman 6. Jeffrey Toobin 7. Eric Alterman 8. Paul Krugman 9. John Judis 10. Eve Fairbanks 11. Mike Allen 12. Ben Smith 13. Lisa Lerer 14. Joe Klein 15. Brad DeLong 16. Chris Hayes 17. Matt Duss 18. Jonathan Chait 19. Jesse Singal 20. Michael Cohen 21. Isaac Chotiner 22. Katha Pollitt 23. Alyssa Rosenberg 24. Rick Perlstein 25. Alex Rossmiller 26. Ed Kilgore 27. Walter Shapiro 28. Noam Scheiber 29. Michael Tomasky 30. Rich Yesels 31. Tim Fernholz 32. Dana Goldstein 33. Jonathan Cohn 34. Scott Winship 35. David Roberts 36. Luke Mitchell 37. John Blevins 38. Moira Whelan 39. Henry Farrell 40. Josh Bearman 41. Alec McGillis 42. Greg Anrig 43. Adele Stan 44. Steven Teles 45. Harold Pollack 46. Adam Serwer 47. Ryan Donmoyer 48. Seth Michaels 49. Kate Steadman 50. Matt Duss 51. Laura Rozen 52. Jesse Taylor 53. Michael Hirsh 54. Daniel Davies 55. Jonathan Zasloff 56. Richard Kim 57. Thomas Schaller 58. Jared Bernstein 59. Holly Yeager 60. Joe Conason 61. David Greenberg 62. Todd Gitlin 63. Mark Schmitt 64. Kevin Drum 65. Sarah Spitz.

    And then Perry makes the completely unsupported accusation that, “Thirdly, would you claim that a similar group does not exist on the Right? I would guess it does – we just don’t know about it.”

    Perry has no evidence, he admits he has none, but that doesn’t give him a minute’s pause. Now, how’s that for an informed opinion?

    Perry’s political brethren are caught conspiring to level unfounded charges of racism against randomly selected GOP leaders, regardless of the truth, in order to shield Barack Obama from his 20 year association with a religious bigot and racist hate monger.

    So, lacking any defense, Perry informs us that he guesses the GOP is doing the same thing. Then launches into a denunciation of Republicans for the audacity of bringing such trivial matters to the public’s attention.

    Was there ever a low-down belly crawling yellow dog so unworthy of even the notice of honorable men?

  165. Ropelit:
    The following 65 names are confirmed members of the now-defunct JournoList listserv. 1. Ezra Klein 2. Dave Weigel 3. Matthew Yglesias 4. David Dayen 5. Spencer Ackerman 6. Jeffrey Toobin 7. Eric Alterman 8. Paul Krugman 9. John Judis 10. Eve Fairbanks 11. Mike Allen 12. Ben Smith 13. Lisa Lerer 14. Joe Klein 15. Brad DeLong 16. Chris Hayes 17. Matt Duss 18. Jonathan Chait 19. Jesse Singal 20. Michael Cohen 21. Isaac Chotiner 22. Katha Pollitt 23. Alyssa Rosenberg 24. Rick Perlstein 25. Alex Rossmiller 26. Ed Kilgore 27. Walter Shapiro 28. Noam Scheiber 29. Michael Tomasky 30. Rich Yesels 31. Tim Fernholz 32. Dana Goldstein 33. Jonathan Cohn 34. Scott Winship 35. David Roberts 36. Luke Mitchell 37. John Blevins 38. Moira Whelan 39. Henry Farrell 40. Josh Bearman 41. Alec McGillis 42. Greg Anrig 43. Adele Stan 44. Steven Teles 45. Harold Pollack 46. Adam Serwer 47. Ryan Donmoyer 48. Seth Michaels 49. Kate Steadman 50. Matt Duss 51. Laura Rozen 52. Jesse Taylor 53. Michael Hirsh 54. Daniel Davies 55. Jonathan Zasloff 56. Richard Kim 57. Thomas Schaller 58. Jared Bernstein 59. Holly Yeager 60. Joe Conason 61. David Greenberg 62. Todd Gitlin 63. Mark Schmitt 64. Kevin Drum 65. Sarah Spitz.

    Wonder how many of the above are at the Nutroots Convention in Lost Wages this weekend?

  166. Ropelight: ah, so being down with science is just accusing the multiple investigations into Dr. Mann of being a whitewash without support! Of course, I should just believe an bottom-feeding raving maniac and put aside the superior argumentation and reasoning that leads me to conclude the exoneration was on the mark.

    You lost, dude. Period. You’re obviously a very angry person, and you constantly project your worst qualities onto me, but when push comes to shove, you couldn’t respond to the definitive reiteration of my answer to your query.

    Why don’t you stop being such anfool and sore loser and just accept the obvious truth? My opinions on science will more often than not coincide with the best and brightest, which will ever put me at odds with you, blu, and any other junk science fiend.

    Sorry for any typos, but this iPhone commenting is kinda for the birds. I literally cannot see the text I am typing.

  167. You’ve based your so-called scientific convictions on nothing more than your faith in the infallibility of the high priests of Global Whoring

    Just repeating again:

    The National Academy of Science endorses Mann’s science. It has since been confirmed with other analyses, using different methods.

    Ropelight is again spanked as the liar he is.

  168. York, the following is from the NY Post article by Jonathan Strong (who writes at Breightbart’s Big Journalism) on July 25th.

    “In 2007, when Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein founded JournoList, an online gathering place for several hundred liberal journalists, academics and political activists, he imagined a discussion group that would connect young writers to top sources.

    But in the heat of a bitter presidential campaign in 2008, the list’s discussions veered into collusion and coordination at key political moments, documents revealed this week by The Daily Caller show.

    In a key episode, JournoList members openly plotted to bury attention on then-candidate Barack Obama’s controversial pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The Washington Independent’s Spencer Ackerman, for instance, suggested an effective tactic to distract from the issue would be to pick one of Obama’s critics, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”

    Conservative critics of Washington’s journalistic establishment have long charged the media with a striking liberal bias. But those critics have also said the problem was mostly unintentional, the result of a press corps made up mostly of Democratic-leaning scribes.

    Yet JournoList’s discussions show an influential left-wing faction of the media participating in a far more intentional sort of liberal bias.

    JournoList’s members included dozens of straight-news reporters from major news organizations, including Time, Newsweek, The Associated Press, Reuters, The Washington Post, The New York Times, Politico, Bloomberg, Huffington Post, PBS and a large NPR affiliate in California.

    Also included were numerous A-list columnists and top editors. Beyond the higher-ranking members were hundreds of lesser figures, many from Washington’s liberal magazines that have long served as a stable of talent from which mainstream media organizations grab talented young writers.

    In the case of the Rev. Wright story, Obama was then being hurt politically for his decades-long association with the toxic pastor, who infamously called the Sept. 11 attacks America’s “chickens coming home to roost” and urged God to “damn” America rather than bless her…”
    —–
    York, as important as it is to expose this despicable conspiracy to manipulate the public’s perception from the privileged position of professional journalism’s bully pulpit, it is even more important to note John Hitchcock’s comment of 22 July at 10:47pm.

    He wrote, “There’s a new JournoList. It’s called the Cabalist, no kidding. It has about 170 members instead of the 400 that were on the JournoList and already there’s a leak.”

    So, the unrepentant co-conspirators have simply disbanded their disgraced JournoList front and gone right back to spewing the same old propaganda pandering business under a new name.

  169. Henry “serial transparent pretender” Whistler is at it again. Same dirty tricks from the same two-faced liar.

    In response to my fisking of his absurd claim that I had “… teamed up with blubonnet to make the case that (Whistler) wasn’t down with real science, nobody forced you to try it.”

    There it is, yet more proof of the man’s serial dishonesty.

    On a previous very lengthy thread, I showed how Whistler continually twists words, manufactures and uses self-serving paraphrases, and even puts made-up quotations in the mouth of his opponents. He even admitted doing it in the course of attempting to defend his indefensible dishonesty.
    His most recent attempt is above. Whistler reiterates a bogus claim I rejected in my comment at 24 July at 1:34pm.

    Here are my words in response to his initial charge, (which is quoted in my second paragraph above.)

    I wrote, “Dead wrong again as usual Whistler. blu and I have never been on the same team, she goes to her church and I go to mine, and they’re located at opposite ends of the scientific universe.

    The fact that both of us see through you isn’t indicative of anything except that you’re completely transparent, and we’re not alone, others here see the same blustering blow-hard pretender that she and I have both had occasion to independently mock, and always separately and always for completely different reasons.

    But, you already know all that. You’re just attempting to associate me with blu in an underhanded effort to promote yourself at her expense. You’re a liar and a coward, and you’re willingness to take such a naked cheap shot is proof of your lack of personal integrity…”

    In response, Whistler reiterates the same dishonest accusation yet again as if restating his initial lie will somehow transform base accusations into golden truths.

    And, Whistler is exactly the same self-aggrandizing pretender who continually pats himself on the back and claims to respect the methods of science. Well, repeating false accusations isn’t science, it isn’t anywhere near science. It’s the mark of a political hack casting about for some cheap insult he can use to use needle an opponent who’s taken him to the woodshed again and again.

  170. Jonah Goldgerg has a new article up at NRO, re-posted at Breightbart’s Big Journalism, dated July 23rd, and titled, “On Open Conspiracy to Slant the News”

    Here’s an excerpt:

    “Just in case you’ve been living in a cave, or if you only get your news from MSNBC, here’s the story. A young blogger, Ezra Klein, formerly of the avowedly left-wing American Prospect and now with the avowedly mainstream Washington Post, founded the e-mail listserv JournoList for like-minded liberals to hash out and develop ideas. Some 400 people joined the by-invitation-only group. Most, it seems, were in the media, but many hailed from academia, think tanks, and the world of forthright liberal activism generally. They spoke freely about their political and personal biases, including their hatred of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh”

    Sound familiar?

  171. Here’s another shocking revelation:

    William A Jacobson at “Le-gal In-sur-rec-tion” revealed a direct White House connection to JournoList on July 23rd in his post entitled, “Obama Journolist Operative Invited Other Journolistas to White House”

    “On February 18, 2010, I wrote a post titled Progressive Bloggers In The Wizard of Oz, about a trip by several “progressive” bloggers to meet at The White House with Jared Bernstein, Chief Economist to Vice President Joe Biden…

    Boy, was I wrong. It was more like a reunion. Of Journolistas.

    The “Chief Economist to Vice President Joe Biden” was none other than Journalista Jared Bernstein, who — thanks to a post at Volokh Conspiracy (via Instapundit)– I just learned was an adviser to the Obama campaign in 2008 when he was active on the Journolist:

    One question that has arisen in the last week is how closely JournoList members, not only discussed how to shape the news to advance the fortunes of Barack Obama, but coordinated with the Obama campaign. Jared Bernstein’s position as an unpaid adviser and surrogate shows that there was at least one direct link between JournoList and the Obama campaign.

    In attendance for the meeting at the White House were fellow Journolistas Matthew Yglesias (Think Progress), Tim Fernholz (American Prospect) and Chris Hayes (The Nation). One of the other bloggers in attendance was Oliver Willis, whose name has not surfaced on the Journolist, but who works for Media Matters, so he is practically an Honorary Journolista.

    So… An Obama campaign operative interacted on the Journolist with sympathetic media types in the run-up to the election, and then rewarded favored Journolistas with a visit to the White House…”

  172. ropelight:
    Here’s another shocking revelation:

    William A Jacobson at “Le-gal In-sur-rec-tion” revealed a direct White House connection to JournoList on July 23rd in his post entitled, “Obama Journolist Operative Invited Other Journolistas to White House”

    “On February 18, 2010, I wrote a post titled Progressive Bloggers In The Wizard of Oz, about a trip by several “progressive” bloggers to meet at The White House with Jared Bernstein, Chief Economist to Vice President Joe Biden…

    Boy, was I wrong. It was more like a reunion. Of Journolistas.

    The “Chief Economist to Vice ……………………………………………………………………………….(American Prospect) and Chris Hayes (The Nation). One of the other bloggers in attendance was Oliver Willis, whose name has not surfaced on the Journolist, but who works for Media Matters, so he is practically an Honorary Journolista.

    So… An Obama campaign operative interacted on the Journolist with sympathetic media types in the run-up to the election, and then rewarded favored Journolistas with a visit to the White House…”

    Sounds to me like a free and opened minded press. NOT

  173. York, it sounds to me like a conspiracy between the Obama Campaign and subversive elements in the establishment media to secretly manipulate the public’s access to information during a Presidential election, and to use false accusations not only to smear the reputations of Obama’s critics, but to destroy their private lives and the lives of their children.

    A conspiracy which later supported Obama’s plans to fundamentally transform America into a big government owned and subsidized economy complete with socialized medicine and cradle to the grave entitlements based on ever increasing taxes and with no thought to the future well-being of our children and grandchildren.

    A conspiracy that now functions to protect Obama and his enablers in the Democrat Party from the consequences of their program of enacting legislation opposed by the overwhelming majority of Americans.

    A conspiracy which is now being exposed, and has changed masks to conceal it’s ongoing crimes, and is casting about for a way to defend itself.

  174. Ropelight: so because you don’t like being compared to another irrational scientifically illiterate hack, I’m not interested in real science!

    Got it.

    In other news, you bring up the quote thing again. Because in six hundred comments it was the best thing you had against me. Until I proved you did it twice.

    So maybe you should drop it? Maybe understand that a little informality is ok on a blog comment thread?

    I mean, I forgive YOU for doing it, and so the worst you can say is that I treated you the way I expected to be treated.

    Down with science, and The Golden Rule! That is now two I’ve got on you.

  175. A conspiracy which is now being exposed, and has changed masks to conceal it’s ongoing crimes,

    And these crimes would be…?

  176. omg

    whistler sees the words “golden truths” in ropelights post….
    whistler then goes off on some blathering mumblage about the golden rule.

    that there was pathetic dude.

    henry “i make shit up as i go along and call it reason” whistler

  177. Fraud is generally defined in the law as an intentional misrepresentation of material existing fact made by one person to another with knowledge of its falsity and for the purpose of inducing the other person to act, (And Journolist was going to call Rove a Racist to change the outcome of Obama and Wright????) and upon which the other person relies with resulting injury or damage. Fraud may also be made by an omission or purposeful failure to state material facts, which nondisclosure makes other statements misleading.

    To constitute fraud, a misrepresentation or omission must also relate to an ‘existing fact’, not a promise to do something in the future, unless the person who made the promise did so without any present intent to perform it or with a positive intent not to perform it. Promises to do something in the future or a mere expression of opinion cannot be the basis of a claim of fraud unless the person stating the opinion has exclusive or superior knowledge of existing facts which are inconsistent with such opinion. The false statement or omission must be material, meaning that it was significant to the decision to be made.

    Sometimes, it must be shown that the plaintiff’s reliance was justifiable, and that upon reasonable inquiry would not have discovered the truth of the matter. For injury or damage to be the result of fraud, it must be shown that, except for the fraud, the injury or damage would not have occurred.

    To constitute fraud the misrepresentation or omission must be made knowingly and intentionally, not as a result of mistake or accident, or in negligent disregard of its truth or falsity. Also, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant intended for the plaintiff to rely upon the misrepresentation and/or omission; that the plaintiff did in fact rely upon the misrepresentation and/or omission; and that the plaintiff suffered injury or damage as a result of the fraud. Damages may include punitive damages as a punishment or public example due to the malicious nature of the fraud.

    There are many state and federal laws to regulate fraud in numerous areas. Some of the areas most heavily litigated include consumer fraud, corporate fraud, and insurance fraud.

  178. Whistler, you prove my point. In my comment of the 25th at 10:51am I wrote that you dishonestly twist words, manufacture and use self-serving paraphrases and even make up quotations.

    Now, you twist your initial accusation and misrepresent it as a “comparison.” Well, that’s not what you wrote initially, there was no mention of any comparison, only another one of your bald-faced lies.

    You wrote that I, “…teamed up with blubonnet to make the case that (you, Whistler) wasn’t down with real science…”

    I demolished that absurd accusation in my comment at 24 July at 1:54pm. But you raised the same lie again, so I demolished it a second time on the 25th at 10:51am, and concluded with the following, “It’s the mark of a political hack casting about for some cheap insult he can use to use needle an opponent who’s taken him to the woodshed again and again.”

    So, what’s Whistler do? He twists his initial false accusation into the pretense that he was making a “comparison.”

    Well, it just ain’t so, you started out claiming that blu and I had “teamed up” but now you’ve twisted it around to say you were making a “comparison.” What’s the matter Whistler? Can’t you keep your story straight?

    Whistler you’ve proved that you neither know or care about the accuracy and the honesty upon which science depends, you’re a fake and a fraud and a liar. And, you’ve proved it time after time.

  179. aotc, yeah I watched it. Howard was stopped cold when Wallace made him face the facts. Howlin’ Howie made a fool of himself as usual.

    He’s always a sure thing to bluff and bluster, go over-board and then try to squirm, distract, bully, and weasel-word his way out. It’s rather typical of the type, we see it here all too often.

  180. aotc, did you notice what was missing on the Sunday political chat shows? It was Shirley Sherrod.

    Breitbart’s Big Government has a post about it.

    “Shirley Silenced: Sherrod Kept Out of Sunday Talk-shows” by Alexander Marlow (edited)

    “She was likened to a modern day Rosa Parks or Nelson Mandela, but the former Ag official, according to the Washington Post, was not interviewed on a single major Sunday morning talk-show following a week that can only be described as a Shirley Sherrod media frenzy.

    Though the conversation on Sunday morning focused on race in America, noticeably absent from the discussion was the woman behind the controversy.

    Earlier this week a handful of people in the blogosphere began to speculate Sherrod would pull off a “full Ginsburg,” or become only the thirteenth person to appear on all major Sunday talk-shows on the same day since the feat was first accomplished by William H. Ginsburg in 1998.

    However, this was before a clip of Sherrod suggesting Andrew Breitbart wants blacks “stuck back in the times of slavery” went viral. Sherrod also drew extensive criticism late in the week for blasting Fox News as racist…”

  181. Conspiracy
    ——————————————————————————–
    A criminal conspiracy exists when two or more people agree to commit almost any unlawful act, then take some action toward its completion. The action taken need not itself be a crime, but it must indicate that those involved in the conspiracy knew of the plan and intended to break the law. One person may be charged with and convicted of both conspiracy and the underlying crime based on the same circumstances.

    For example, Andy, Dan, and Alice plan a bank robbery. They 1) visit the bank first to assess security, 2) pool their money and buy a gun together, and 3) write a demand letter. All three can be charged with conspiracy to commit robbery, regardless of whether the robbery itself is actually attempted or completed.

    Journolist conspired to lie and libel Karl Rove on Racism to take the heat from BO and Revvum Wright.

  182. Picky, picky, picky, York. Don’t you know the JournoListas are liberal progressives and that the laws which govern the rest of us don’t apply to them?

    The only reason they conspired to violate the rights of Republicans was in order to save the planet from ruin and to promote racial harmony by electing an unqualified incompetant Chicago thug to loot the treasury and spend our nation into bankruptcy, and all that against the will of the people and in violation of the Constitution he swore to uphold.

    Now don’t go around whispering complaints or you’ll make him declare Martial Law and call out the National Guard to keep order till he can arrange to make himself El Presidente for Life.

  183. Ropelight: Holy smokes. What the holy hell are you talking about? I’m a liar now because I said you and blubonnet “teamed up,” eh?

    Now I must speak in purely literal terms at all times. Hey, ropelight, why don’t you go screw yourself and quit telling me how to write? I can speak figuratively. Intelligent people speak figuratively. Idiots don’t get figurative language. When you say, “stop beating around the bush,” an idiot asks, “What bush?”

    Yet at the same time you and blubonnet share the same goal, and you deliberately began your stupid line of inquiry to take down the notion that I adopt a science-based perspective on matters of objective reality.

    So it’s more than fair to ridicule you as lil’ buddies. Wondertwin powers ACTIVATE. You’re married…to the same cause! Ruh-roh, more non-literal language!

    Stop making your stupidity other people’s problem. And if you’re going to call me a liar, you’d better start producing some real lies…oh, shit, why do I even ask? Ropelight doesn’t follow the rules! Ropelight is above mere mortals. Ropelight speaks, people should just listen! IT WAS A WHITEWASH! Everybody, shut up and accept it! It’s true. CAN YOU NOT SEE IT? Only sick liberals would…agree with the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community.

    Ropelight, I’ve treated you with real intellectual honesty. You just have no idea what it is. You seem to think, “Intellectually honest people agree with me and are nice to me.” (Warning: “Seem to think” means it’s not an exact quote, for the reading impaired)

    I think being intellectually honest is agreeing to answer all questions posed to me. I think being intellectually honest is trying to provide support for the things you say, or admitting that others can opt to not take you at your word on something. I think being intellectually honest is not building a premise on any classic logical fallacies.

    And I think the last person who writes something substantive before things turn into a bunch of invective and bullshit is the one who has the upper hand in the argument. If I’m talking about Dr. Mann, and you start babbling about quote manufacturing, after you’ve done the same thing, then you’re the one who buckled. If I’m talking about race and you start babbling about not really being a team with blubonnet, it’s because you’ve got too weak a position to feel comfortable staying on topic.

    Stay on topic and quit bullshitting, and the entire site will be uplifted.

    Last we were saying something, you guys were trying to defend well-known racist Rush Limbaugh, a GOP leader, while trying to maintain the notion that going to Rev. Wright’s church services were hopelessly corruptive. Why don’t you yahoos quit rushing to the defense of a deeply cynical and irresponsible hate radio DJ and try being a party of constructive value and dialogue?

  184. Fraud is generally defined in the law as an intentional misrepresentation of material existing fact made by one person to another with knowledge of its falsity and for the purpose of inducing the other person to act, (And Journolist was going to call Rove a Racist to change the outcome of Obama and Wright????) and upon which the other person relies with resulting injury or damage.

    As I said, and passing over completely that this is another manufactured pseudo-scandal with no there there, where’s the crime?

  185. Then again, ropelight, when you say shit like, “an unqualified incompetant Chicago thug to loot the treasury and spend our nation into bankruptcy, and all that against the will of the people and in violation of the Constitution he swore to uphold,” it does all my work for me.

    You’re simply not a serious person. Such language immediately renders you a thug yourself. One completely disconnected from reality, smothered within the right-o-sphere, damaging to the country. Obama’s had a hell of a job trying to fix the damage you goons did to the country during Bush’s term and your previous legislative control, and you’ve fought him every step of the way, making the right path harder than necessary, inhibiting the government with 40 Senators overseeing an even smaller minority of the populace. You tell yourselves it’s good, but people stuck in objective reality, people “down with science” know better.

  186. assovertincups: Eh, you’re just not as much of a heavyweight as you think you are. You ain’t earned a damn second of consideration, pal. Um, yeah, I saw ropelight say “Golden” so I brought up The Golden Rule…in your head, you puffed up fool.

  187. Wrong again Whistler, you’re a serial liar. First you falsely claimed I “teamed up” with blu, then when I refuted the lie, you pushed it again. So, I refuted it again.

    Then you came back with a new twist on the same old stupid lie and claimed you had “compared” us, which wasn’t true either. Now, you’re back with another weak excuse and more double talk and tap dancing.

    Lies aren’t figurative speech, they’re lies. And I’ve never told you how to write, but I have pointed out your lies and deceptions, over and over.

    BTW, when you put write, “When you say, “stop beating around the bush,” an idiot asks, “What bush?” that’s an example of sloppy writing and sloppy thinking, they go hand in hand. And they have no place in the disciplined writing required of scientific prose.

    Whistler, you haven’t been intellectually honest yet, although you have talked and talked about it, you haven’t walked the walk at all.

    Whistler, you actually write above, “Ropelight, I’ve treated you with real intellectual honesty.” Well, Whistler, if you think that’s a true statement, then you’re as crazy as a shit house rat.

  188. Whistler, I stand by my remarks about the Chicago thug. He is an unqualified incompetant and he’s proved it over and over.

    Obama has looted the Treasury and he’s well on his way to spending our nation into bankruptcy.

    Obama does govern against the will of the people, and he is ignoring the Constitution he swore to uphold.

    All true as true can be. Why deny the obvious, or are you so willingly blinded by your own political quackery you can’t see past the end of your nose?

  189. Whistler, I stand by my remarks about the Chicago thug.

    Dogwhistling again, racist?

    He is an unqualified incompetant and he’s proved it over and over.

    Obama has looted the Treasury and he’s well on his way to spending our nation into bankruptcy.

    Meanwhile, back in the real world

    Obama does govern against the will of the people, and he is ignoring the Constitution he swore to uphold.

    As regards popularity… And as regards the Constitution, you were all for Bush wiping his ass on it with torture and indefinite detention, weren’t you?

    Gee, what is it about Obama that so… colours… your perception of him?

  190. You’re simply not a serious person. Such language immediately renders you a thug yourself.

    Henry, “Chicago thug” has been noted elsewhere as a wingnut way of saying “black” without actually coming clean with the sentiment. You’ll notice that ropelight isn’t using “thug” in the usual sense – there is no story being put out, for example, that Obama ever beat anyone. Rather, he is attempting to associate a bad stereotype of blacks with Obama based on nothing but skin colour.

    He is, in fact, a racist. But that’s already been shown.

  191. Sheep shagger, you should apply for membership in the Journalista’s Ladies Auxiliary, Animal Appreciation Division. You’d fit right in, you’ve already internalized the code of conduct.

  192. “…that’s an example of sloppy writing and sloppy thinking…”

    Ropelight gets to say these things without explanation, you see. I just need to learn to trust him.

    “Whistler, you haven’t been intellectually honest yet, although you have talked and talked about it, you haven’t walked the walk at all.”

    Well, I have, of course. See my outline of intellectually honest principles. I abide by them. What do you abide by?

    What I keep trying to get you to do is walk the walk. You talk massive loads of shit, but never back it up. When all else fails, you read something wildly wrong and then blame me for it. Or you get all fake outraged over something you like to do yourself.

    Why do you think I’m intellectually dishonest? You tell me I must be crazy. Yet I’ve explained my method to you, and you have nothing to say about it. How can I possibly change my mind? You give me nothing. Nothing at all to consider. Except that I should be really careful to always write in short, simple, literal sentences at all times, no sarcasm or fooling around allowed, or else you’re going to blame me for your idiocy.

    When you come to understand what intellectual honesty is, ropelight, you will see these conversations actually bloom instead of degenerate into inane noise that I must persistently refute.

    So did you have anything else to add about Dr. Mann or GOP allegiance to the incendiary figure Rush Limbaugh?

    “…are you so willingly blinded by your own political quackery you can’t see past the end of your nose?” Clearly when you talk about Obama in that fact-free manner, this applies to yourself, not me. George W. Bush raided the Treasury and put everything on the credit card, leaving Obama with a massive deficit and two wars to wrap up. Very little spending has been unique to Obama, except for the ramped up Afghanistan effort, and the stimulus was half tax-cuts.

    You’re in cuckoo rightwingerland. You don’t understand your previous sins, so how can you be expected to avoid repeating them again?

  193. Eric: “Sorry, but Rush is NOT a leader of the GOP.” Oh, okay!

    Clap harder! Any Republican politician who crosses him better come back on hands and knees to kiss that ring. That aside, the GOP faithful have spent over twenty years listening to Rush Limbaugh preach hateful invective and constant misinformation. If Rush says it, it’s likely to become gospel. That’s much more troubling than some black preacher who spent most of his time in the church preaching actual Gospel. Yet that’s who you’re scared by, and you’re all still convinced that his worst comments reflect Obama’s true thoughts.

    Yet Obama continues to govern much like he promised, center-left pragmatically, often infuriatingly so, always making concessions to your side without a fight that don’t get rewarded in return. Obama opened his arms to you guys and got the language of war in return.

    It is shameful. And after Bush tore up the Constitution, you guys dare invoke it to oppose something as clearly constitutional as a healthcare mandate in the form of a tax. Of course, not content with Limbaugh alone, you guys swallow whole the rantings of escaped mental patient Glenn Beck, or know-nothing Sarah Palin.

    This began as a lecture on journalism, and as always, you guys have no idea what journalism is. Wright was not a story, he was a GOP talking point. Fox News was the only place it belonged. Asking Sarah Palin deferential questions that don’t expose her complete lack of knowledge on any subject or spotty record isn’t journalism. Fox News is the only place fawning over Republican politicians belongs.

    You guys gave us your vision of journalism, and the world laughed. Next!

  194. Jonathan Strong at Tucker Carlson’s “Daily Caller” has an article dated July 26th with the headline:

    “Journolist debates making its coordination with Obama explicit”

    Strong concludes,

    “…While other members of the group debated whether to coordinate a pro-Obama message – or, more precisely, whether to concede that such a message was being coordinated — Todd Gitlin of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism had already made up his mind. Gitlin, whose job is to train the next generation of America’s most elite journalists, wrote this impassioned plea on behalf of the Obama campaign:

    “On the question of liberals coordinating, what the hell’s wrong with some critical mass of liberal bloggers & journalists saying the following among themselves:

    “McCain lies about his maverick status. Routinely, cavalierly, cynically. Palin lies about her maverick status. Ditto, ditto, ditto. McCain has a wretched temperament. McCain is a warmonger. Palin belongs to a crackpot church and feels warmly about a crackpot party that trashes America.

    “Repeat after me:

    “McCain lies about his maverick status. Routinely, cavalierly, cynically. Palin lies about her maverick status. Ditto, ditto, ditto. McCain has a wretched temperament. McCain is a warmonger. Palin belongs to a crackpot church and feels warmly about a crackpot party that trashes America.

    “These people are cynical. These people are taking you for a ride. These people are fakes. These people love Bush.

    “Again. And again. Vary the details. There are plenty. Somebody on the ‘list posted a strong list of McCain lies earlier today. Hammer it. Philosophize, as Nietzsche said, with a hammer.

    “I don’t know about any of you, but I’m not waiting for any coordination. Get on with it!”

    In an interview, Gitlin conceded he was noting the “features of McCain and Palin most worthy of highlighting towards the end of defeating them.” He denied that he had ever advocated “bending facts” to get Obama elected, however. According to Gitlin, everything he said was factually true.

  195. Whistler, your most recent comment did not escape my attention, but I can’t respond just now. I have to wait till I stop laughing.

  196. whistling dixie said: You ain’t earned a damn second of consideration, pal.

    unless you type at breakneck speeds i’d say it was more than a second. :)

  197. Dana asks: “Why is it that conservatives generally embrace the description “conservative,” yet so many liberals — not all, of course — run from the description?”

    Run from what description? You mean the likes of ropelight, Hitchcock, and DNW. These people do not use descriptions, instead they demonize people. I am proud many of my ‘liberal’ positions, but hit back at the demonizers for what they represent, nastiness and hatred. It strikes me as odd in an interesting kind of a way, that all three of these characters are professing Christians. These types are those who began to turn me away from the Christianity these hypocrites practice, although there were/are also a number of more important personal issues involved as well.

  198. No, Perry, you don’t “demonize” people, noooo, not you. You’re above all that sort of low-brow gutter snipping.

    No one could possibly read your high minded false accusations, smears, and outright lies and come to the conclusion that you would ever lower yourself to the sheep shagger’s level of spewing venom, race hatred, and religious bigotry.

    Now, before you ask for a citation, prove your adherence to truth and justice and show us where I professed Christianity or claimed to be a Christian, as you so clearly and unequivocally stated above.

    Or did you just pull that little tidbit out of your sorry ass in order to prop-up a totally off the wall, insolent, and revealingly deranged assault? Perry, you’re losing your marbles, and you’re getting nasty and bitter in the twilight of your declining years.

    My advice is to stop lying and spewing hatred and bigotry. Clean up your act, and get right with the Lord. Time is not on your side, and you never know when the grim reaper will ring your doorbell.

  199. Whistler, what’s wrong with you boy? Do you enjoy being humiliated, having your dishonesty exposed, having your boasting and bragging turned around and shoved in your face, over and over?

    Are you sick in the head, suffering from some sort of masochistic disorder, an unfocused longing for a missing masculine presence in your life?

    Do you know who your father was, or were you abandoned by your father and raised by your mother? You seem to be missing a link to normal adult thought processes, it’s all emotion, posturing, and a series of silly excuses, one after another, like a teenage boy caught wearing his mother’s make-up and high heels.

    Whatever your problem is, I’m not your daddy, and you’re boring the hell out of me.

  200. Perry writes:

    “You mean the likes of ropelight, Hitchcock, and DNW. These people do not use descriptions, instead they demonize people. I am proud many of my ‘liberal’ positions, but hit back at the demonizers for what they represent, nastiness and hatred. It strikes me as odd in an interesting kind of a way, that all three of these characters are professing Christians. These types are those who began to turn me away from the Christianity these hypocrites practice, although there were/are also a number of more important personal issues involved as well.”

    Ropelight challenges Perry to provide a citation:

    “Now, before you ask for a citation, prove your adherence to truth and justice and show us where I professed Christianity or claimed to be a Christian, as you so clearly and unequivocally stated above.”

    I’ve previously asked Perry to do just the same. He hasn’t.

  201. “Do you enjoy being humiliated, having your dishonesty exposed, having your boasting and bragging turned around and shoved in your face, over and over?”

    No, I hate that. As soon as that starts happening, I’m outta here!

    “…it’s all emotion, posturing, and a series of silly excuses, one after another, like a teenage boy caught wearing his mother’s make-up and high heels.”

    Again, you have an issue with projection. I outlined some principles of intellectual honesty earlier…eh, nevermind.

    assovertincups: That’s how nice I am, giving the troll attention it doesn’t deserve. I entertain the thought that you might be lured out of your hole to debate like a mensch, but since you know you’ll get pantsed, it’s fairly difficult.

  202. DNW: And? I mean, I know that instantly inflames racist rightwingers, but I’m not one. “Unashamedly Black and Unashamedly Christian” says it all, doesn’t it? Given the hundreds of years most white people spent making blacks ashamed of their color, it’s a good cause. Yet they still embrace Christianity as a route to salvation.

    Are you about to say something like, “If you replaced ‘Black’ with ‘White’ everybody would know how racist that was!” Yeah, and everybody who isn’t a rightwing racist would know exactly how hateful towards blacks that statement would be. Are you going to go there?

    How did you feel when Rush Limbaugh said Obama caused the recession to get revenge on white people?

  203. DNW, you’re correct to point out that Reverend Wright isn’t just “some black preacher.” Isn’t he the man who converted Barack Obama from Islam to Christianity? I think I remember something along those lines. That alone would make Reverend Wright a very special black preacher.

    In fact, if it’s true, that Jeremiah Wright brought Obama to Christ, wouldn’t that have also have made Obama subject to an Islamic death sentence?

    I’m pretty sure that I read that somewhere too, that if someone who once accepts it later comes to reject Islam that person is automatically condemned to a death fatwa.

    Anyone know anything about that?

  204. ropelight:“Now, before you ask for a citation, prove your adherence to truth and justice and show us where I professed Christianity or claimed to be a Christian, as you so clearly and unequivocally stated above.”

    Ok, ropelight, then you are Jewish, correct? My criticism of your nastiness and hate stands, as I have cited many examples. Your behavior is out of character with the expectations for the behavior of a Jew or Christian.

    Now next time you decide on a personal attack on me, as I know you will because you do so time and again, how about some examples to back your allegations up. Otherwise, they are meaningless to most, with the exception of Hitchcock and DNW. The rest of the wingnuts on here are usually quite civil, but not you three. So come on with the examples.

  205. Isn’t he the man who converted Barack Obama from Islam to Christianity?

    No.

    That concludes today’s edition of Simple Answers to Stupid Questions.

  206. ropelight asked:

    Isn’t he the man who converted Barack Obama from Islam to Christianity?

    Hardly seems possible. Remember, despite spending twenty years in the Rev Wright’s church, Mr Obama never heard a word he said.

  207. Hold on there Perry, you don’t get off that easy. You wrote that I was a “professing Christian.” Now, after I called you on it, and insisted you prove your claim by citing the record, you foolishly limp back here with another silly unsupported assertion. Perry, you’re a slow learner, or maybe your mind is slipping.

    Perry, you’re either having a senior moment, or you’re a fool and four-flusher, possibly all 3. And, I don’t much give a rat’s ass what your expectations of me are, I hold a very low opinion of you. Actually, your insipid whining is about as inconsequential to me as your “liberal positions.”

    Now, you can criticise me for my shortcomings, they are many, and many of them are here in the record at CSPT. I’m not running away from them. But, you can’t just make-up phony crap and sling false accusations, or I’m apt to get a little nasty.

    So, for your criticisms to carry any validity at all, you’re going to have to back them up. Now, for example, and you asked for examples, you’ve yet to prove your prior assertion, or to admit it was false, or apologize to me.

    BTW, I’m usually civil to those who are civil to me, not always, but usually. However I am quick to mix it up with assclowns who think they can sling insults at me and not get it right back in spades.

    And, I usually make sure to give a little more than I get. But, that’s just me, I’m just kinda wrapped that way.

  208. The Reverend Wright was the man who converted Barack Obama to Christianity. Obama revealed that while he was working as a community organizer in Chicago he began cooperative programs with several Christian Churches in the area.

    Soon Obama reported he began to feel drawn to Christ and eventually he walked down the aisle of Reverend Wright’s Trinity United Church and was accepted into Wright’s congregation where he remained or 20 years.

    Obama’s early years had been largely without religious instruction. His mother’s Kenyan husband deserted the family when Barack Jr. was two. His mother then married another Muslim studying at the University of Hawaii, Lolo Soetoro from Indonesia.

    Obama moved with his mother and stepfather to Jakarta when he was six, where he attended a Muslim madrassa (religious school). That makes him a Muslim.

    Which could become a problem for Obama, should he deny he ever was a Muslim, it will compound the problem in the eyes of Muslims. He was born of a Muslim father, raised by a Muslim stepfather, and received his first education at a Muslim school.

    There is no mention of this in the chapter of his book, The Audacity of Hope, where he discusses his religion, My Spiritual Journey (reprinted in Time Magazine). Obama claims he is a Christian, that he and his wife Michelle are members of the Reverend Wright’s Trinity Union Church.

    If we take Obama at his word that he has become a Christian — that means he is an Islamic apostate. There is no dispute among either ancient or modern Muslim scholars that under Islamic law, a murtadd, “one who turns his back on Islam,” is an apostate, and must be put to death.

    Irtidad, apostasy, is committing treason against God, and traitors to Allah deserve only death.

  209. Whistler, presumably referring to Wright’s supposed ( as Whistler supposes ) Christian orthodoxy, characterized Wright as,

    “… some black preacher who spent most of his time in the church preaching actual Gospel. “

    DNW then offered a,

    “Screen capture …”

    Whistler replied:

    “DNW: And?”

    “And?” Well, first of all Wright took over the church as pastor in 1972.

    “Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. became Pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ (TUCC) on March 1, 1972. …

    The motto, “Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian”, was a phrase coined by his predecessor, the Reverend Dr. Reuben Sheares, and was officially adopted by the congregation shortly after Pastor Wright began his ministry

    Since 1972, under Dr. Wright’s leadership, the membership of Trinity United Church of Christ grew from 87 members; and currently exceeds 6,000!

    So after the 87 or so member congregation officially adopted that earlier motto shortly after Wright’s arrival, there then developed along with what appear to be some doctrinally unexceptional ethical principles, also some peculiar professions of belief that don’t seem quite, how shall one say it … “catholic”.

    [If one even bothers with the attempt to take the church seriously as a Christian congregation in the first place, of course.]

    Trinity United Church of Christ adopted the Black Value System written by the Manford Byrd Recognition Committee chaired by Vallmer Jordan in 1981.

    We believe in the following 12 precepts and covenantal statements. These Black Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Blacks are gathered. They must reflect on the following concepts:
    1. Commitment to God
    2. Commitment to the Black Community
    3. Commitment to the Black Family
    4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
    5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
    6. Adherence to the Black Work Ethic
    7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
    8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness”
    9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black Community
    10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions
    11. Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System
    12. Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System

    For example then, the following “precepts” seem somewhat less than typical of what we might expect from a supposedly universal religion that proclaims Jesus Christ – whose ultimate kingdom is ostensibly not of this world – as savior for all mankind: be they free or bond, male or female, Jew, Gentile, or, say, Ethiopian eunuch …

    - “Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System”

    - “Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System”

    - “Commitment to the Black Community”

    Henry Whistler,

    “Are you about to say something like, “If you replaced ‘Black’ with ‘White’ everybody would know how racist that was!”

    No … if I said anything along those general lines, I would have said regarding these last two “precepts” that, ” If you replaced ‘Black’ with ‘Christian’, everybody would know how Christian they professed to be”.

  210. Christian was supposed to be the only word italicized along with the bold emphasis.

    No more use of that italics button I think …

  211. Obama moved with his mother and stepfather to Jakarta when he was six, where he attended a Muslim madrassa (religious school). That makes him a Muslim.

    Uh-huh:

    JAKARTA, Indonesia (CNN) — Allegations that Sen. Barack Obama was educated in a radical Muslim school known as a “madrassa” are not accurate, according to CNN reporting.

    Insight Magazine, which is owned by the same company as The Washington Times, reported on its Web site last week that associates of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-New York, had unearthed information the Illinois Democrat and likely presidential candidate attended a Muslim religious school known for teaching the most fundamentalist form of Islam.

    Obama lived in Indonesia as a child, from 1967 to 1971, with his mother and stepfather and has acknowledged attending a Muslim school, but an aide said it was not a madrassa. (Watch video of Obama’s school Video)

    Insight attributed the information in its article to an unnamed source, who said it was discovered by “researchers connected to Senator Clinton.” A spokesman for Clinton, who is also weighing a White House bid, denied that the campaign was the source of the Obama claim.

    He called the story “an obvious right-wing hit job.”
    [...]
    But reporting by CNN in Jakarta, Indonesia and Washington, D.C., shows the allegations that Obama attended a madrassa to be false. CNN dispatched Senior International Correspondent John Vause to Jakarta to investigate.

    He visited the Basuki school, which Obama attended from 1969 to 1971.

    “This is a public school. We don’t focus on religion,” Hardi Priyono, deputy headmaster of the Basuki school, told Vause. “In our daily lives, we try to respect religion, but we don’t give preferential treatment.”

    Why does it not surprise me that you’re recycling old disproven lies to try and delegitimise a Black President, ropelight?

  212. Nothing surprises you sheep shagger, you already know all about respect for religion in Jakarta.

    Indonesian countries are famous for their tolerance for infidel religions, why it’s almost as enlightened as the Taliban’s well known instance on religious freedom for Jews in Afghanistan, or the wonderful way Hamas and Hezbollah bend over backwards to make sure non-believers can live and worship in peace and tranquility in the Holy Land.

    And, don’t pay any attention to news reports of the mass butchering of Christians in North Africa. Those wonderful fellow sheep shagging Muslims would never do anything like chop off the heads of infidels.

    And, since we’re on a JournoList thread, don’t spend a single second actually thinking about the utility of questioning a CNN report as possibly tainted by a conspiracy to protect Obama. It couldn’t happen in a million years.

  213. Let’s recap:

    Racist: “Here’s a lie about Obama”
    PiaTor: “Here’s where this lie is discredited”
    Racist: “Splutter! Personal insult! Anti-Muslim bigotry! Conspiracy theory!”

  214. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_liberation_theology

    Black liberation theology

    Anthony Bradley of the Christian Post interprets that the language of “economic parity” and references to “mal-distribution” as nothing more than channeling the views of Karl Marx. He believes James Cone and Cornel West have worked to incorporate Marxist thought into the black church, forming an ethical framework predicated on a system of oppressor class versus a victim much like Marxism.[16]

    Stanley Kurtz of the National Review claims that “A scarcely concealed, Marxist-inspired indictment of American capitalism pervades contemporary ‘black-liberation theology’…The black intellectual’s goal, says Cone, is to “aid in the destruction of America as he knows it.” According to him such destruction requires both black anger and white guilt. He claimed the black-power theologian’s goal is to tell the story of American oppression so powerfully and precisely that white men will “tremble, curse, and go mad, because they will be drenched with the filth of their evil.”

    Trinity United Church of Christ, Chicago is the church most frequently cited by press accounts, and by Cone as the best example of a church formally founded on the vision of Black liberation of theology. This theology has recently become a matter of national debate as intense condemnation by the U.S. mainstream media of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the most visible exponent of the theology, forced Senator Barack Obama to distance himself from his former pastor

  215. Sheep shagger, you better lay off those funny cigarettes, you’re gettin’ a little too far out.

  216. Monkey see, monkey do:

    “In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”

  217. Anthony Bradley of the Christian Post interprets that the language of “economic parity” and references to “mal-distribution” as nothing more than channeling the views of Karl Marx. He believes James Cone and Cornel West have worked to incorporate Marxist thought into the black church, forming an ethical framework predicated on a system of oppressor class versus a victim much like Marxism.[16]

    Nice rhetoric.

    Here’s the reality about America:

    • 83 percent of all U.S. stocks are in the hands of 1 percent of the people.
    • 61 percent of Americans “always or usually” live paycheck to paycheck, which was up from 49 percent in 2008 and 43 percent in 2007.
    • 66 percent of the income growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top 1% of all Americans.
    • 36 percent of Americans say that they don’t contribute anything to retirement savings.
    • A staggering 43 percent of Americans have less than $10,000 saved up for retirement.
    • 24 percent of American workers say that they have postponed their planned retirement age in the past year.
    • Over 1.4 million Americans filed for personal bankruptcy in 2009, which represented a 32 percent increase over 2008.
    • Only the top 5 percent of U.S. households have earned enough additional income to match the rise in housing costs since 1975.
    • For the first time in U.S. history, banks own a greater share of residential housing net worth in the United States than all individual Americans put together.
    • In 1950, the ratio of the average executive’s paycheck to the average worker’s paycheck was about 30 to 1. Since the year 2000, that ratio has exploded to between 300 to 500 to one.
    • As of 2007, the bottom 80 percent of American households held about 7% of the liquid financial assets.
    • The bottom 50 percent of income earners in the United States now collectively own less than 1 percent of the nation’s wealth.
    • Average Wall Street bonuses for 2009 were up 17 percent when compared with 2008.
    • In the United States, the average federal worker now earns 60% MORE than the average worker in the private sector.
    • The top 1 percent of U.S. households own nearly twice as much of America’s corporate wealth as they did just 15 years ago.
    • In America today, the average time needed to find a job has risen to a record 35.2 weeks.
    • More than 40 percent of Americans who actually are employed are now working in service jobs, which are often very low paying.
    • or the first time in U.S. history, more than 40 million Americans are on food stamps, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture projects that number will go up to 43 million Americans in 2011.
    • This is what American workers now must compete against: in China a garment worker makes approximately 86 cents an hour and in Cambodia a garment worker makes approximately 22 cents an hour.
    • Approximately 21 percent of all children in the United States are living below the poverty line in 2010 – the highest rate in 20 years.
    • Despite the financial crisis, the number of millionaires in the United States rose a whopping 16 percent to 7.8 million in 2009.
    • The top 10 percent of Americans now earn around 50 percent of our national income.

    But, of course, pointing out what is currently happening with American capitalism is “class warfare” and “Marxism”. If wingnuts were driving a bus, pointing out that it was going over a cliff would be derided as “pedestrianism”.

  218. Phoenician in a time of Romans:
    Anthony Bradley of the Christian Post interprets that the language of “economic parity” and references to “mal-distribution” as nothing more than channeling the views of Karl Marx. He believes James Cone and Cornel West have worked to incorporate Marxist thought into the black church, forming an ethical framework predicated on a system of oppressor class versus a victim much like Marxism.[16]

    Nice………………………………………….er of millionaires in the United States rose a whopping 16 percent to 7.8 million in 2009.
    • The top 10 percent of Americans now earn around 50 percent of our national income.

    But, of course, pointing out what is currently happening with American capitalism is “class warfare” and “Marxism”. If wingnuts were driving a bus, pointing out that it was going over a cliff would be derided as “pedestrianism”.

    So you think Marxism is the answer? BO is working his butt off to get us there. And sane people are trying to not let the Commies win.

  219. You’ve got to be kidding Pho. That entire article was full of hyperbole, dubious statistics, unsubstantiated claims and flat out opinions. It basically is one guy’s opinion. If that’s the kind of claptrap you commies actually believe then please tell the 10 million immigrants waiting in line to come here to go home and take the other 2 million illegals per year with them, there is no hope for them in Obama’s America. Perhaps they should try Cuba or North Korea, I here those lands are workers paradises.

    BTW, I could disprove, repudiate or show the logical fallacy of every one of those “statistics”. I just have neither the time or the inclination to do so. Not worth it. But I do have to give you Marxists credit, you never stop twisting the stats or cooking the books to advance your class envy. Well done comrad Pho, your propoganda is reaching new heights (or lows) and the waiting masses need you great wisdom to lead them…..into poverty and work camps.

  220. So you think Marxism is the answer?

    Nope. I realise you’re not very smart, Yorkshire, but that’s a stretch even for you.

    Marxism is useful for providing a perspective to look at capitalism, but seems to have little or no predictive power as a theory and has some serious flaws (mainly dealing with information flow). Its implementation as actual Leninist-Marxism leaves it wide open for abuse due to concentration of power and lack of accountability; totalitarianism is built into it.

    BTW, I could disprove, repudiate or show the logical fallacy of every one of those “statistics”.

    Suuuuuuuure you can.

    Idiot.

  221. DNW: I got it. So trying to uplift the black community and instill ethics and values through Christ is racist and not Christian.

    Sorry, but I simply don’t think your angle here is exactly representative of rock-solid Christian values.

    Dana: Heh…and, of course, had Obama heard a word, he’d have been instantly converted into a Scary Angry Black Man. Did he have a choice? The GOP, on the other hand, can religiously listen to Limbaugh for twenty years and merely find him to be “an entertainer.”

  222. Excuse me for interrupting, but since you mentioned “conspiracy” it needs to be mentioned, that the only conspiracy we are acknowledging in the Truth community is the fraudulent NIST report. You decide the rest. JUST the science is on target. You took physics in high school didn’t you? Well, you should be able to understand these very simple principles of gravity, compliments of Newton. simple….you tell me.

    http://www.archive.org/details/WorldTradeCenterDemolitionLecturesByJonesAndRyan

  223. Henry “One Trick Pony” Whistler, is back shupping his usual dishonest schlock. That nebbish just can’t help himself, all the schmuck’s got is dreck, so science-boy is out to hoist himself on his own petard again.

    Whistler twists DNW’s comment into yet another convenient straw man, surprise, surprise, then sullies himself ridiculing his own malicious clone. Ya seen this movie before?

    Well, he doesn’t see it, so he keeps doing it. Somethin’s wrong, that boy’s got rocks in his head, he’s just not right. Or, maybe he’s the damaged product of a broken home, or the by-product of the modern public education system.

    Truth is, Whistler ain’t very bright, but he’s got a mean streak and a big mouth, and an ego problem the size of Texas, and he just ain’t playin’ with a full deck, like the guy who has to piss on the electric fence so he can see for himself.

  224. Nice to see you back blu, you’re not interrupting. Thanks for the link, I can’t say when I’ll get a chance to look at it, I’ve had plumbing problems, water dripping from my ceiling, so not much sleep last night. Today I’m going to crawl around in the attic, maybe call a pro if I can’t fix it. Keep the faith.

  225. The following is from “City Journal”

    Empire of Silence: Journolist, Breitbart, and what the Left doesn’t say
    by Andrew Klavan, 26 July 2010

    “A personal incident has given me a particular perspective on recent news about the media. Last Tuesday, I received word that the French release of my thriller novel Empire of Lies had been canceled by publisher Seuil Policiers. The editor who originally bought the book had left the French company, and the new editor, my agent says, feels that “she can not publish . . . because of the political and religious aspects of the story.” This, even though it’s in breach of a contract for which I’ve been paid in full. Empire of Lies features a politically conservative Christian protagonist, Jason Harrow, who believes he has uncovered an Islamist terrorist plot being obscured by the leftist mainstream media. “Lies, lies, lies,” the emotionally troubled Harrow murmurs at his television set. “It’s all about what they don’t say.” It will come as no surprise that my friend Andrew Breitbart praised the book as the only thriller he’d ever read in which the mainstream media were the villains.

    The book’s French cancellation is, I realize, a rather small cultural event. Yet it gives specific color to the recent revelations on the Daily Caller website that left-wing journalists conspired to suppress scandals that might harm Barack Obama and to the brouhaha over Breitbart’s online release of a video that resulted in a government worker’s momentarily losing her job. In both stories, one thing leaps out at me: everywhere, the Left favors fewer voices and less information, and conservatives favor more. Everywhere, the Left seeks to disappear its opposition, whereas the Right is willing to meet them head-on…”

  226. blubonnet:
    Excuse me for interrupting, but since you mentioned “conspiracy” it needs to be mentioned, that the only conspiracy we are acknowledging in the Truth community is the fraudulent NIST report. You decide the rest. JUST the science is on target. You took physics in high school didn’t you? Well, you should be able to understand these very simple principles of gravity, compliments of Newton. simple….you tell me.

    http://www.archive.org/details/WorldTradeCenterDemolitionLecturesByJonesAndRyan

    Blu, it took you to comment 248 to get here. What happened???? Now the fun begins 8-)

  227. Rosslyn Smith at The American Thinker has an article dated July 27th responding to Maureen Dowd’s column: “Obama’s White House is Too White”

    Smith: According to Maureen Dowd, Barrack Obama’s latest problem may be because he isn’t black enough.

    (In her column, Dowd blames West Wing white guys for pushing too early and too hard to fire Shirely Sherrod before Glenn Beck could pounce.)

    Obama’s Hawaiian and Indonesian background doesn’t lend him the same “southern black slave experience” qualifications which identify legitimate African-American civil rights leaders. In his early days in Chicago, Obama was often viewed as a white man in black-face attempting to claim a civil rights background but without the street creds to validate it.

    Jessie Jackson’s early opposition to Obama is an example, the Old Guard civil rights leaders didn’t know who Barack Obama was and they weren’t about to move aside for an unknown, no matter how sweet he could sing all the old time Negro spirituals. That changed, of course, when Obama proved he had a chance to actually win the White House, they supported him, but they still don’t really know him, same with his white supporters.

    Smith concludes, “Over twenty months after they elected Obama president, many American voters feel they still don’t know the full measure of the man they voted for, while the motives of those supporters on Journolist who labored to keep the voters intentionally blind — even while urging them to make a leap of faith — have become increasingly suspect.”

  228. Whistler says:

    “DNW: I got it. So trying to uplift the black community and instill ethics and values through Christ is racist and not Christian.”

    No you don’t “got it”. Apart from the mere name of their church in the prelude, what in their precept system says anything about Jesus Christ, is to put it gently, less than obvious.

    Did you find a reference to the person of Jesus Christ in the list of “precepts”?

    “Sorry, but I simply don’t think your angle here is exactly representative of rock-solid Christian values.”

    You are going to have to satisfy your mental wanderlust on your own. I don’t intend to follow you down these rhetorical byways as you ruminate on whether my angle own is representative of rock-solid Christian values.

    Look through the list of “precepts” that identify their church and their ethos. Then bring me back a quote from the same precepts that require they pledge the same allegiance to Jesus Christ as to, “all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System.”

    Again,

    ” Trinity United Church of Christ adopted the Black Value System written by the Manford Byrd Recognition Committee chaired by Vallmer Jordan in 1981.

    We believe in the following 12 precepts and covenantal statements. These Black Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Blacks are gathered. They must reflect on the following concepts:
    1. Commitment to God
    2. Commitment to the Black Community
    3. Commitment to the Black Family
    4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
    5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
    6. Adherence to the Black Work Ethic
    7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
    8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness”
    9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black Community
    10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions
    11. Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System
    12. Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System “

  229. Don’t forget Wright’s church’s 2007 “Pastor Page” in a pamphlet that contained the following:

    I must tell you that Israel was the closest ally to the White Supremacists of South Africa. In fact, South Africa allowed Israel to test its nuclear weapons in the ocean off South Africa. The Israelis were given a blank check: they could test whenever they desired and did not even have to ask permission. Both worked on an ethnic bomb that kills Blacks and Arabs.

    http://colossus.mu.nu/archives/258643.php

  230. Ropelight says,

    “Henry “One Trick Pony” Whistler, is back shupping his usual dishonest schlock. That nebbish just can’t help himself, all the schmuck’s got is dreck, so science-boy is out to hoist himself on his own petard again.

    Whistler twists DNW’s comment into yet another convenient straw man, surprise, surprise, then sullies himself ridiculing his own malicious clone. Ya seen this movie before?”

    Yes, many times.

    This revision tactic of theirs is tiresome. On would think that on blog message boards where the exact text is just a scroll away, these ploys would lose their appeal.

    The fact that with the lefty kind it doesn’t, is indicative of their tendency yo rely in the main on a particular mode of argumentation; which is (they imagine) dialectical. In other words, in their delusional version of things, they take your stated position and accuse you of hypocrisy or inconsistency in some aspect of its actual of potential application, and thus win the argument.

    If you haven’t actually said what they need you to have said in order to level their accusation, they will fabricate a quote or impute a position to you.

    It’s the technique that Nangleator and others of his kind have consistently relied on with their ridiculously inept but highly favored sidewalk and automobile operator’s license “analogy” arguments; which supposedly imply an intellectual inconsistency to you if you, say, drink municipally supplied water from a tap [which you pay for according to use], but think that Federal control and direction of your access to medical treatment is an example of government going too far.

    It is what we see Perry transparently striving for, when he tries to place you in the disadvantageous position of arguing politics from Dana Pico’s traditional religious principles. A situation wherein you are committed by Christian metaphysics to granting the importunate and transgressing organisms of the left both souls and qualities of inviolable person-hood, that they themselves reject as governing principles when they argue politics and social shaping methods.

    It’s what impels Perry to constantly try and wheedle personal information out of me; and keeps him fishing for scraps of information he can then deploy rhetorically.

    Like you said, we’ve seen it all before.

    [released from moderation - pH]

  231. Hube notes:

    “I must tell you that Israel was the closest ally to the White Supremacists of South Africa. In fact, South Africa allowed Israel to test its nuclear weapons in the ocean off South Africa. The Israelis were given a blank check: they could test whenever they desired and did not even have to ask permission. Both worked on an ethnic bomb that kills Blacks and Arabs.”

    My question is: Is the Wright allegation true? Do you know, Hube? No assumptions will do, just the facts will do!

  232. “It is what we see Perry transparently striving for, when he tries to place you in the disadvantageous position of arguing politics from Dana Pico’s traditional religious principles. A situation wherein you are committed by Christian metaphysics to granting the importunate and transgressing organisms of the left both souls and qualities of inviolable person-hood, that they themselves reject as governing principles when they argue politics and social shaping methods.”

    This is outright garbage, as the well known elitist DNW now elevates himself into the position of his God in order to pass judgment on me. DNW, you are not entitled to salvation!

    “It’s what impels Perry to constantly try and wheedle personal information out of me; and keeps him fishing for scraps of information he can then deploy rhetorically.”

    No, DNW, what “impels” me is both a sense of collegiality and of understanding, which comes from some appropriate personal information shared from time to time. On this, I observe that you choose to be very guarded. Fine! But then one is left with assumptions about you, which I have expressed at times, and you have not denied. So be it!

  233. I find it outrageously funny that DNW would quote ropelight thusly: “Henry “One Trick Pony” Whistler, is back shupping his usual dishonest schlock. That nebbish just can’t help himself, all the schmuck’s got is dreck, so science-boy is out to hoist himself on his own petard again.

    Whistler twists DNW’s comment into yet another convenient straw man, surprise, surprise, then sullies himself ridiculing his own malicious clone. Ya seen this movie before?”

    And then DNW makes this statement, which he applies to lefties, Nangleator in particular: “If you haven’t actually said what they need you to have said in order to level their accusation, they will fabricate a quote or impute a position to you.”

    You and ropelight and Hitchcock do this ALL THE TIME, and you did it right here to Nangleator. Only a fool would deny it! :)

  234. As DNW continues to play the ‘guilt by association game’, he notes the following: “” Trinity United Church of Christ adopted the Black Value System written by the Manford Byrd Recognition Committee chaired by Vallmer Jordan in 1981.

    We believe in the following 12 precepts and covenantal statements. These Black Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Blacks are gathered. They must reflect on the following concepts:
    1. Commitment to God
    2. Commitment to the Black Community
    3. Commitment to the Black Family
    4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
    5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
    6. Adherence to the Black Work Ethic
    7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
    8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness”
    9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black Community
    10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions
    11. Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System
    12. Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System “”

    Now I assert that if one changes the every ‘Black’ to ‘White’, you would have something that DNW would likely sign up to, isn’t that right, DNW?

    Now be honest!

  235. My question is: Is the Wright allegation true? Do you know, Hube? No assumptions will do, just the facts will do!

    Perry: It was in the “Pastor’s Page” section of the pamphlet I noted. Unfortunately (I just checked), the .pdf file of said pamphlet in my link is no longer serviceable. But you’ll notice it was covered by numerous sources.

  236. Perry:
    Now I assert that if one changes the every ‘Black’ to ‘White’, you would have something that DNW would likely sign up to, isn’t that right, DNW?

    Now be honest!

    It would make the front page of of the NYT and WaPo as Racist and Homophobic.

  237. Perry, you’re the fool who manufactured false accusations against me. You “concluded” I hired a detective agency to spy on you. And you claimed I received your personal information from someone at CSPT who had access.

    You have never apologized, although you did grudgingly say you’d take my word for it after I demolished your false claim. But, that’s not an apology, that’s actually adding insult to injury.

    Although I’ve pointed it our several times, you’ve yet to make any sort of a sincere apology to me, or to the unnamed individual here you also wrongly accused.

    As for your most recent false accusation above, Whistler as been chastised dozens of times over the last 3 or 4 weeks for exactly the same dishonest misrepresentations that DNW accurately ascribes to Naggy and to you.

    If the unrepentant practitioners of underhanded rhetorical dirty tricks don’t like being exposed for frauds, they might consider more honest and forthright methods of debate. Just sayin’

  238. During WWII, the allies placed large numbers of inflatable tanks and trucks across England. When German bombers flew overhead, they couldn’t tell the difference between the balloons and the real deal. This is the same with Wright’s church. To those who don’t know any better, it has the appearance of a Christian church, but there is no substance there.

    John 14:6 “Jesus answered, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.’”

    9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black Community
    10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions
    11. Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System
    12. Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System

    Wright rejecting John 14:6 and replacing it with something else, namely the Marxist and racist Black Liberation Theology. Nothing Christian about it.

    Perry can’t get past the fact the KKK was created as a terrorist arm of the Democrat Party, the New Black Panthers are extremely racist and suported by the Democrat leadership, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are racist shake-down artists, Wright is a racist Marxist masquerading as a Christian leader, so Perry tries to project the racism of the left onto the right. And fails miserably.

  239. John, how Christian is it to use the Black race as guinea pigs for drug testing when fatalities are one of the “side effects” ? These are the things that Wright refers to in anger. Is he supposed to be polite only about such things? When does one have a right to show anger? There are many such incidents in history.

  240. Of course, as the Dems lefts the KKK operations and such White supremacy philosophies behind, the Rs took over. They are much more insidious in their operation.

  241. Hitchcock: “Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System.”

    That’s your dog whistle, eh? So I take it you’re rejecting Jesus when you pledge allegiance to the flag?

    I don’t see any evidence from any of you that this list somehow replaces Jesus in the church. It’s a value system that the church embraces, and for the most part it’s a very positive one and bound to be a very good influence in the black community.

    I mean, I didn’t see anything in there as hateful as any particular five minute excerpt from Limbaugh. That’s it though, isn’t it? You guys project onto Wright what you do.

    The truth is that one could sit in Wright’s pews for years and encounter little more than community uplifting efforts and Gospel preaching. Probably lots of singing, I guess. Yes, it seems he let fly with the occasional goofball sentiment, more often a politically incorrect one.

    But certainly not so much that every member of his congregation should be suspect.

    I mean, with the excuses you guys cook up regularly for GOP hero and leader Rush Limbaugh, you’d think you could afford the black community the slightest bit of wiggle room for their own occasional feelings of orneriness. But, no, it’s only white Christian heterosexual males who are oppressed in this country.

    Sorry, Hitchcock, but you’re blind as a bat and have everything backwards. Blacks are very open to and accommodating to whites. They have to be. But they often have to band together and explicitly try to improve the lot of blacks, because although you can brush off openly racist statements from white people you like like Limbaugh, they know damn well what they’re up against.

    And, of course, part of what they’re up against is internal. They’ve got their own bad memes and cultural elements to tackle, and that’s a lot of what Wright’s church was angling after.

    Naturally, there’s no understanding or respect from you cats. And there’s little surprise about that. You guys can talk all you want about the old Democrats, but of course you ignore that the Dixiecrats either fled or repented. Folks like Strom Thurmond and those who sympathized with his crusade for “states’ rights” migrated to the GOP.

  242. Perry quoted part of what I said and then retorted:

    “And then DNW makes this statement, which he applies to lefties, Nangleator in particular: “If you haven’t actually said what they need you to have said in order to level their accusation, they will fabricate a quote or impute a position to you.”

    What I actually said regarding the persistence of the lefties in employing of their peculiar “dialectic” tactic in the face of readily available inhibiting information:

    “The fact that with the lefty kind it doesn’t [inhibit], is indicative of their tendency [t]o rely in the main on a particular mode of argumentation; which is (they imagine) dialectical. In other words, in their delusional version of things, they take your stated position and accuse you of hypocrisy or inconsistency in some aspect of its actual o[r] potential application, and thus win the argument.

    If you haven’t actually said what they need you to have said in order to level their accusation, they will fabricate a quote or impute a position to you.

    It’s the technique that Nangleator and others of his kind have consistently relied on with their ridiculously inept but highly favored sidewalk and automobile operator’s license “analogy” arguments; which supposedly imply an intellectual inconsistency to you if you, say, drink municipally supplied water from a tap [which you pay for according to use], but think that Federal control and direction of your access to medical treatment is an example of government going too far. “

    You will note Perry, that the “fabricate a quote” observation is in a separate paragraph containing a conditional statement that applies to the first paragraph.

    If it helps you to understand, read the second as a parenthetical remark.

    The next passage mentioning Nangleator subsumes under the premise paragraph, is not included as part of the previous paragraph, and contains its own set of exact explanations of just what it is that Nangleator does when he employs the general technique of charging one with inconsistency.

    Thus:

    “It’s the technique that Nangleator and others of his kind have consistently relied on with their ridiculously inept but highly favored sidewalk and automobile operator’s license “analogy” arguments; which supposedly imply an intellectual inconsistency to you if you, say, drink municipally supplied water from a tap …”

    You attempted to haul on the same general tack when you tried your medicare indictment strategy.

    Now that you have what I wrote in triplicate, perhaps you will be able to understand it as it was written.

  243. Hube: “Perry might wanna take a gander at this summation of Wright’s antics.”

    I would have to respond to this point by point, Hube, because I find myself in agreement with some and in disagreement with some.

    But I am puzzled by this well written piece: There is no author, and the alleged web site does not post this piece as far as I can find. In fact, this web site advertises their data back-up business, and that is about it. Therefore, there is some question about credibility here.

  244. Hitchcock: “To those who don’t know any better, it [Wright's church] has the appearance of a Christian church, but there is no substance there.”

    My point is that even Christians don’t understand the teachings of Christ, picking out what they like while ignoring the rest. You are no different, nor is Rev Wright.

    “Perry can’t get past the fact the KKK was created as a terrorist arm of the Democrat Party, the New Black Panthers are extremely racist and suported by the Democrat leadership, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are racist shake-down artists, Wright is a racist Marxist masquerading as a Christian leader, so Perry tries to project the racism of the left onto the right. And fails miserably.”

    You have purposely misrepresented my past comments about the KKK in the Dem Party. The KKK Dems were referred to as Dixiecrats, and became Repubs, while retaining the same culture. Do you deny that?

    The rest of your statement is typical racist/ideological crapola, therefore ‘fails miserably’! Go read Hube’s cite for your edification on Wright, then present citations demonstrating your other allegations, which I observe are pretty much made up stuff, as usual!!!

  245. Perry writes:

    “As DNW continues to play the ‘guilt by association game’, he notes the following: “” Trinity United Church of Christ adopted the Black Value System written by the Manford Byrd Recognition Committee chaired by Vallmer Jordan in 1981.

    We believe in the following 12 precepts and covenantal statements. These Black Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Blacks are gathered. They must reflect on the following concepts:
    1. Commitment to God
    2. Commitment to the Black Community
    3. Commitment to the Black Family
    4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
    5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
    6. Adherence to the Black Work Ethic
    7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
    8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness”
    9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black Community
    10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions
    11. Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System
    12. Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System “”

    Now I assert that if one changes the every ‘Black’ to ‘White’, you would have something that DNW would likely sign up to, isn’t that right, DNW?

    Now be honest!”

    Of course I’ll be honest. The answer to your question is “No”.

    I read Hrafnkell Priest of Frey a long time ago; and had I the potential for any such illusions they would have been nipped in the bud so to speak.

    Now you need to be frank: do you believe that there is an such thing a morality properly peculiar to blacks as blacks?

    By the way, who is supposed to be not-guilty through association with these “covenantal” precepts? Wright? Because Wright is the one whose case Whistler has been pleading.

  246. ropelight, give it a rest for god’s sake! I long ago acknowledged I was probably wrong by stating that I take you at your word. That said, your demonstrated record of juvenile behavior on here, like this, indicates to me that any sort of bizarre behavior by you in the future would not be a surprise to me. You need to exert a little more introspection, in my view!

  247. DNW: “Of course I’ll be honest. The answer to your question is “No”.”

    Well that’s interesting! Which one’s would you disavow?

  248. “No, DNW, what “impels” me is both a sense of collegiality and of understanding, which comes from some appropriate personal information shared from time to time. “

    1. We are not colleagues, and never have been. And you earlier admitted the real reason you sought that information was for rhetorical purposes.

    So, does your reply deserve a “nice try” on your part, or was it just another of your belly flops?

    2. What’s to understand about your politics or person, beyond the fact that you wish to impose unnecessary, ground rule changing, choice killing political and social burdens and obligations, of cost underwriting and support upon me and mine, that I do not wish to force on you? These would be social and political burdens which you never had to bear yourself during your own productive life.

    These are by the way, also burdens you have consistently shown you cannot justify morally or constitutionally or in much of any other way other than to advert to some subjective feeling you have that someone owes you, or owes those to whom you wish to transfer the product of our life energies.

  249. Perry quotes and replies:

    “DNW: “Of course I’ll be honest. The answer to your question is “No”.”

    Well that’s interesting! Which one’s would you disavow?”

    Did you understand the following question I posed to you, Perry?:

    “… do you believe that there is an such thing a morality properly peculiar to blacks as blacks?”

    Because if you did understand the question, you already have your answer.

  250. As for Wright being whose case I’m pleading, I’m merely making the point that a person could certainly spend a lot of time in his church without being indoctrinated to believe terrible things. Much more likely it would be, in fact, that you’d come out with a lot of positivity and hope.

    That said, Wright’s worst statements are often indefensible and America did require some assurance that there was plenty of daylight between Obama’s views and Wright’s. They received it.

    Only in rightwing-o-sphere is this still considered a relevant issue. It was a non-story, but it makes Obama a Scary Angry Black Man, thus a story to you guys. And so you consider it an obvious story to have been pursued and plastered across the news 24/7, much as Fox did. You attempt to make this a critique of journalism, but the merits of the case make it clear that journalism is the last thing on your minds, it’s the dissemination of propaganda.

  251. The Phoenician wrote:

    Marxism is useful for providing a perspective to look at capitalism, but seems to have little or no predictive power as a theory and has some serious flaws (mainly dealing with information flow). Its implementation as actual Leninist-Marxism leaves it wide open for abuse due to concentration of power and lack of accountability; totalitarianism is built into it.

    If you agree that Marxism has both serious flaws and little or no predictive power, why would you find it useful in providing a perspective to look at capitalism? Capitalism works, whether some people like all of the outcomes of capitalism or not — mainly that capitalism is a system which leads to both winners and losers, and the losers don’t like it — but Marxism does not and cannot. Trying to measure the success or utility or whatever of a working system through the perspective of something which does not work doesn’t seem to make much sense.

  252. Henry Whistler now writes:

    “As for Wright being whose case I’m pleading, I’m merely making the point that a person could certainly spend a lot of time in his church without being indoctrinated to believe terrible things.”

    Odd you should adjust to saying it that way now. How have you come by that knowledge? Since these precepts or other statements which you now term terrible things, and which you assume one would likely miss in the effusion of other good things, are as precepts the very doctrines which the members proudly proclaim as an integral part of their group identity.

    We are an African people and remain true to our native land “.

    Now you may think that these precepts are positive, or empowering, or reinforcing, and they may in some ways be all of these things in some secular sense, but no matter how you attempt to spin it, apostolic Christian doctrines they are not.

    Now, as for your annoyance that the discovery of JournoList’s informal and somewhat comic collaborationist cabal has dredged Wright up to the surface once more and reminded people of how little daylight, to use your term, there actually was between the church membership and it’s officially promulgated and stated creed, well, that’s your problem.

  253. There is no author, and the alleged web site does not post this piece as far as I can find. In fact, this web site advertises their data back-up business, and that is about it. Therefore, there is some question about credibility here.</i

    >

    Maybe it helps to, y’know, navigate around. Yeesh. Nevertheless, it is via David Horowitz’s FrontPage Magazine site: http://frontpagemag.com/

  254. I’m merely making the point that a person could certainly spend a lot of time in his church without being indoctrinated to believe terrible things. Much more likely it would be, in fact, that you’d come out with a lot of positivity and hope.

    In other news today, Osama bin Laden actually loves America.

  255. Henry, you are a hypocrite, because you denounce Bush scientists, and support them when all evidence of a particular issue (see link below) shows that the NIST “science” team (Bush boys) are lying. What are you hiding from? Oh yeah, sicentists that go contrary to what Bush’s boys say. Here’s your chance, Henry to stand for something without flopping around like flounder on a hook, on a boat. An opportunity to show you have integrity is presented to you here…

    http://www.archive.org/details/WorldTradeCenterDemolitionLecturesByJonesAndRyan

  256. Also, as the hat you all wear called Christianity, is frayed and falling off your head.

    Those supporting the war, that also say they are supporting our troops, and humanity, I would like to tell you about a friend of mine who was an Iraqi Veteran. He is dying. He is about 5’10″ and is 140 lbs. now. He went through the battle of Fallujah. OUR country thought using exotic weaponry was just fine. Depleted uranium was more dense in and around there. The multitude of babies being brought into the clinics that are deformed and dying are more numerous than the doctors can care for, and there is not much hope for most of them. Of course, clinics were bombed, many of them, the horrors we brought upon those we were “bringing democracy” to, is a shame our country, those of you supporting this abomination of character, is yours that support it.

    Another thing, I was driving today, and again, I saw a Veteran, disabled, with a sign asking for money for help. Why doesn’t he have all the care he needs, after offering his life in this fiasco, in which he trusted the government, that we were doing good. The lies of the ones profiting off of the horror, crimes against humanity, are the ones you all stand behind, over and over. You talk like they are your heroes. Bush’s family, and Cheney were all making money off of the war of lies. When are you all going to show the heart that Christianity is supposed to represent?

  257. Overlooking all of your arrogant/elitist crap, DNW, you failed to answer my question: Which ones would you disavow?

    Answering my question with a question is not answering the question.

    Not only are you not collegial, you are not civil, focusing often on all the unkind ad hominem comments which you can dream up and twist, as in your last two posts.

    “2. What’s to understand about your politics or person, beyond the fact that you wish to impose unnecessary, ground rule changing, choice killing political and social burdens and obligations, of cost underwriting and support upon me and mine, that I do not wish to force on you? These would be social and political burdens which you never had to bear yourself during your own productive life.”

    Not at all true. I would only expect you to make your fair contribution to the society that supports YOU! You can call it giving back. And your last sentence is based on assumptions that have no factual basis, in fact, you are dead wrong.

    Regarding the Hrafnkell Priest of Frey saga and its influence on you, your remark needs to be translated: “I read Hrafnkell Priest of Frey a long time ago; and had I the potential for any such illusions they would have been nipped in the bud so to speak.”

    Nipped in the bud by whom, DNW? You are making no sense!

  258. Blubonnet, unfortunately your video cannot be played since it has been removed due to ‘terms of use violations’.

  259. So, might that be a violation of free speech? Yep, some democracy we got. Why is that? Our democracy is soooo nice and our government is soooo nice. What, they just told that teensy lie about the war. They are really sorry, they say about all the bad things that happened, they “mean well”. They really love you and the troops. Too bad though about a friend of mine that will be dying now, the Veteran that was in Iraq, that got exposed to depleted uranium and what ever other such thing, like the white phosphorus in the air, that was/is virtual napalm. Women and children also got blanketed with those nice things. But, your government loves the troops and yooooou. (YOU F-ing IDIOTS!) By the way, my friend is dying and military doctors “don’t know why”. Yeah, right!

    Perry, the video used to be available. It shows the effects of the depleted uranium, that our government only admitted to when pushed, and exposed by OTHER sources, other than their MSM operations. So, the video is not offering good press for that “patriotic, wonderful, patriotic, brave” war, and all those words lose their impact when videos like that are available. Deformed babies, bad for press.

    But, considering that these people are brown and not white, apparently it does not matter, because what (?) only Americans that are white are of concern only. What’s many hundreds of thousands of non-whites…? They are just in the way of natural resources that those nice BP want to profit off of.

    Well, you all just keep on ranting about how that Wright fellow, should be nice like you all whiter people. He should not be mad about non-whites being killed. You Christian folks here don’t. See, he just has to listen to you. Then, he can wear that Christian hat proud like. Nice white hat, you might let him wear.

  260. During WWII, the allies placed large numbers of inflatable tanks and trucks across England. When German bombers flew overhead, they couldn’t tell the difference between the balloons and the real deal. This is the same with Wright’s church. To those who don’t know any better, it has the appearance of a Christian church, but there is no substance there.

    John 14:6 “Jesus answered, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.’”

    Luke 16:

    19There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:

    20And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,

    21And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.

    22And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

    23And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

    24And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

    25But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.

  261. DNW: I think the kicker here is that you very quickly refuse to consider whether or not your attack on a black church which calls itself “Unapologetically Christian” as specifically non-Christian because it has additional values targeted at uplifting the black community is itself a Christian form of behavior.

    One standard for them, another for you. Interesting, not surprising.

    I mean, somebody from that church ought to tell you to go to Hell, but they’re probably better than that.

    Why is an allegiance to Africa contradictory with Christianity? Are there not Christian Africans?

    Your contention is so deeply absurd that it refutes itself. The code is a set of additional values, values derived from Christianity and for the betterment of the black community.

    Perhaps you should try looking at this page on the Bible classes taught at Wright’s church.

    I mean, you should be ashamed of yourself, but you’re way too interested in attacking black churches, DNW. Scary Black People with their Black Ethics! This is a smear, plain and obvious. And you guys keep wondering why, oh, why, anybody would ever think you’re racist. It’s not enough for you to nail Wright for some outrageous comments, but you’ve got to develop a damn conspiracy theory about how he isn’t really Christian and the church members are all indoctrinated in hate.

    It’s sad that you feel no revulsion at your behavior.

  262. Henry Whistler lacking a foundation, builds on sand,

    “DNW: I think the kicker here is that you very quickly refuse to consider whether or not your attack on a black church which calls itself “Unapologetically Christian” as specifically non-Christian because it has additional values targeted at uplifting the black community is itself a Christian form of behavior.”

    Uplift as in: “Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System”?

    You get a uniform with that Henry?

    The fact that you’ve claimed your standard operating procedure of rewrite provides you with a “kicker”, reveals more about the inadequacy of your reasoning powers to address issues on point than it does anything else.

    I don’t know what to say about your claim of clairvoyant powers.

    Instead let’s just imagine for example that you might be an American, and that you might refer to yourself as unapologetically a constitutionalist. Think how little that would mean to objective viewers in terms of traditional doctrines and understandings if it were shown that you were also an admitted disciple of, say, and to bring up a name I mentioned recently, Daniel Lazare.

    Ah, but it’s all in the name of progressive uplift and Americanism …

    You should learn from your previous mistakes Henry, but seemingly you just don’t.

  263. Perry rails:


    Overlooking all of your arrogant/elitist crap, DNW, you failed to answer my question: Which ones would you disavow?

    Answering my question with a question is not answering the question.”

    Yes it was Perry. Which is probably why you cut it out. You didn’t want to face it.

    Here it is so you can try again:

    Did you understand the following question I posed to you, Perry?:

    “… do you believe that there is an such thing a morality properly peculiar to blacks as blacks?”

    Because if you did understand the question, you already have your answer.

    See? Give it another shot. Perry, “… do you believe that there is an such thing a morality properly peculiar to blacks as blacks?”

    Not only are you not collegial, you are not civil, focusing often on all the unkind ad hominem comments which you can dream up and twist, as in your last two posts.

    Oh Geez. Now think if you were me and had to listen to all your fucking whining about unkindness. Can you imagine what the concept of having your rotting carcass chained around my neck by law would be like?

    Talk about someone’s lack of empathy … LOL

    “2. What’s to understand about your politics or person, beyond the fact that you wish to impose unnecessary, ground rule changing, choice killing political and social burdens and obligations, of cost underwriting and support upon me and mine, that I do not wish to force on you? These would be social and political burdens which you never had to bear yourself during your own productive life.”

    Not at all true. I would only expect you to make your fair contribution to the society that supports YOU! “

    I figured that you would eventually come out with that social repayment insanity and start hypostatizing “society” as a some kind of subsistent entity with an existence and claims of its own.

    In any event, pretending you are saying something more prosaic, the kids of today must bear your future burdens in a way you didn’t have to for those who preceded you, because the kids of today need to repay you for what you have done for yourself in making their existence possible … or something?

    No? Well keep working on it.

    “You can call it giving back.”

    So what did you give me that is worth my freedom of self-direction, and when exactly did I receive it? And how do I know that I owe “society” for it? And just who is society again?

    And if I can convince this “society” to let you die in a ditch that will then be equally just, and ok too?

    And your last sentence is based on assumptions that have no factual basis, in fact, you are dead wrong.

    Regarding the Hrafnkell Priest of Frey saga and its influence on you, your remark needs to be translated: “I read Hrafnkell Priest of Frey a long time ago; and had I the potential for any such illusions they would have been nipped in the bud so to speak.”

    Nipped in the bud by whom, DNW? You are making no sense!”

    Don’t blame me for your defects and limitations. You are already trying to saddle me with the costs of them.

    Somebody explain to Perry the implications of this Icelandic saga for doctrines of ethnic uplift.

  264. Somebody explain to Perry the implications of this Icelandic saga for doctrines of ethnic uplift.

    Sure!

    Perry, machine tools are expensive so we’re going to need thirty percent of your paycheck to buy them. Got it? Now get back to work and stop complaining you thankless commie.

  265. DNW: Wow. You are an amazing fool. I asked you where the contradiction was, and you just repeated one of the quotes again. I guess it’s just self-evident, eh?

    I don’t see how that quoted principle contradicts the church being Christian. Obviously the Lazare example makes sense, but you don’t bother to make the connection. You just assume it.

    And trying to milk the rewrite thing some more…you’re getting desperate, eh?

  266. ropelight: “Whistler twists DNW’s comment into yet another convenient straw man…”

    Another? When was the last one? You keep saying that, but you never explain.

    I’m allowed to say what I think the implications of DNW’s commentary are. If he chooses to disagree, by all means. Yet when asked to explain how the church wasn’t Christian, all DNW could do was keep repeating excerpts from the Black Ethics code, as if it was somehow proof in itself. I’m saying the church follows Christ and has a Black Ethics Code, and they’re joined together just as any faith-based values system would extrapolate ethical principles from religious convictions.

    It seems that you two just believe you don’t have to explain yourselves. Either the Black Ethics code pisses off somebody else and you have a fellow believer, or it doesn’t and you have an enemy. You’re just hunting for like minds, not really debating to change minds.

  267. henry “now i pretend i am a theological expert ” whistler

    your ignorance is showing. the foundations of truth you deny/pervert are ironically indicting you.

    you are a pretty good faker henry but there are some things you just cant fake.

  268. Henry, note that we now have an edit function available with this updated CSPT version, so you could have done your own edit. I took care of it for you. [pH]

  269. Right on, Henry. You have them pegged. The two of them have a consensual relationship in deception!

  270. DNW: “Oh Geez. Now think if you were me and had to listen to all your fucking whining about unkindness. Can you imagine what the concept of having your rotting carcass chained around my neck by law would be like?”

    Notice to all: No ad hominems needed to characterize DNW’s behavior on here, because he represents his own ad hominem! Cheers Mr Right!

  271. Ask Senator Jim DeMint who should be destroyed, Hube! He is only one of a large number of Repubs with this destructive mindset: party – yes, country – NO!

  272. Goofy unjustly commands Perry:

    “Now get back to work and stop complaining you thankless commie.”

    Perry, I think that Goofy’s commands to you are unjust, and reflective of his generally meddlesome, intrusive, and Un-American attitude. And I would like to reassure you that for my part I do not care in the least if you work, or what it is that you do with your time and your life; so long as you do not transgress certain boundaries.

    Work as much or as little as you like Perry. That way you can decide on both your work load and your ability to consume at one stroke.

    And what could be more just and charitable than that?

  273. Here’s an example of Whistler’s monumental ignorance/dishonesty/duplicity, he claims that the exposure of Reverend Wright’s special brand of Black Liberation Theology, masquerading as “Christianity” was a right-wing ploy.

    Whistler wrote that, “Wright was not a story, he was a GOP talking point.”

    Now, you be the judge, is science-boy telling the truth?

    Or is it pure propaganda of exactly the sort the Journolistas conspired to push in an effort to protect Barack Obama from the consequences of his 20 year long association with the odious Reverend Wright?

    If you recall, Obama gave two nationally televised speeches focused on his association with Wright, one of which was said by Chris Matthews to be of such overarching importance that future generations of students would study it.

    That was the speech where Obama said he could no more turn his back on Reverend Wright that he could reject the black community. Then Obama went on to explain his white grandmother’s fear of scary black men hanging around her bus stop as those of a “typical white person.”

    Obama’s next speech was following the Reverend Wright’s bizarre performance at the National Press Club which was so clear and convincing, and so impossible to ignore or spin, that Obama again went on national TV and threw Reverend Wright under the same bus to which he had previously consigned the white woman, then on her death-bed, who had raised him and worked to keep him in private schools.

    But, to Whistler, Reverend Wright just isn’t a story, he’s only a GOP talking point.

    So, is Whistler telling the truth?

    Or is he peddling clap trap to protect the political rear end of him Messiah?

    Inquiring minds want to know.

  274. “I’m allowed to say what I think the implications of DNW’s commentary are. If he chooses to disagree, by all means. Yet when asked to explain how the church wasn’t Christian, all DNW could do was keep repeating excerpts from the Black Ethics code, as if it was somehow proof in itself. I’m saying the church follows Christ and has a Black Ethics Code, and they’re joined together just as any faith-based values system would extrapolate ethical principles from religious convictions. ”

    As you earlier mentioned, you have the (at least physical) ability to say whatever you like. And you can even formulate your pronouncements into outright assertions if you wish. And if you say that you cannot see an incompatibility between historic Christianity and a belief system that proclaims a doctrine of pledging “… allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System”, then there is no reason to dispute your description of your own perceptions.

    However when you say that you wish to have a contradiction between allegiance to a race based system of values and fundamental Christian doctrine pointed out to you, what is it that would satisfy you as evidence? A statement from the apostle Paul? A reappearance of Jesus Christ himself to rebuke them? Quotes from Patristic writings? Something from the Catholic Pope?

    Let’s not make this into a typical Henry Whistler enterprise, wherein people respond to you, and then you rewrite what they have actually said, and then launch off on some tangent you find emotionally satisfying.

  275. “And trying to milk the rewrite thing some more …”

    If you would stop doing it, you wouldn’t have to face the embarrassment of having it repeatedly pointed out.

    No one ever taught you to quote properly, eh?

  276. Perry’s work ethic isn’t the issue. It is whether Perry gets a say in how the fruits of his labors are spent. But you already knew that. You’re just looking for an easy exit.

  277. No one ever taught you to quote properly.

    Remember this golden oldie?

    Let’s look then at what another blogging critic of the method of the sale had to
    say:

    “In addition to the seminal study on America’s most liberal and conservative cities … BACVR was also the first think tank to identify the far-reaching political impact ‘527’ organizations were having on elections … BACVR’s respected work has been cited by many other academic researchers as well as being featured in hundreds of articles in news media outlets worldwide, including the New York Times, USA Today, the Associated Press, Agence France-Presse, the San Francisco Chronicle …Foreign diplomats from Israel and China have also sought out BACVR researchers to better understand the evolving American political process.”

  278. Can you imagine what the concept of having your rotting carcass chained around my neck by law would be like?

    Pretty funny Mike G., or should I say Goofy?

    The unfunny part is that we don’t even have to imagine what it’s like to drag his rotting carcass chained around our necks because we’re reminded every time we look at our pay stubs. And it’s not enough that they take from us now. They demand payment from generations well into the future.

  279. DNW: For all the elementary errors in reasoning you make, you really shouldn’t attempt to lecture other people on their education. What I know about formal writing is often discarded when messing around in blog land. However, when I draw a conclusion from your presentation about the implications of your position, that doesn’t get quotes. Of course it’s “rewritten,” yet there’s nothing inherently dishonest about rephrasing someone else’s position as you understand it, adding in the negative implications you believe they’re missing.

    It’s your job to inform me if I’ve characterized your position incorrectly.

    And, sadly, you are giving up that job. No, I don’t need Jesus to come down and explain how this church cannot be Christian yet focus on improving the black community. I need you to explain.

    I think, however, it’s time for you to drop the rather inflammatory accusation, recognize that the Trinity church is indeed Christian, engages in Bible studies, and derives from its religious convictions a cause. That cause utilizes and depends on worship of God and Jesus in order to elevate the black community within and combat against racism from the outside.

    I mean, what’s so controversial about that?

  280. Let’s have a look at Reverend Wright’s version of Black Liberation Theology (BLT) to see if we can determine for ourselves if it’s actually based on Christianity. But first here are a few notable quotations from the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama’s former spiritual leader, and former Senior Pastor of Trinity Union Church of Christ.

    “Not God Bless America, no, no, no, God Damn America!”
    “911 is America’s chickens coming home to roost.”
    “AIDS was created by the US for black genocide.”
    “If God is not for us and against whites, then…we’d best kill him.”

    James Hal Cone”s book “A Black Theology for Liberation,” one of his several books on this topic, is the pioneering introduction of BLT in America by it’s foremost disciple, and it’s Reverend Wright’s BLT bible, his guide to theology for himself and for the congregation of Trinity United Church.

    In Cone’s own words he describes Black Liberation Theology:

    “Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community … Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.” – “Divine Racism: The Unacknowledged Threshold Issue for Black Theology”, in African-American Religious Thought: An Anthology, by William R Jones, edited by Cornel West and Eddie Glaube (Westminster John Knox Press).

    Black Liberation Theology (BLT) accepts a perverse interpretation of Jesus Christ as it describes him as a poor man of color (not a Jew) living under the oppressive rule of white European slave owners, the Romans, who later actually adopted Catholicism largely in order to maintain their slave empire.

    Reverend Wright serves up a Chicago deep dish BLT complete with a layer of organic arugula to tempt the palette of modern true believers. If he can get Liberals and Progressives to swallow his version of Jesus restyled as a community organizer walking the windy streets of his New Jerusalem on the Lake, about to deliver free healthcare to the huddled masses, bring about all sorts on nifty social changes, and in the process fundamentally transform the government, well, his work will be done.

    Or if the white devils of the GOP prevent the coming of the age of Obama, and there’s just no hope of change, Obama will call up his army of New Black Panthers, draw his terrible swift sword, and in his righteous wrath, bring the nation and it’s government down, physically down back back in the time of Jesus of course, Cloward/Piven hadn’t yet been invented.

    As Wright’s colored Jesus went about his father’s business, and Barack Obama correspondingly followed in the footsteps of Frank Marshall Davis, with Bill Ayres playing John the Baptist, and Valerie Jarrett cast as Mary Magdalene, both the black Jesus and the half-breed Obama came to embody the struggle for black liberation. It was an insurgency, right there on the mean streets of the windy city against the wealthy ruling class, the spiritual descendants of Rome, who just happened to also live in mansions in Hyde Park.

    Thus does BLT’s misinterpretation of Christ’s message pervert the love of all men that Christ taught, his universal message of forgiveness, and atonement. The message of his love and sacrifice which guides us and instructs us in a deep and mysterious spiritual quest for the eternal light, an intensely personal and largely individual spiritual transformation, which seeks to forge a new and better human being from angry and flawed, blind, frail, small minded, and envious creatures which inhabit the night.

    Christianity offers a path to becoming a new man in the image of Christ, one who embodies virtues vastly different from the ones BLT exults. It was James Cone, not Jesus Christ who wrote the following:

    “There is no use for a God who loves white oppressors the same as oppressed blacks. We have had too much of white love, the love that tells blacks to turn the other cheek and go the second mile.”

    Jesus Christ preached universal love for all men, James Cone preaches hate, and so does his disciple Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Again here’s Cone in his own words:

    “Black hatred is the black man’s strong aversion to white society. No black man living in white America can escape it… While it is true that blacks do hate whites, black hatred is not racism. ”

    For BLT, Christ, the God of peace and love, is fundamentally transformed into a God of resentment and revenge, a God of Hate, who is committed to the Black Power Movement’s version of political and social change.

    Now, the vast majority of blacks in America do not subscribe to BLT, or follow false prophets like Reverend Wright, or anything like it. As far as I can tell they’re mostly straight-forward and reasonably devout Christians who don’t hate anyone and are going about their lives, doing the best they can to raise their families, help their neighbors, love their God, and get along in modern day America.

    But BLT has a hidden Marxist agenda rooted in revenge and race hatred, and it’s growing in the dark, festering under the radar in the precincts of radical urban churches, shielded from exposure by the sort of knee-jerk political correctness espoused by useful idiots, like Whistler, Perry, Phoney, and others here.

    Mindless nostrums like political correctness have made criticism and exposure of BLT more difficult, but not impossible. Hysterical accusations of racism are always the first resort of the modern cadre of Philistines to declare the topic taboo. Such was the intention of the Journalistas, it was at the root of their conspiracy, and such is the clear intention of all the ideoligical descendents of Josef Goebbels.

    But now the Journalista’s scandal has broken wide open, Reverend Wright and his relationship to Barack Obama is back in the sunlight, and the rats will be running for the shadows after a few desperate parting shots of “racism.” It’s their swan song.

  281. Goofy Ganzeveld writes:

    “Goofy says:
    28 July 2010 at 12:01 pm

    ‘No one ever taught you to quote properly.’

    Remember this golden oldie?

    Let’s look then at what another blogging critic of the method of the sale had to
    say:
    “In addition to the seminal study on America’s most liberal and conservative cities … BACVR was also the first think tank to identify the far-reaching political impact ‘527’ organizations were having on elections … BACVR’s respected work has been cited by many other academic researchers as well as being featured in hundreds of articles in news media outlets worldwide, including the New York Times, USA Today, the Associated Press, Agence France-Presse, the San Francisco Chronicle …Foreign diplomats from Israel and China have also sought out BACVR researchers to better understand the evolving American political process.””

    Yeah Goofy, sure I recognize it. That’s an excerpt from a lengthier comment, where I had dismissed your earlier “ad hominem style” attack on the credentials of the BAVRC, by accurately reproducing text from a more or less equivalent – to you – blogger’s material. You then figured if you couldn’t directly challenge the substance of the claims presented in the text, you could at least try and impeach the ultimate source’s veracity and motive, and then get some message board mileage out of my having used in reference to the blogger the terminology, “had to say”, rather than, “had to recount” or “relay” or – a dignifying drum roll please – “report”.

    That little leveraging gambit of yours lasted just long enough to blow up in your face as : 1, you realized you couldn’t substantiate your own debunking “suspicions” and accusations and went begging broadband in hopes of finding someone with factual knowledge to support your accusations; and, 2, one of your Iowa Lib troupe fouled your lines further by getting caught authoring quotes he was attributing to those he was arguing against; and 3, you were pointed out as engaging in almost the same kind of deceptive rewrites he was, while merely foregoing the sham and bother of deploying fraudulent quotation marks.

    Most people are probably surprised that you’re such a masochist as to bring it all up again. But, hey, masochistic leanings and a short memory are a big part of what being a liberal like you is all about, isn’t it … LOL

  282. It’s no wonder Goofy G keeps gettin’ skunked, his bait’s bad, his hook’s bent, his lines are foul, his anchor won’t hold, his boat’s awash, he’s out of gas, and ol’ Davy Jones is gettin’ tired of waitin’ for his new cabin boy.

    And, tellin’ tall tales ain’t never congered a fair wind.

  283. by accurately reproducing text from a more or less equivalent – to you – blogger’s material.

    You unwittingly cut and pasted text from an eBay listing which you then attributed it to an unnamed individual. You can blather all you want about your intentions but that is the truth laid bare. You botched a quote and now you want to go back and invent excuses even though it remains a mystery why you never bothered to provide a link or a name to your source. When you place a colon after “another blogging critic of the method of sale had to say” you are attributing that quote to that author.

    you were pointed out as engaging in almost the same kind of deceptive rewrites he was, while merely foregoing the sham and bother of deploying fraudulent quotation marks.

    Your failures are your own, DNW, and that’s why you abandoned that comment thread. No use clutching your knee and whining to the ref about your treatment at the hands of insidious liberals.

    You made a technical error; after being forced into a corner where you had the choice of replying to reasonable questions posed to you you ended up sounding like rube. Once you let slip your belief that working class people are excluded from cities like Minneapolis because of high property values you knew you were in trouble so you tucked your tail between your legs and ran to another comment thread where you could safely resume waxing and waning about liberal bullies kicking sand in your face and stealing your lunch money.

    Most people are probably surprised that you’re such a masochist as to bring it all up again. But, hey, masochistic leanings and a short memory are a big part of what being a liberal like you is all about, isn’t it … LOL

    People noticed that you turned tail after offering a rebuttal so stupid you didn’t even bother defending it. But Detroit!

  284. And, tellin’ tall tales ain’t never congered a fair wind.

    Nor will trolling comment threads in your old age help you overcome the psychological damage wrought by having to spend a lifetime hung like a cashew.

  285. Goofy, the grouchy gudgeon, couldn’t catch a fish if fish were as plentiful as impotent idiots in Iowa, or assclowns on Air America, or even liberals living in LaLa land. Fish are finicky, they don’t bite on bullshit, or get fooled by the Freudian fantasies of phony fishermen.

  286. Henry-my-burdens-are-your-burdens-Whistler writes:

    “DNW: For all the elementary errors in reasoning you make, you really shouldn’t attempt to lecture other people on their education. What I know about formal writing is often discarded when messing around in blog land. However, when I draw a conclusion from your presentation about the implications of your position, that doesn’t get quotes. Of course it’s “rewritten,” yet there’s nothing inherently dishonest about rephrasing someone else’s position as you understand it, adding in the negative implications you believe they’re missing.”

    Henry, for all the elementary errors in reasoning you claim I have made, you certainly are shy about naming any that haven’t actually been generated from the nib of your own free flowing pen.

    You say that you are capable of behavior better than this, but you choose to withhold the proof because you are just messing around in blog land. Well fine, knock yourself out with your unctuous slithering if it amuses you.

    It’s your job to inform me if I’ve characterized your position incorrectly. ”

    Henry, it’s not my job to chase you around and inform you of anything; especially when your misrepresentations could be avoided in the first place if you would simply stop rewriting what others have said, and then leaping to conclusions from the pinnacles of your own projections.

    Maybe you are too lazy to quote. Maybe doing so will not get you where you think you want to go. Or maybe you just think there is no “blog land” fun to be had in accuracy. Whatever the reason for your behavior, the rhetorical baggage of the rewrites you generate is yours, not mine; and you are going to have to have to bear the burden of it.

  287. That’s a bit unfair – why assume that it’s a physical defect that’s responsible for his inability to relate to women when his repulsive personality is a good and sufficient explanation?

  288. Ropelight says:

    “It’s no wonder Goofy G keeps gettin’ skunked, his bait’s bad, his hook’s bent, his lines are foul, his anchor won’t hold, his boat’s awash, he’s out of gas, and ol’ Davy Jones is gettin’ tired of waitin’ for his new cabin boy.

    And, tellin’ tall tales ain’t never congered a fair wind.”

    Poor Admiral Goofy, is back to desperately editing the log book again. First his enemies have engaged in outright treachery, then they have accidentally posted false material, then he’s not sure if the material is really false, so he shoots off a few flares hoping maybe someone will confirm his tale.

  289. Maybe DNW has some beaten mistress squirreled away somewhere out in rural Michigan that dodges his beer bottles but I think we can safely guess that ropelight is a spinster!

  290. Poor Admiral Goofy, is back to desperately editing the log book again.

    I must have missed the part where you gallantly defended your argument that Minneapolis isn’t liberal because working people are excluded from living there. Perhaps you have a comment stuck in moderation?

  291. Nah – DNW is definitely impotent. Christ, his testicles must crawl up inside his belly and cower behind his kidneys rather than be seen associating with him.

  292. Henry “down with science” Whistler actually wrote, ” Of course it’s “rewritten,” yet there’s nothing inherently dishonest about rephrasing someone else’s position as you understand it, adding in the negative implications you believe they’re missing.”

    Whistler, you couldn’t be more wrong. What you’ve written above is one of the text book definitions of dishonest prose.

    There’s an essential point you’re missing there science-boy, in any rephrase the burden is on you to be extra careful to faithfully represent the author’s position. Rephrasing or paraphrasing is only acceptable if it’s done to add clarity, not to distort the words or the author’s stated positions. Any attempt to misrepresent what was originally written is unacceptably, unalterably, dishonest. Adding “negative implications” to your rephrase is dishonest. Of course, you can disagree with the author’s position, but you can’t rephrase his words to change his meaning, or to add yours.

    Whistler you constantly deal in “rephrases,” your comments are full of them. It’s your inherently dishonest way to go about mischaracterizing someone else’s position so you can twist it into an easy target for unjustified and unfounded criticism. That’s the mark of a cheap hack.

    Dishonest rephrasing is your standard technique for a quick and easy way to formulate a retort, not to what the original author actually wrote, but rather to your bastard straw-man’s newly acquired burden of “negative implications.”

    Whistler, to you what the original author actually wrote is only fodder for your fertile imagination, a jumping-off point for the process of heaping your own “negative implications” on someone else’s position. It’s the modern hack’s equivalent of an ancient witch doctor’s superstitions, in biblical times they even used a live scapegoat to carry all the heaped “negative implications” on the poor beast’s back.

    Today science-boy uses straw-men.

  293. Today science-boy uses straw-men.

    Just repeating again:

    The National Academy of Science endorses Mann’s science. It has since been confirmed with other analyses, using different methods.

    Ropelight is again spanked as the liar he is.

    [retrieved from moderation - pH]

  294. For anyone that cares…

    THE TOP 40
    REASONS TO DOUBT THE OFFICIAL STORY OF SEPTEMBER 11th, 2001

    … An outline in simple talking points …

    We are continuing to compile the best documentation links for every single point on this page, and intend to post the updated version as soon as possible, and create teaching tools and more from the info. This is a significant and time-consuming process–if you have useful links, please send them to janice[at]911truth[dot]org. Thanks for your help!
    If you use the search function with title key words, you will discover that 911Truth.org is home to articles backing virtually every point made below. Much of the basic research is available at the Complete 9/11 Timeline (hosted by cooperativeresearch.org), the 9/11 Reading Room (911readingroom.org), and the NY Attorney General Spitzer petition and complaint (Justicefor911.org). For physical evidence discussion, see Point 7.

    THE DAY ITSELF – EVIDENCE OF COMPLICITY

    1) AWOL Chain of Command
    a. It is well documented that the officials topping the chain of command for response to a domestic attack – George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Myers, Montague Winfield – all found reason to do something else during the actual attacks, other than assuming their duties as decision-makers.
    b. Who was actually in charge? Dick Cheney, Richard Clarke, Norman Mineta and the 9/11 Commission directly conflict in their accounts of top-level response to the unfolding events, such that several (or all) of them must be lying.
    2) Air Defense Failures
    a. The US air defense system failed to follow standard procedures for responding to diverted passenger flights.
    b. Timelines: The various responsible agencies – NORAD, FAA, Pentagon, USAF, as well as the 9/11 Commission – gave radically different explanations for the failure (in some cases upheld for years), such that several officials must have lied; but none were held accountable.
    c. Was there an air defense standdown?

    3) Pentagon Strike
    How was it possible the Pentagon was hit 1 hour and 20 minutes after the attacks began? Why was there no response from Andrews Air Force Base, just 10 miles away and home to Air National Guard units charged with defending the skies above the nation”s capital? How did Hani Hanjour, a man who failed as a Cessna pilot on his first flight in a Boeing, execute a difficult aerobatic maneuver to strike the Pentagon? Why did the attack strike the just-renovated side, which was largely empty and opposite from the high command?

    4) Wargames
    a. US military and other authorities planned or actually rehearsed defensive response to all elements of the 9/11 scenario during the year prior to the attack – including multiple hijackings, suicide crashbombings, and a strike on the Pentagon.
    b. The multiple military wargames planned long in advance and held on the morning of September 11th included scenarios of a domestic air crisis, a plane crashing into a government building, and a large-scale emergency in New York. If this was only an incredible series of coincidences, why did the official investigations avoid the issue? There is evidence that the wargames created confusion as to whether the unfolding events were “real world or exercise.” Did wargames serve as the cover for air defense sabotage, and/or the execution of an “inside job”?

    5) Flight 93
    Did the Shanksville crash occur at 10:06 (according to a seismic report) or 10:03 (according to the 9/11 Commission)? Does the Commission wish to hide what happened in the last three minutes of the flight, and if so, why? Was Flight 93 shot down, as indicated by the scattering of debris over a trail of several miles?

    THE DAY – POSSIBLE SMOKING GUNS

    6) Did cell phones work at 30,000 feet in 2001? How many hijackings were attempted? How many flights were diverted?

    7) Demolition Hypothesis
    What caused the collapse of a third skyscraper, WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane? Were the Twin Towers and WTC 7 brought down by explosives? (See “The Case for Demolitions,” the websites wtc7.net and 911research.wtc7.net, and the influential article by physicist Steven Jones. See also items no. 16 and 24, below.)

    FOREKNOWLEDGE & THE ALLEGED HIJACKERS

    8) What did officials know? How did they know it?
    a. Multiple allied foreign agencies informed the US government of a coming attack in detail, including the manner and likely targets of the attack, the name of the operation (the “Big Wedding”), and the names of certain men later identified as being among the perpetrators.
    b. Various individuals came into possession of specific advance knowledge, and some of them tried to warn the US prior to September 11th.
    c. Certain prominent persons received warnings not to fly on the week or on the day of September 11th.

    9) Able Danger, Plus – Surveillance of Alleged Hijackers
    a. The men identified as the 9/11 ringleaders were under surveillance for years beforehand, on the suspicion they were terrorists, by a variety of US and allied authorities – including the CIA, the US military”s “Able Danger” program, the German authorities, Israeli intelligence and others.
    b. Two of the alleged ringleaders who were known to be under surveillance by the CIA also lived with an FBI asset in San Diego, but this is supposed to be yet another coincidence.
    10) Obstruction of FBI Investigations prior to 9/11
    A group of FBI officials in New York systematically suppressed field investigations of potential terrorists that might have uncovered the alleged hijackers – as the Moussaoui case once again showed. The stories of Sibel Edmonds, Robert Wright, Coleen Rowley and Harry Samit, the “Phoenix Memo,” David Schippers, the 199i orders restricting investigations, the Bush administration”s order to back off the Bin Ladin family, the reaction to the “Bojinka” plot, and John O”Neil do not, when considered in sum, indicate mere incompetence, but high-level corruption and protection of criminal networks, including the network of the alleged 9/11 conspirators. (Nearly all of these examples were omitted from or relegated to fleeting footnotes in The 9/11 Commission Report.)

    11) Insider Trading
    a. Unknown speculators allegedly used foreknowledge of the Sept. 11th events to profiteer on many markets internationally – including but not limited to “put options” placed to short-sell the two airlines, WTC tenants, and WTC re-insurance companies in Chicago and London.
    b. In addition, suspicious monetary transactions worth hundreds of millions were conducted through offices at the Twin Towers during the actual attacks.
    c. Initial reports on these trades were suppressed and forgotten, and only years later did the 9/11 Commission and SEC provide a partial, but untenable explanation for only a small number of transactions (covering only the airline put options through the Chicago Board of Exchange).

    12) Who were the perpetrators?
    a. Much of the evidence establishing who did the crime is dubious and miraculous: bags full of incriminating material that happened to miss the flight or were left in a van; the “magic passport” of an alleged hijacker, found at Ground Zero; documents found at motels where the alleged perpetrators had stayed days and weeks before 9/11.
    b. The identities of the alleged hijackers remain unresolved, there are contradictions in official accounts of their actions and travels, and there is evidence several of them had “doubles,” all of which is omitted from official investigations.
    c. What happened to initial claims by the government that 50 people involved in the attacks had been identified, including the 19 alleged hijackers, with 10 still at large (suggesting that 20 had been apprehended)? http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-worldtrade-50suspects,0,1825231.story

    THE 9/11 COVER-UP, 2001-2006

    13) Who Is Osama Bin Ladin?
    a. Who judges which of the many conflicting and dubious statements and videos attributed to Osama Bin Ladin are genuine, and which are fake? The most important Osama Bin Ladin video (Nov. 2001), in which he supposedly confesses to masterminding 9/11, appears to be a fake. In any event, the State Department”s translation of it is fraudulent.
    b. Did Osama Bin Ladin visit Dubai and meet a CIA agent in July 2001 (Le Figaro)? Was he receiving dialysis in a Pakistani military hospital on the night of September 10, 2001 (CBS)?
    c. Whether by Bush or Clinton: Why is Osama always allowed to escape?
    d. The terror network associated with Osama, known as the “base” (al-Qaeda), originated in the CIA-sponsored 1980s anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan. When did this network stop serving as an asset to covert operations by US intelligence and allied agencies? What were its operatives doing in Kosovo, Bosnia and Chechnya in the years prior to 9/11?

    14) All the Signs of a Systematic 9/11 Cover-up
    a. Airplane black boxes were found at Ground Zero, according to two first responders and an unnamed NTSB official, but they were “disappeared” and their existence is denied in The 9/11 Commission Report.
    b. US officials consistently suppressed and destroyed evidence (like the tapes recorded by air traffic controllers who handled the New York flights).
    c. Whistleblowers (like Sibel Edmonds and Anthony Shaffer) were intimidated, gagged and sanctioned, sending a clear signal to others who might be thinking about speaking out.
    d. Officials who “failed” (like Myers and Eberhard, as well as Frasca, Maltbie and Bowman of the FBI) were given promotions.

    15) Poisoning New York
    The White House deliberately pressured the EPA into giving false public assurances that the toxic air at Ground Zero was safe to breathe. This knowingly contributed to an as-yet unknown number of health cases and fatalities, and demonstrates that the administration does consider the lives of American citizens to be expendable on behalf of certain interests.

    16) Disposing of the Crime Scene
    The rapid and illegal scrapping of the WTC ruins at Ground Zero disposed of almost all of the structural steel indispensable to any investigation of the collapse mechanics. (See also item no. 23, below.)

    17) Anthrax
    Mailings of weapons-grade anthrax – which caused a practical suspension of the 9/11 investigations – were traced back to US military stock. Soon after the attacks began in October 2001, the FBI approved the destruction of the original samples of the Ames strain, disposing of perhaps the most important evidence in identifying the source of the pathogens used in the mailings. Were the anthrax attacks timed to coincide with the Afghanistan invasion? Why were the letters sent only to media figures and to the leaders of the opposition in the Senate (who had just raised objections to the USA PATRIOT Act)?

    18) The Stonewall
    a. Colin Powell promised a “white paper” from the State Department to establish the authorship of the attacks by al-Qaeda. This was never forthcoming, and was instead replaced by a paper from Tony Blair, which presented only circumstantial evidence, with very few points actually relating to September 11th.
    b. Bush and Cheney pressured the (freshly-anthraxed) leadership of the Congressional opposition into delaying the 9/11 investigation for months. The administration fought against the creation of an independent investigation for more than a year.
    c. The White House thereupon attempted to appoint Henry Kissinger as the chief investigator, and acted to underfund and obstruct the 9/11 Commission.

    19) A Record of Official Lies
    a. “No one could have imagined planes into buildings” – a transparent falsehood upheld repeatedly by Rice, Rumsfeld and Bush.
    b. “Iraq was connected to 9/11″ – The most “outrageous conspiracy theory” of all, with the most disastrous impact.

    20) Pakistani Connection – Congressional Connection
    a. The Pakistani intelligence agency ISI, creator of the Taliban and close ally to both the CIA and “al-Qaeda,” allegedly wired $100,000 to Mohamed Atta just prior to September 11th, reportedly through the ISI asset Omar Saeed Sheikh (later arrested for the killing of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, who was investigating ISI connections to “al-Qaeda.”)
    b. This was ignored by the congressional 9/11 investigation, although the senator and congressman who ran the probe (Bob Graham and Porter Goss) were meeting with the ISI chief, Mahmud Ahmed, on Capitol Hill on the morning of September 11th.
    c. About 25 percent of the report of the Congressional Joint Inquiry was redacted, including long passages regarding how the attack (or the network allegedly behind it) was financed. Graham later said foreign allies were involved in financing the alleged terror network, but that this would only come out in 30 years.

    21) Unanswered Questions and the “Final Fraud” of the 9/11 Commission:
    a. The September 11th families who fought for and gained an independent investigation (the 9/11 Commission) posed 400-plus questions, which the 9/11 Commission adopted as its roadmap. The vast majority of these questions were completely ignored in the Commission hearings and the final report.
    b. The membership and staff of the 9/11 Commission displayed awesome conflicts of interest. The families called for the resignation of Executive Director Philip Zelikow, a Bush administration member and close associate of “star witness” Condoleezza Rice, and were snubbed. Commission member Max Cleland resigned, condemning the entire exercise as a “scam” and “whitewash.”
    c.The 9/11 Commission Report is notable mainly for its obvious omissions, distortions and outright falsehoods – ignoring anything incompatible with the official story, banishing the issues to footnotes, and even dismissing the still-unresolved question of who financed 9/11 as being “of little practical significance.”

    22) Crown Witnesses Held at Undisclosed Locations
    The alleged masterminds of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohamed (KSM) and Ramzi Binalshibh, are reported to have been captured in 2002 and 2003, although one Pakistani newspaper said KSM was killed in an attempted capture. They have been held at undisclosed locations and their supposed testimonies, as provided in transcript form by the government, form much of the basis for The 9/11 Commission Report (although the Commission”s request to see them in person was denied). After holding them for years, why doesn”t the government produce these men and put them to trial?

    23) Spitzer Redux
    a. Eliot Spitzer, attorney general of New York State, snubbed pleas by New York citizens to open 9/11 as a criminal case (Justicefor911.org).
    b. Spitzer also refused to allow his employee, former 9/11 Commission staff member Dietrich Snell, to testify to the Congress about his (Snell”s) role in keeping “Able Danger” entirely out of The 9/11 Commission Report.

    24) NIST Omissions
    After the destruction of the WTC structural steel, the official Twin Towers collapse investigation was left with almost no forensic evidence, and thus could only provide dubious computer models of ultimately unprovable hypotheses. It failed to even test for the possibility of explosives. (Why not clear this up?)

    25) Radio Silence
    The 9/11 Commission and NIST both allowed the continuing cover-up of how Motorola”s faulty radios, purchased by the Giuliani administration, caused firefighter deaths at the WTC – once again showing the expendability, even of the first responders.

    26) The Legal Catch-22
    a. Hush Money – Accepting victims” compensation barred September 11th families from pursuing discovery through litigation.
    b. Judge Hallerstein – Those who refused compensation to pursue litigation and discovery had their cases consolidated under the same judge (and as a rule dismissed).

    27) Saudi Connections
    a. The 9/11 investigations made light of the “Bin Ladin Airlift” during the no-fly period, and ignored the long-standing Bush family business ties to the Bin Ladin family fortune. (A company in which both families held interests, the Carlyle Group, was holding its annual meeting on September 11th, with George Bush Sr., James Baker, and two brothers of Osama Bin Ladin in attendance.)
    b. The issue of Ptech.

    28) Media Blackout of Prominent Doubters
    The official story has been questioned and many of the above points were raised by members of the US Congress, retired high-ranking officers of the US military, the three leading third-party candidates for President in the 2004 election, a member of the 9/11 Commission who resigned in protest, a former high-ranking adviser to the George W. Bush administration, former ministers to the German, British and Canadian governments, the commander-in-chief of the Russian air force, 100 luminaries who signed the “9/11 Truth Statement,” and the presidents of Iran and Venezuela. Not all of these people agree fully with each other, but all would normally be considered newsworthy. Why has the corporate-owned US mass media remained silent about these statements, granting due coverage only to the comments of actor Charlie Sheen?

    GEOPOLITICS, TIMING AND POSSIBLE MOTIVES

    29) “The Great Game”
    The Afghanistan invasion was ready for Bush”s go-ahead on September 9, 2001, with US and UK force deployments to the region already in place or underway. This followed the failure earlier that year of backdoor diplomacy with the Taliban (including payments of $125 million in US government aid to Afghanistan), in an attempt to secure a unity government for that country as a prerequisite to a Central Asian pipeline deal.

    30) The Need for a “New Pearl Harbor”
    Principals in US foreign policy under the current Bush administration (including Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle and others) have been instrumental in developing long-running plans for worldwide military hegemony, including an invasion of the Middle East, dating back to the Ford, Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations. They reiterated these plans in the late 1990s as members of the “Project for a New American Century,” and stated a clear intent to invade Iraq for the purpose of “regime change.” After 9/11, they lost no time in their attempt to tie Iraq to the attacks.

    31) Perpetual “War on Terror”
    9/11 is supposed to provide carte-blanche for an open-ended, global and perpetual “War on Terror,” against any enemy, foreign or domestic, that the executive branch chooses to designate, and regardless of whether evidence exists to actually connect these enemies to 9/11.

    32) Attacking the Constitution
    a. The USA PATRIOT Act was written before 9/11, Homeland Security and the “Shadow Government” were developed long before 9/11, and plans for rounding up dissidents as a means for suppressing civil disturbance have been in the works for decades.
    b. 9/11 was used as the pretext to create a new, extra-constitutional executive authority to declare anyone an “enemy combatant” (including American citizens), to detain persons indefinitely without habeas corpus, and to “render” such persons to secret prisons where torture is practiced.

    33) Legal Trillions
    9/11 triggers a predictable shift of public spending to war, and boosts public and private spending in the “new” New Economy of “Homeland Security,” biometrics, universal surveillance, prisons, civil defense, secured enclaves, security, etc.

    34) Plundered Trillions?
    On September 10, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld announced a “war on waste” after an internal audit found that the Pentagon was “missing” 2.3 trillion dollars in unaccounted assets. On September 11th, this was as good as forgotten.

    35) Did 9/11 prevent a stock market crash?
    Did anyone benefit from the destruction of the Securities and Exchange Commission offices at WTC 7, and the resultant crippling of hundreds of fraud investigations?

    36) Resource Wars
    a. What was discussed in the Energy Task Force meetings under Dick Cheney in 2001? Why is the documentation of these meetings still being suppressed?
    b. Is Peak Oil a motive for 9/11 as inside job?

    37) The “Little Game”
    Why was the WTC privatized just before its destruction?

    HISTORY

    38) “Al-CIA-da?”
    The longstanding relationship between US intelligence networks and radical Islamists, including the network surrounding Osama Bin Ladin. (See also point 13d.)

    39) Historical Precedents for “Synthetic Terror”
    a. In the past many states, including the US government, have sponsored attacks on their own people, fabricated the “cause for war,” created (and armed) their own enemies of convenience, and sacrificed their own citizens for “reasons of state.”
    b. Was 9/11 an update of the Pentagon-approved “Project Northwoods” plan for conducting self-inflicted, false-flag terror attacks in the United States, and blaming them on a foreign enemy?

    40) Secret Government
    a. The record of criminality and sponsorship of coups around the world by the covert networks based within the US intelligence complex.
    b. Specifically also: The evidence of crime by Bush administration principals and their associates, from October Surprise to Iran-Contra and the S&L plunder to PNAC, Enron/Halliburton and beyond.

    REASON NUMBER 41:
    RELATED MOVEMENTS AND PARALLEL ISSUES

    Ground Zero aftermath movements:
    - Justice for the air-poisoning cover-up (wtceo.org)
    - “Radio Silence” (radiosilencefdny.com)
    - Skyscraper Safety (www.skyscrapersafety.org).

    Election fraud and black box voting, 2000 to 2004. (BlackBoxVoting.org)

    Lies to justify the invasion of Iraq. (afterdowningstreet.org)

    Use of depleted uranium and its multi-generational consequences on human health and the environment.

    Longstanding development of contingency plans for civil disturbance and military rule in the USA (See, “The War at Home”)

    Oklahoma City Truth movement. (Offline, but not forgotten – May 9, 2008!)

    Whether you call it “Globalization” or “The New World Order” – An unsustainable system of permanent growth ultimately requires warfare, fraud, and mass manipulation.

    GOING FORWARD …

    “But an inside job would involve thousands of people! How could they keep a secret?” Counter-arguments, red herrings, speculations and false information.

    Selected essays, books and websites that make the case for 9/11 as inside job. (See Resources)

    Demanding a real investigation of the September crimes – Not just a patriotic duty, but a matter of survival.

  295. whistlers extensive (self proclaimed) scientific study of black holes may be to blame for his condition you outline above, rope.

    he thinks he is the center of the universe and can bend anything (even the truth) with his own power.

    relativists do resemble puny little tyrants when you see them for what they are.

  296. And just exactly what do you take issue with what Henry said, or are you all about personal attacks, nothing more? Your call, assover!

  297. Ropelight: Why is it you keep calling me a liar? I keep proving you lie, and keep asking you to show me where I lie. Yet you just keep rambling up and down about how terribly dishonest I am and what straw men I create.

    I ask you again: What straw man?

    Rev. Wright was covered extensively, far more than it merited. The media didn’t shy away from the story. The media just thought it was a non-story whether or not Obama was some brainwashed whitey-hatin’ scary black man because of his association with Wright. Turns out that Obama preferred to see the good in Wright and brushed off some of his crazier shit. It’s somewhat like a Republican brushing off Rush Limbaugh, except not quite as bad since Limbaugh pretty much does nothing but spew hatred.

    But in rightwingerland, the paranoia is too deep. You’re convinced! Just like you’re convinced Dr. Mann was whitewashed without any evidence, you’re convinced Obama is secretly teh scary without any evidence.

    Your grand stroke of evidence is finding another crazy black dude who Wright likes. It’s Six Degrees Of Scary Black Man!
    I mean, this was almost something to think about back when Obama was a little newer on the scene, but it plain got worn out. There’s nothing there. Obama doesn’t subscribe to the radical shit.

    You’re left trying to explain why these avowed Christians aren’t really Christians. Great, another Christian arguing about who’s really Christian? Are you going to go after the Catholics next? The Mormons? All those who contra-Jesus spend their time hating on homosexuality? Those who eat shellfish?

    Better to leave it alone. Because in the end it just looks like you need to invoke Scary Black Men wherever you look. Look out, New Black Panthers coming for your women!

    You mention me summarizing DNW’s position as yet another example of word twisting. “What you’ve written above is one of the text book definitions of dishonest prose.” Is that anything like your made-up definition of plagiarism? You rarely know what the hell you’re talking about ropelight, and after I gave you two tries at defining plagiarism and you failed, it became pretty hard to take your language lessons seriously.

    Again, you accuse me of making up straw men, and I ask you again, what straw man? You again don’t answer because ropelight doesn’t have to answer questions. He just asks them and I better be thankful for the favor!

    Your problem is that I know when you’re short on material. It’s right when you start whining about something I said not being what you said. Great, so clarify! Quit whining like a cur and be a man.

    And quit making accusations and then scampering off like a little bitch. I understand that you operate via repetition, not via actual thinking and debate. You’re a howling monkey. Keep clapping harder, ropelight! If you keep accusing me of dishonesty, it’ll come true!

  298. “Henry, for all the elementary errors in reasoning you claim I have made, you certainly are shy about naming any that haven’t actually been generated from the nib of your own free flowing pen.”

    Of course, in a previous thread you were nailed on the No True Scotsman fallacy. You tried denying it, of course, then scampered off. You’ll deny it again today because you aren’t beholden to the rules of honest discourse.

    Secondly, as I’ve tried making clear to you, you’re trying to shift the burden of proof onto me for a claim you’re making. You’re trying to claim that the Trinity church isn’t really Christian. Yet when asked how, you come up short. To people actually educated in logic, like myself, that’s an obvious tell. You aren’t giving it because you don’t have it.

    So you haven’t really explained to me how I got you wrong. Yet you just keep saying I got you wrong. Well, sorry, fella, but I don’t give a rat’s ass what you assert. I think I nailed you, I said why, and I’ll say it again. If you think I’m wrong, if you want to accuse me of being dishonest, BACK IT UP OR SHUT UP.

    Otherwise, you’re just a noxious gasbag projecting your shit onto others. I say you’re wrong, you say I’m wrong, fantastic. I’ve made my case. Where’s yours? None? Thanks for the scalp.

  299. Nah, assinhead started off as incoherent and was obviously unable to form a complete thought from day 1. Ropelight has degenerated under pressure until he’s become the spluttering buffoon he is now.

    Assinhead suffers from deep intellectual deficiencies. Ropelight is now deranged. There’s a difference.

  300. There’s somethin’ odd goin’ on this summer up there in the Ioway, maybe Asian carp crap is makin’ it’s way into the municipal water supply, or the beer’s gone bad, or poison cockroaches are polluting the corn crop, whatever it is, something’s gone wacky.

    First Goofy G says he thinks aotc is me, and now Whistler comes on crazy cuckoo, like he can’t read, or put 2 and 2 together. Maybe he’s smokin’ funny cigarettes, or lickin’ toads.

    Was he always this transparently crazy, did I miss a string of obvious tip-offs along the way, or has he been in an accelerating downward spiral for just the last week or so? Seems like every comment is gettin’ worse.

    Whistler, You ain’t about to take any advice from me, but you ought to think about takin’ it easy for a while, maybe take a vacation, head for the sea shore, get away for a few days, you know, get some rest. Course you won’t but you ought to.

  301. Ropelight: Completely substance-free ad hominem post ignored! Who cares at this point? You’ve amply demonstrated that you can write that shit all day without saying anything important.

    I’m really not interested in anything except trying to keep you guys on topic. You guys are questioning how Christian the Trinity Church is. Ball’s in your court.

  302. Whistler, if you have any real friends, ones who’ll give it to you straight, (I’m not talkin’ about fair weather types here.) have one or two read your last half dozen or so comments. Listen to their reactions. Take heed, there’s trouble on the wind, my boy, there’s trouble on the wind.

    Whistler, you’ve got a problem, and you either can’t see it, or won’t acknowledge it. Either way, unless you face it, it’s only going to get worse. Now, I’m not your daddy, and I’m not your friend, but I am tryin’ to tell you something you need to hear.

    For example, consider your most recent comment. You obviously did the exact opposite of what you wrote. You didn’t ignore my comment, and clearly you care or you wouldn’t have bothered to respond. Now, what’s up with that? It’s only a small example, but it’s the most recent one, and it shows a distinctive disconnect from reality, one which has significance for professional therapists. So, take it for what it’s worth, or don’t. I’m movin on now to another matter, one which is on topic.

    An examination of Reverend Wright’s relationship to Barack Obama and his 20 year history with Trinity United Church of Christ and it’s Black Liberation Theology is very much related to the topic. The conspiracy by Journalistas to suppress news which would have damaged Obama’s efforts to portray himself as a post-racial candidate is one of the primary themes revealed by the Daily Caller’s revelations.

    That Journalista, Spencer Ackerman, would openly recommend the dispicible use of false accusations of racism to deflect attention away from the odious Reverend Wright is not only germane to the national debate, but it’s also relevant here at CSPT. The same dispicible tactic is all too frequently in evidence here.

    York’s original post included an article by Tim Graham, he wrote, “In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”

    As for the issue of what’s at the heart of Black Liberation Theology, Christianity or a racist version of Marxism, I’ve already put my opinion in a comment on the 28th at 2:44pm above. But, likely you already know that too, so why pretend otherwise?

  303. Henry continues his spinning:

    “DNW: I have to add that your stammering defenses for your own misquoting adventure are pretty hilarious. Perhaps you should have just left ropelight and I alone over our paraphrased quotes that nobody was confused over.”

    Henry, what you did was to author material yourself and then enclose it in quotation marks, and then attribute the material you had written to those you were arguing against.

    You claimed to know you were breaking the rules, and you proudly brayed you were doing so anyway.

    The upshot was that you stuck your hoof firmly into Ganzeveld’s mouth, jackass.

    With idiot friends like you trotting over his busy hands, and crapping on his bet laid plans, how can MikeG be expected to complete his delicate work of successfully rewriting our arguments? As you shall see below, he wasn’t.

    And Mike himself? Well he can’t even seem to make up his mind what it is he intends to dispute; so he winds up arguing with himself rather than with what I and others have actually written.

    Does he wish to argue that Detroit is not run by liberals who have been kept in power by the electorate for decades?

    It seems he did initially, as he noted: “Voting for John Kerry in 2004 doesn’t necessarily make you a “liberal”. ”

    But after he was reminded that 50 years of progressive Democrat shamanism where involved in the malpractice charge, and that a series of similar electoral acclamations both preceded and followed, he abandoned that tack and went sailing off in another direction.

    What about his excited claim that the BAVRC’s curriculum vitae was untrue? After implying it was so, he began to realize the paucity of his evidence – its complete lack, to be more blunt – and so Mike Ganzeveld then began soliciting the audience for assistance in proving his – as he then framed it – suspicion.

    MikeG’s had some weeks now to troll the Internet for evidence that the passage reproduced from Odom’s blog was false. Have you seen it posted yet?

    He’s an excitable kind of guy, MikeG; and as a result is one who as I have already pointed out, habitually winds up arguing with himself, unsuccessfully.

    Take the whole matter of the liberal-Detroit issue.

    Mike Ganzeveld was so upset and aggrieved over what I had said about the results of decades of unbroken liberal Democrat governance and rule in Detroit that he brooded for weeks on my remarks.

    Thus Ganzeveld, even on June 28, was saying

    ” That’s a reference to DNW’s favorite red-herring from a couple weeks ago.”

    So ostensibly Mike recalled what was said by me on the 9th.

    Let’s see then just how Mike Ganzeveld presents the crux of the argument that invites criticism of Progressive-Dem policy implementation:

    ” … Detroit is apparently the most librul city EVAR so since there’s a lot of unemployment, crime and black people there …”

    “… black people there …” Mike says. So as regards Detroit, “… all you have to do is invoke the name and it trumps any line of reasoning …”.

    Now just to keep things straight, let’s note the date on which Mike Ganzeveld introduces this race based theme. It’s, “28 June 2010, 8:54 pm”

    Is Mike is reproducing terms he thinks he has actually seen, or he is spinning, i.e., lying about what was said, for effect?

    Though we cannot say for sure why he wrote what he did, we can reproduce exactly what I wrote back on the previous June 9th.

    I wrote:

    “Seriously, the most purely liberal polity in the United States according to nonpartisan researchers is the City of Detroit. It is also the most functionally illiterate among cities with a native born population according to comparatively recent measurements. It is of course Democrat through and through.

    It is also of course, in the North.

    The school system is in shambles, the police department under years of Federal supervision, the Federal supervisor guilty of unethical personal involvement with the ex-mayor … the ex-mayor a felon, now in prison.

    Liberal Democrats have had unbroken control of all levels of city government for many decades now, and have had as complete a liberty to place their liberal values and liberal policies into practice as could be wished for in anything even resembling a civic democracy.

    The result is crime, ruin, structural decay, incompetent management at every level, felonious cronyism, civic corruption, bribery involving the last mayor and the wife of congressman John Conyers, and a current mayor who in his despair at servicing large parts of the present city, envisions turning huge swaths of it into fallow lands.

    The empirical proof of the result of Mike G’s principles lies in what he and his kind have built when they had it all their own way except to the extent of prohibiting those who could vote by migrating away, from doing so.”

    And MikeG says: the argument is because there are lots of “black people there”?

    At this point, what is Ganzey to do, now that he’s been seen constructing his interpretation of the reportage of Detroit’s failure around “black people”?

    Can he blame his introduction of black people, as blacks, on that BAVRC study to which I referred, but did not name?

    The BAVRC study does mention blacks. So, could Mike have possibly misunderstood what the study said, and then confused his own misunderstanding of the study results with my more narrow proposition concerning the failure of liberal governance and principles in the city of Detroit? No, he can’t.

    Why can’t he?

    Mike can’t blame his seeing blacks as the predicate problem, on some BAVRC mention of blacks: Because according to MikeG, he hadn’t even read the voter identification study at that point.

    Thus, with the admission below, Mike Ganzeveld accidentally proves that his claiming that Detroit was reflexively criticized based on the presence of “black people there” was the result Mike Ganzeveld’s own racial projection.

    “Mike G:
    I finally broke down and checked the devastating, non-partisan research provided by BACVR. Republican = Conservative and Democrat = Liberal. That’s genius, DNW. You could probably get a gig teaching Social Studies at Glenn Beck U. with brilliant statistical models like that.

    2 July 2010, 8:42 pm “

    What did Mike do, travel back in time in order to confuse what I wrote about liberalism in Detroit, with what the BAVRC reported about liberal voting patterns?

    No of course not. The son-of-a-bitch was simply engaging in his typical, par for the liberal course, pattern of deceptive rewriting. This time though, it exposed his own embarrassing and apparently racist assumptions.

    Henry, you two both fabricate material, and you both falsely attribute it to others.

    In Mike Ganzeveld’s case he has also inadvertently revealed his own race conscious bigotry and assumptions in his attempt to project them on to others.

    And yet you worthless clowns expect to be taken seriously as men of honor and good-will?

  304. Ropelight: Oh, okay…I guess I’ll just take your psychoanalytic reports on my condition on your word, or something. I mean, I keep asking you for explanations, but I think we all understand anymore that you don’t have any. You just assert, repeat, rinse, repeat.

    I mean, gee, ropelight…all you have to do is take a look at your posts to see the very picture of a guy too ignorant and batshit crazy to even be reasoned with. Time and time again I’ve asked you to try containing your approach to an actual model of discourse with point/counterpoint trials to determine who has more fallibility here. Reasonable people would agree, ropelight, that you’ve behaved in a rather unhinged manner, yet you’re just one of those guys who KNOWS WHAT HE KNOWS and people try to correct them and…there’s no exit to the stupid.

    But it’s good you’re trying to get back on topic, so let’s look at what you have:

    1. Ignore everything I’ve written first, about the relatively benign daily life at the Trinity church.
    2. Dredge up any grouchy black dude from the church who’s a little too shellshocked from being shit on all his life by white people and the US government.
    3. Imply Obama somehow believes the same thing.
    4. Call it news.

    It’s a political ad, ropelight. Not news. Stick on the tv in your smear commercials, but stop asking real journalists to cover it for you. You have your propaganda outlet, FOX, be happy with it. Spencer Ackerman was one voice among many, and a pretty opinionated one. Nobody took orders from Ackerman, okay? Yet your paranoid bullshit would have you render the entire Journolist nothing more than the Holy Grail of your Librul Media conspiracy theories (someone call blu!).

    The verdict from most centrist types and even Tucker Carlson’s man was that the Journolist was a sometimes interesting yet ultimately pretty banal place. But one guy mouths off and you’ve got your condemnation ready.

    Eh, it’s just so thin, so couched in your preconceived notions, ginned up with your ready-at-hand outrage over all things outrageous to your noble rightwinger mind.

    Ultimately, ropelight, your case is just too thin for what you want it to suggest or lead to. Guess what? Obama is not a scary black man.

    How controversial!

  305. “were” for “where”

    Say Dana: How are typos being corrected after posting? I’ve noticed that Perry has admitted to doing so; and rather than my experimenting around with every button above, how about just saying which one it is that one uses? LOL

  306. DNW:
    1. Why do you keep giving ropelight and I such a hard time over our fond habit of taking shortcuts and paraphrasing other people’s arguments in quotes? Once again: I was cool with it, he was cool with it…he forgot that he did it, and tried turning it into a talking point against me. You jumped in, then I proved that ropelight also did it, ropelight keeps blathering like an idiot about it, and you keep talking about me and not ropelight.

    I mean, what do you expect? Am I just supposed to forget the sequence of events? Who are you talking to? You’re just bullshitting for some imaginary audience. Write to me, DNW, not your fantasy librul demons.

    2. Mike has you dead to rights. But Detroit! What you received was an answer that required a particular skill: being able to hold onto more than one idea at a time. Mike has a point that voting Democrat doesn’t necessarily mean that Detroit was Noam Chomsky’s playground. But also, let’s say that one can call Detroit the product of years of liberal governance. If one is to then derive some overall statement about liberal policies based on Detroit…

    …mustn’t one also consider San Francisco? How about liberalism in Minneapolis?

    And if one wishes to contrast this with “conservative” governance, mustn’t one then look at the Red States and see where such direction has gotten us?

    But Detroit! Yes, you have one example of a really shitty place that is, whatever you call it, left.

    And?

    I can tell you’ve got a pretty big ego, DNW, so the prospect of not being a jackass is daunting to you. Confronting your weak positions must be difficult. Accepting that there are people smarter than you who are better at argumentation than you…is just common sense. Grow up, manchild! Allow yourself to be criticized.

    Because you screw up constantly. Just sayin’…

  307. one can almost smell the liberal progressive discontent in here. (not a rose-like smell either) miserable lot they are.

    they choose to stay in self imposed bondage and yet accuse others of oppression. i really dont need to understand it. i reject it.

    If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgement. He is not hampered by a sense of humour or by charity, or by the dumb certainties of experience. He is the more logical for losing certain sane affections. Indeed, the common phrase for insanity is in this respect a misleading one. The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason.

    G. K. Chesterton

  308. 1. Why do you keep giving ropelight and I such a hard time over our fond habit of taking shortcuts and paraphrasing other people’s arguments in quotes?

    It provides the illusion of potence to his ego.

  309. one can almost smell the liberal progressive discontent in here [yadda yadda yadda]

    Thank you for your contribution, assovertincups. Rest assured, we will take it with the full and due consideration your previous history of posting has shown it, and you deserve.

  310. Perry is a registered user with administrative access. When he is logged in, he has the option to edit comments. If you choose to register, I can upgrade your access to a level which will enable you to edit your comments.

  311. “one can almost smell the liberal progressive discontent in here. (not a rose-like smell either) miserable lot they are.

    they choose to stay in self imposed bondage and yet accuse others of oppression. i really dont need to understand it. i reject it. “

    And your evidence is what, assover? Or at least you could give an example! You never do!!

  312. Dana, does Perry have the ability to edit his own comments exclusively, or can he edit the comments of others as well, mine for example?

  313. Whistler, your dishonesty is again front and center, it’s contained within your opening sentence above. DNW has never complained that I mischaracterized anything he wrote, you know that to be true, yet you brazenly lie in order to provide the most transparent of covers for the unending repetition of your signature dishonest practise of fraudulently rephrasing or paraphrasing the comments of others. You even go so far as to make-up direct quotations and then attribute them to your opponents, complete with fraudulent marks of authenticity.

    That’s the lowest form of intellectual dishonesty, and it’s not tolerated in any respectable publication. It would get you flunked in nearly all college classrooms, and banned from every peer reviewed journal, and almost all edited publications. The only places I’ve ever seen it countenanced is in partisan political broadsheets, and on this Internet forum, I assume there are others that tolerate the practise, but I don’t comment on any of them. Why Dana allows you to sully his site is beyond my comprehension, CSPT would get more traffic, and attract more sophisticated comments if liars and incompetents like you were invited to spread your inequities somewhere else.

    You, Whistler, are a dishonest coward, one who refuses to deal with the expressed positions of your political opponents, so you routinely recast their comments, adding “negative implications” (which you’re already admitted doing) and then disingenuously constructing a response based on your own fabrication and not on the actual comment itself. That’s one of the textbook definitions of intellectual dishonesty.

    Further, you attempt to drag me down into your hole. I put quotation marks around the words “Right-on!” That is the sum of your evidence for your bogus claim that I share your guilt. Yet when examined, it proves to be another of your lies. I didn’t paraphrase your words, or rephrase them, nor did I misquote you.

    You have repeatedly alluded to it, rather than pointed it out explicitly, because your actual example of my imaginary misbehavior is so transparently bogus, that any clear explication of it would render your claims obviously fraudulent and laughable.

    Whistler, you’re a joke, a fool, and a liar, and you regularly prove it.

  314. ropelight: “Whistler, your dishonesty is again front and center, it’s contained within your opening sentence above. DNW has never complained that I mischaracterized anything he wrote…”

    I never said that, you rewriter.

    “You even go so far as to make-up direct quotations and then attribute them to your opponents, complete with fraudulent marks of authenticity.”

    You did it too, twice, you shifty bastard. Let me guess, a lecture on honesty approaches.

    Oh, wait, you’ve got excuses for the first time you did it, and you deny the second time, even though it’s in text here?

    Fake outrage. Rightwingers trade in it, live it, breathe it. You lose the argument, so you try to find something you can carp about, no matter how trivial. Even if you do the same thing too. You excuse it away, you ignore it, but you just keep repeating your bullshit in hopes of making it sound like reason. It’s not. It’s idiot talk.

    Every time you lose, ropelight, you grab that life preserver. Except, dipshit, you handed it to me and grabbed the albatross instead.

    Don’t you have any words for those who accuse others of the things they do themselves? C’mon, I know you can whip up a lecture for that dastardly idiot ropelight. The guy who thinks he has a GOTCHA, but got himself.

    Now, again, back to Jeremiah Wright, Rush Limbaugh, and other incendiary figures…c’mon, you can do it, ropelight! Stay on topic for once instead of sliming around.

  315. Whistler, your pathetic excuses are beyond ignorant they’re now either childishly deranged, or pathologically dishonest at a pedestrian level.

    You wrote to DNW, “Why do you keep giving ropelight and I such a hard time over our fond habit of taking shortcuts and paraphrasing other people’s arguments in quotes?”

    I responded, “DNW has never complained that I mischaracterized anything he wrote, you know that to be true, yet you brazenly lie in order to provide the most transparent of covers for the unending repetition of your signature dishonest practise of fraudulently rephrasing or paraphrasing the comments of others.”

    Now, Whistler you display the abject stupidity come back and say, “I never said that, you rewriter.”

    Well, If you didn’t write it, who did, your imaginary friend?
    ————-
    ***Insert standard lecture on Whistler’s Intellectual Dishonesty***
    ————-
    Next, you provide a link to one of your comments, wherein you quote me, and claim it represents a “second time” I “did it” according to you.

    Well, that’s all fine and dandy, but it’s not credible. You can’t use yourself as a citation for something you claim I wrote, assclown. Sheesh!

    Within the context of an extended series of back and forth comments on your serial abuse of quotes and paraphrases, Whistler, for you to cite yourself as the authority for what you allege is an example of my misbehavior is so laughable as to be beyond ridicule, it’s insanity cubed. Have you got a brain in your puddin’ head?

    Whistler, I think you’ve found your calling, your talent for self-humiliation is unique, now if only you can find an audience who’ll pay good money to watch you beclown yourself.

  316. DNW with another epic fail.

    Let’s see if we can unpack this whine-fest of a response. I’ll preserve his typos so we don’t have to listen to him banging on about being misquoted ad infinitum.

    It seems he did initially, as he noted: “Voting for John Kerry in 2004 doesn’t necessarily make you a “liberal”. ”

    And I’ll say it again: Voting for John Kerry in 2004 doesn’t compute to “liberal” city government policy nor does voting for a Democrat alderman necessarily ensure “liberal” policy decisions. The existence of a bureaucracy does not guarantee liberalism, DNW. But lets take you at your word and accept that there is an overall statement about liberal policies based on the city of Detroit. If so then why can we not consider San Francisco, Seattle or the liberalism in Minneapolis? All this time you’ve had the opportunity to explain why and, like every other time it was your turn to offer up a rebuttal, you’ve failed to do so. Actually, that’s not necessarily true because you did offer a rebuttal once. When asked why liberal cities like San Francisco and/or Minneapolis should be excluded from your formula of Liberal=Civic Decay you stated that they can’t be considered because they were merely college towns that excluded working people. It was quickly pointed out to you that working people did work in those cities and I believe that was where we left off last time. I described this as “tucking your tail between your legs” and you have since failed to respond. You lose.

    What about his excited claim that the BAVRC’s curriculum vitae was untrue? After implying it was so, he began to realize the paucity of his evidence – its complete lack, to be more blunt – and so Mike Ganzeveld then began soliciting the audience for assistance in proving his – as he then framed it – suspicion.

    So you’re not familiar with Joan Peters. Noted.

    Like all amateurs you found a study that appeared to affirm your dumb, ideologically driven conclusions and like all amateurs you assume that you don’t have to defend them. In fact, your tactic is to avoid defending it completely and when someone doesn’t arrive at those same dumb conclusions you throw a temper tantrum. Now you’re stuck pretending that I haven’t long agreed that the citizens of Detroit vote for Democrats. It’s a long shot but at this point you’ll take whatever chance you can get to play victim and sprint for the nearest exit.

    Mike Ganzeveld was so upset and aggrieved over what I had said about the results of decades of unbroken liberal Democrat governance and rule in Detroit that he brooded for weeks on my remarks.

    I “brooded for weeks”? I was out of the country and I stated quite clearly that I would be. The fact that you’ve been counting the days between my responses is creepy.

    Thus Ganzeveld, even on June 28, was saying ”That’s a reference to DNW’s favorite red-herring from a couple weeks ago.”

    So ostensibly Mike recalled what was said by me on the 9th.

    It was certainly ostensible to you. In terms most convenient to your foregone conclusions and comforting to your victimization complex, of course.

    Let’s see then just how Mike Ganzeveld presents the crux of the argument that invites criticism of Progressive-Dem policy implementation:

    ” … Detroit is apparently the most librul city EVAR so since there’s a lot of unemployment, crime and black people there …”
    “… black people there …” Mike says. So as regards Detroit, “… all you have to do is invoke the name and it trumps any line of reasoning …”.

    Is Mike is reproducing terms he thinks he has actually seen, or he is spinning, i.e., lying about what was said, for effect?
    Though we cannot say for sure why he wrote what he did,

    But I’m sure you’re willing to speculate!

    I wrote:
    “Seriously, the most purely liberal polity in the United States according to nonpartisan researchers is the City of Detroit. It is also the most functionally illiterate among cities with a native born population according to comparatively recent measurements. It is of course Democrat through and through.

    And MikeG says: the argument is because there are lots of “black people there”?
    At this point, what is Ganzey to do, now that he’s been seen constructing his interpretation of the reportage of Detroit’s failure around “black people”?

    Wait for it…

    Can he blame his introduction of black people, as blacks, on that BAVRC study to which I referred, but did not name?

    Wait for it…

    The BAVRC study does mention blacks. So, could Mike have possibly misunderstood what the study said, and then confused his own misunderstanding of the study results with my more narrow proposition concerning the failure of liberal governance and principles in the city of Detroit? No, he can’t.
    Why can’t he? Mike can’t blame his seeing blacks as the predicate problem, on some BAVRC mention of blacks: Because according to MikeG, he hadn’t even read the voter identification study at that point.

    No, DNW, I hadn’t read the entire study because as I mentioned at the time I was out of the country but before I left I did read the author’s conclusions from the study. I’ll list the title of the essay along with a link so you can absorb it completely:

    News Analysis: Being Liberal Now Means Being African American By Phil Reiff and Jason Alderman Special to the Planet

    No of course not. The son-of-a-bitch was simply engaging in his typical, par for the liberal course, pattern of deceptive rewriting. This time though, it exposed his own embarrassing and apparently racist assumptions.

    Awww. Poor DNW haz u hurt! He been dun meen 2!

    The authors of the study came to the assumptions that you are now desperately trying to feign indignity over. You might be able to get some sympathy from other white guys tired of being called racist for referring to a democratically elected president a “usurper” but you wont get any from me. There are plenty of shoulders to cry on out there in Virtual Dixie.

    You made the claim that Detroit is the most illiterate. It isn’t and you have failed to argue otherwise. You made the claim that it’s the most murderous. It isn’t and you have failed to argue otherwise. You made the claim that other liberal cities can’t be considered because they excluded working people. A statement so transparent ludicrous you, of course, have since failed to defend.

    Will you ever?

    “Apparently”, “ostensibly”, “implying”, “Though we cannot say for sure”, rhetorical question after rhetorical question followed by your own self-serving answers, DNW you are the fool’s fool stuck with nothing but your own assertions. Your conclusion is always your argument and when you can’t defend those conclusions, par for the right-winger course, you blame your failures on others.

    To quote HW:

    What you received was an answer that required a particular skill: being able to hold onto more than one idea at a time. Mike has a point that voting Democrat doesn’t necessarily mean that Detroit was Noam Chomsky’s playground. But also, let’s say that one can call Detroit the product of years of liberal governance. If one is to then derive some overall statement about liberal policies based on Detroit…

    …mustn’t one also consider San Francisco? How about liberalism in Minneapolis?

    And if one wishes to contrast this with “conservative” governance, mustn’t one then look at the Red States and see where such direction has gotten us?

    But Detroit! Yes, you have one example of a really shitty place that is, whatever you call it, left.

    And?

    Yes, AND?

  317. ropelight: Again, I’m befuddled. Can you possibly be that stupid?

    The comment I linked to contained a blockquote, of you, you idiot. If you were doubtful as to its authenticity, you could have searched the page and seen exactly where you said it, here.

  318. ropelight: And I know what I said. If you look at the end of that paragraph, I explicity state that DNW never mentions you by name. He mentions you by deed! For when he goes off on angry lectures about fake quotes, attempting to get your back before realizing you did the same thing and nobody cared), you are also guilty! Even though you are still attempting to deny responsibility, you must feel the sting inside.

    He should just lay off us, y’know. We who like to mess around and throw quote marks for effect around paraphrases. You and I.

    Now, DNW has tried to avoid condemning you because you hadn’t done it to him, but I pointed out the obvious fraudulence of that excuse.

    All the same, I certainly did not suggest you were taking DNW’s words and rephrasing them. That’s not in the passage you quote either. You made that shit up, you dirty crazy bastard.

    You are aware that you’re not excused for the act simply because you did it to me, right?

    Now, ropelight, you quote fabricator, you rewriter, you fraudulent paraphraser, take note of something else:

    You didn’t have anything to say that was on topic.

    Gotcha:)

  319. Ropelight writes:

    “Whistler, your pathetic excuses are beyond ignorant they’re now either childishly deranged, or pathologically dishonest at a pedestrian level.

    You wrote to DNW, “Why do you keep giving ropelight and I such a hard time over our fond habit of taking shortcuts and paraphrasing other people’s arguments in quotes?”

    I responded, “DNW has never complained that I mischaracterized anything he wrote, you know that to be true, yet you brazenly lie in order to provide the most transparent of covers for the unending repetition of your signature dishonest practise of fraudulently rephrasing or paraphrasing the comments of others.”

    Now, Whistler you display the abject stupidity come back and say, “I never said that, you rewriter.”

    Well, If you didn’t write it, who did, your imaginary friend?
    ————-
    ***Insert standard lecture on Whistler’s Intellectual Dishonesty***
    ————-
    Next, you provide a link to one of your comments, wherein you quote me, and claim it represents a “second time” I “did it” according to you.

    Well, that’s all fine and dandy, but it’s not credible. You can’t use yourself as a citation for something you claim I wrote, assclown. Sheesh!

    Within the context of an extended series of back and forth comments on your serial abuse of quotes and paraphrases, Whistler, for you to cite yourself as the authority for what you allege is an example of my misbehavior is so laughable as to be beyond ridicule, it’s insanity cubed. Have you got a brain in your puddin’ head?

    Whistler, I think you’ve found your calling, your talent for self-humiliation is unique, now if only you can find an audience who’ll pay good money to watch you beclown yourself.”

    It’s amazing that Henry Whistler persists in trying to shield himself behind you. Is his mother watching?

    Or does he really believe that I somehow incur an obligation to indict you for having mocked him with what you both apparently agree was an obviously a satirical remark, if I point out that Henry has falsified what I have said by authoring a supposed quote himself, and then attributing the authorship of it to me.

    I think we’ve covered this ground before.

  320. ” ‘Mike Ganzeveld was so upset and aggrieved over what I had said about the results of decades of unbroken liberal Democrat governance and rule in Detroit that he brooded for weeks on my remarks.’

    I “brooded for weeks”? I was out of the country and I stated quite clearly that I would be. The fact that you’ve been counting the days between my responses is creepy”

    I guess we are supposed to conclude from that that: 1, you don’t brood while you are out of the country, and 2, we are expected to notice when you are gone.

    That’s actually creepy Mike: that you imagine I notice where you have been or what you have been doing, or bother to note your announcement of it.

    No, I say that you had been brooding for a couple of weeks because that was how long back you implied your notice of the remark had been:

    Mike Ganzeveld referring to a couple of weeks old remark:

    ” That’s a reference to DNW’s favorite red-herring from a couple weeks ago.”

    Now maybe you just excitedly went back through weeks of old Common Sense Political Thought Commentary on your return, or whatever, and were then freshly stung by my old remarks. That might be.

    But then you have a previously demonstrated tendency to hoard remarks or characterizations I have made in the past, and bleed afresh over them from time to time.

    So, I guess people will just have to assess the evidence on the basis of your past behavior. Was Mike brooding, or had he just been catching up on back issues of Common Sense Political Thought … LOL

    But as for paying any attention to where you are or what you are doing? Sorry to quash those hopes of yours. You can bet you life and your fortune, that I don’t have the slightest interest in your life, your doings, or your fate.

    Trust me on this Mike, you’re just another in a line of neurotic-to-pattern Internet lefties who for some reason, feel obsessively compelled to repeatedly stick their annoying faces before the toe of my swinging rhetorical boot.

    I guess that is part of what makes you what you are, eh?

  321. You can’t be serious. Whistler, it’s not surprising at all why you initially cited yourself, instead of my actual comment. You’re dishonest at a core level, and it shows in most everything you write here.

    In isolation, your initial linked citation makes it seem possible the construction in quotes (“bashing lefties for poor science”) might somehow be twisted to support your contention. But on closer examination, that is, when seen in the clear light of my actual comment instead of in your dishonestly truncated excerpt, it proves to be nothing of the sort.

    The pertinent section of my original comment of 9 July at 11:04am is reproduced below:

    ropelight to Whistler, “It’s been a week now and you still haven’t faced up to the real issue. Your ducking and dodging, while entertaining, is really only an ongoing indictment of your initial false claims and phony posturing.

    Your (Whistler’s) “second paragraph above actually proves my assertions. You say, (Whistler says) “It’s been a long, long time since I posted the last relevant comment regarding Mann. And since I was already lambasting a lefty for poor science, your initial contention that I don’t bash lefties for poor science was already on pretty damn weak ground.” (end of Whistler’s quote)

    ropelight continued, “Since I already debunked your silly Mann claim above, I’ll expose your other obvious lie now. As anyone with eyes can see, my “initial contention” had nothing at all to do with “bashing lefties for poor science” or for any other reason. Your phony claim is nothing more than a red herring.”
    ——————-

    Whistler, you’re actually making the absurd claim that my construction ““bashing lefties for poor science” constitutes an abuse of your comment. Well, that’s just not so. You accused me of your own indelible brand of dishonesty and offered a self-serving link to your own comment as proof.

    Whistler, here’s what I wrote, “You even go so far as to make-up direct quotations and then attribute them to your opponents, complete with fraudulent marks of authenticity.”

    Whistler, you wrote back accusing me of doing the same thing, here are your exact words, “You did it too, twice, you shifty bastard. Let me guess, a lecture on honesty approaches.

    Oh, wait, you’ve got excuses for the first time you did it, and you deny the second time, even though it’s in text here? (here?) – was your link to your own comment)
    ——–
    Well Whistler I deny your “second time” too. It’s another of your transparent lies. In no rational way can my construction ““bashing lefties for poor science” be honestly construed as an example of making-up a fraudulent quotation and then attributing it to you. My construction adds and “ing” ending to your word “bash.” and I didn’t put those words in your mouth. Yet, that’s your “evidence” for my “second time” of supposedly misquoting you. Is it possible, Whistler, for you to make yourself any more ridiculous?

    As I have repeatedly pointed out, when I quote someone I use an introductory phrase such as “You said” or “Whistler wrote” both to identify the quote and to inform readers that a direct quotation follows. Examine my comments, see for yourself.

    Whistler, you’re desperate to escape the exclusive blame for your serial abuse of quotes and paraphrases, so you’re grasping at straws, and making a monumental fool of yourself in the process.

    Your claim to have been “lambasting a lefty for poor science,” is also a convenient misrepresentation. What you were actually doing was pounding on blu for her Trutherism. Which doesn’t quite elevate blu to the same level of endeavour as defending an internationally known Global Warming celebrity like Michael Mann, but that doesn’t stop you from attempting to push the the blatantly fraudulent notion of an equivalency. You bash blu, and you defend Mann, so you claim to be even handed in your criticisms. What rot!

    Whistler, you’re a contemptible fraud, nothing more.

  322. Whistler, you got bupkis. It’s nothing more that your standard lie dressed up for another blind date.

    DNW doesn’t mention me at all, either by name or by deed. You’re the one claiming I’m guilty of your abuses, not DNW.

    Whistler, you live in perpetual dishonesty, it’s part and parcel of your being, it permeates your soul, and it condemns you to live with it.

    And Whistler, if anyone deserves to live with you, it’s you.

  323. Mike Ganzeveld writes:

    “It seems he did initially, as he noted: “Voting for John Kerry in 2004 doesn’t necessarily make you a “liberal”. ”

    And I’ll say it again: Voting for John Kerry in 2004 doesn’t compute to “liberal” city government policy nor does voting for a Democrat alderman necessarily ensure “liberal” policy decisions. The existence of a bureaucracy does not guarantee liberalism, DNW …”

    Ok, your are saying then that Detroit is not a true Scotsman er … liberal Democrat …

    It’s just been governed by those who have professed themselves as such for most for most of 50 years.

  324. for most for most for most…Christ, you’re (sorry, -your- LOL) literally stammering online.

    But Detroit! 50 years! Lick my boot you liberal rapscallions! LOL. Rhetorical indeed.

    That failed liberals-r-racists offensive you tried to mount has got to sting.

  325. “No, DNW, I hadn’t read the entire study because as I mentioned at the time I was out of the country but before I left I did read the author’s conclusions from the study.

    Oh, is that what happened … you got the Berkely Daily Planet article instead of a reference to the PDF?

    That’s where you got the idea for blaming Detroit’s decline on blacks rather than on Democrat party rule and liberalism? And your mind was infected with this idea before you went abroad?

    Thanks for the link. Where is the part of the site where you got the time stamp that proves you were brainwashed into saying I said what I didn’t say??

  326. ropelight: You might have to explain this to me again.

    1. You bitched and moaned about me putting an accurate paraphrase in quotes.
    2. You created an accurate paraphrase of my words and put them in quotes.

    You geniuses have declared every simple and open explanation of my intent to be further evidence of my “dishonesty.” Now you’re yammering away with excuses about how you didn’t change my meaning and you only intended to recall my initial statement.

    What kind of shitty car salesman are you?

    You guys have been crystal clear: An arbitrary standard for ropelight and DNW, and an impossible one for people you disagree with.

  327. DNW: No, it’s “This is not the only Scotsman, and they still rate better than you English twats.”

    You don’t really understand the No True Scotsman, do you? That must be why you keep committing it, and then you mistakenly identify it.

  328. “You can’t be serious. Whistler, it’s not surprising at all why you initially cited yourself, instead of my actual comment.”

    Because I cited myself catching you making a false quotation. Moron.

    “In isolation, your initial linked citation makes it seem possible the construction in quotes (“bashing lefties for poor science”) might somehow be twisted to support your contention. But on closer examination, that is, when seen in the clear light of my actual comment instead of in your dishonestly truncated excerpt, it proves to be nothing of the sort.”

    You speak of truncation, you two-loaded-quotes-condemn-Mann spouting fool?

    Again, I ask, what happened to your sense of shame?

    And then on you go with a bunch of babble about how you weren’t really altering my meaning.

    You are one shifty dodgy slimy sonovabitch, ropelight. I know you have to keep saying it to me, but it’s as open as broad daylight: I’ve been right all along, you’ve been an idiot. I eschewed some proper punctuation yet held true to meaning. You’ve spent a month babbling about punctuation and sloppiness and fucking academic papers, yet now you claim you’re exempt because you merely eschewed proper punctuation and held true to meaning.

    A double standard is no standard at all, ropelight. Either you must never put made-up words quotes, or there are exceptions for purposes of laziness, shorthand, or some pointed comedy.

  329. DNW: You know, I have to apologize. You actually made your best point long ago, and I overlooked responding to it.

    You asked, “What if Yorkshire came in and read the quote and thought it was real?”

    Yes, of course there is a degree of removal from the thing. That’s why it’s fairly frowned upon in most formal conventions (ones where satire was permitted would be more loose). I wasn’t feeling formal.

    Yet Yorkshire would not suffer for the meaning, and thus not by much.

    I have asked you two lovely gents to try sticking to your accusations of fraudulent straw men and actually bother proving those. I’m sorry if my punctuation isn’t sitting in the right place at times, but on the other hand, go screw yourselves.

    But that was your best thought so far, DNW. All else has been wasted trying to explain away why you have one standard for ropelight and another for me.

    The goal posts always shift with you, and there’s never a true Scotsman.

  330. Heh…yeah, rhetorical does sum you up rather nicely, DNW. And here I thought you didn’t have an ounce of self-awareness. Detroit!

  331. Oh, I’m sorry Little Boots, you were going to say something about why Minneapolis can’t be considered liberal?

  332. Maybe when you’re done cleaning all of that dirt out of your mouth you can resume explaining to us why you think that working people don’t live in Minneapolis.

    Thanks for the link. Where is the part of the site where you got the time stamp that proves you were brainwashed into saying I said what I didn’t say??

    Oh, gee, I better get right on that!

    I wasn’t addressing you directly. I didn’t use quotation marks. I used language that the authors of your precious study used.

    Meanwhile, let’s say that one can call Detroit the product of years of liberal governance. If one is to then derive some overall statement about liberal policies based on Detroit mustn’t one also consider San Francisco? How about liberalism in Minneapolis?

    Still waiting, DNW.

  333. We’re at 372 posts on the subjuct. Since we meandered like a cow walking in the field, my eyes have done this:

    Then the party livened up in the last 200 posts of he said/she said/this quote/that quote that the participants look like this now:

    Then Whistler’s son asked if I read the quotes what would happen – this:

    So, I’m clueless at the moment.

  334. Seems you missed something. Once again you forgot to address what immediately followed your selective quotation:

    But lets take you at your word and accept that there is an overall statement about liberal policies based on the city of Detroit. If so then why can we not consider San Francisco, Seattle or the liberalism in Minneapolis? All this time you’ve had the opportunity to explain why and, like every other time it was your turn to offer up a rebuttal, you’ve failed to do so. Actually, that’s not necessarily true because you did offer a rebuttal once. When asked why liberal cities like San Francisco and/or Minneapolis should be excluded from your formula of Liberal=Civic Decay you stated that they can’t be considered because they were merely college towns that excluded working people. It was quickly pointed out to you that working people did work in those cities and I believe that was where we left off last time. I described this as “tucking your tail between your legs” and you have since failed to respond. You lose.

    You were saying?

  335. Whistler offers yet another lie to cover for his string of previous lies:

    You deal in fraudulent paraphrases, not accurate ones.

    Whistler, I complained about you making up fraudulent paraphrases, which included your own “negative implications,” then wrapping your straw-man in quotation marks and brazenly attributing the stinking pack of lies to your opponent as a direct quotation.

    You did it, you do both with and without quotation marks, you’ve admitted it, and now you’re defending yourself by falsely claiming others do it too.

    That’s a big fat lie you’re pushing, and doing so only reveals the depths of your dishonesty.

  336. Whister, you “eschew” proper punctuation so you can more easily twist true meaning. It’s what you do, it’s your stock-in-trade, it’s your signature tactic, it’s also why I called you a “One Trick Pony.”

    Your dishonesty is now part of your identity, you are becoming the sum of your frauds.

    Above, you defend your bizarre act of citing your own comment as an indictment of me, you write, “Because I cited myself catching you making a false quotation.”

    Yet, the quote you offer now isn’t what you cited then. It’s a quote from my comment above, 30 July at 4:47pm. You’re so dishonest, you can’t keep your story straight. It’s that old tangled web problem, you’re caught in the web of your own lies. That’s why I’ve pointed out that you’re often hoisted on your own petard.

    Whistler, you aren’t fooling anyone, except maybe yourself.

    Here’s what I had to say regarding your dishonesty, “Within the context of an extended series of back and forth comments on your serial abuse of quotes and paraphrases, Whistler, for you to cite yourself as the authority for what you allege is an example of my misbehavior is so laughable as to be beyond ridicule, it’s insanity cubed. Have you got a brain in your puddin’ head?”

    The two so-called “loaded-quotes” you mention aren’t mine either. They were part of an article which I included in my original comment to you about a month ago, on a different thread.

    Now, Whistler, I’ve saved the best for last, you actually wrote, “And then on you go with a bunch of babble about how you weren’t really altering my meaning.”

    Well, if saying “bashing” instead of “bash” is your big-time example, the pinnacle of proof, the evidence of my crime of “altering (your) meaning” is nothing but “a bunch of babble” then you take that one to the bank, or put it under your pillow and see what your fairy godmother will give you for it.

    Whistler, is it possible for you to make your more ridiculous than you already have?

    I think so, and I also think you’ll prove it.

  337. York, the Iowa Idiots want to change the topic from the Journalista’s conspiracy to manipulate news coverage to a focus on their pathetic excuses for dishonest comments.

    Ignore the idiot misdirection ploy.

  338. DNW, your feeble attempt to single out Detroit as a failure because of liberal government does not wash when it has been pointed out to you that there are other American cities, led by liberals, which have succeeded relatively well.

    You have lost the debate, but will never admit it. This is your ego getting in the way of reason. Now suck it up and move on, otherwise continue your obviously flawed contention, to your further intellectual embarrassment.

  339. york , it is rather convoluted. circumventing the truth is always a cluster*. but they still attempt it, coz the truth is their enemy…

    list of some ways to deny the truth or support a fallacy: not an exhaustive list though… liars are innovative and use mass amounts of energy to deny truth. they invent new tactics at every turn it seems

    http://www.logicalfallacies.info/ :)

  340. Mike sets up the answer:

    But lets take you at your word and accept that there is an overall statement about liberal policies based on the city of Detroit. If so then why can we not consider San Francisco, Seattle or the liberalism in Minneapolis?

    San Francisco: 49.66% white, 30.84% Asian, 7.79% black.
    Seattle: 67.1% white, 16.6% Asian, 10.0% black.
    Minneapolis: 70.2% white, 4.9% Asian, 17.4% black.
    Detroit: 12.26% white, 1.00% Asian, 81.55% black.

    The problem is less liberal politics than it is the black urban sub-culture. But, of course, it’s racist to point that out, isn’t it? It’s racist to discuss it or even consider it, isn’t it?

  341. Whistler, on rereading your comment in the light of a new day, it seems you fooled me too. I didn’t grasp your sequential use of quote/comment and so consequently inappropriately took you to task for using the wrong quote. Perhaps if you were more careful…and I wasn’t up so late. In any case, the oversight is mine.

    Please disregard my comments beginning at the 4th paragraph, “Yet, the quote you offer now…” and pick up again at the 6th paragraph, “Here’s what I had to say…”

  342. assover, you keep making these generalized remarks, without any specific examples attached, thus your so-called allegations are worthless. And I will add, that your side promotes convoluted reasoning, denial of the truth, and use of misleading tactics at every turn. Now isn’t that statement convincing?

  343. Look, everybody likes to assert things and say they’re right. Conventions of reason and logic exist to circumvent bullshit and get at something real and meaningful.

    The rightwingers in this forum have chosen weak positions to hold and then used every rhetorical tactic possible to keep us off topic. And assovertincups will approve of everything they do because he thinks they’re the good people. He has no real commentary, because to him it’s irrelevant.

  344. Please, chronological comment threads again…I keep scrolling up and finding new stupid from ropelight.

    Now ropelight tries asserting again that I’ve somehow altered his words in a distorted manner.

    Well, last month I asked how they were distorted.

    We’re still waiting for that answer.

    Ropelight, I’m frankly not interested in your excuses as to why your examples aren’t as bad as mine. You said mine were bad because I put quote marks around words that were not direct quotes. You said I paraphrased you accurately, but that wasn’t the issue. Now it’s not about the quote marks, it’s about the meaning.

    Of course it is, because you got caught.

    Nothing you’ve said matters, ropelight. You don’t seem to understand that. All your fake outrage is pure distraction, and I know it. You’re making excuses, but now you accuse me of making excuses to keep us off topic.

    Here’s my proposition, stated many times before: Drop the stupid quote distraction nonsense, and get back on topic! You lose on the quotes, so stop trying to grab life preservers and stick to real arguments.

  345. aotc, since the Leftists already have the one true religion, they will not allow reason or truth to interrupt their worship of bureaucratic conformity. Leftists bow down to big government, they see it as their living path to earthly salvation. They’re true believers.

    They’re like the faithful old horse in Animal Farm, they service the pigs, and they depend on the pigs to tell them which way the wind blows. The Journolistas work for the pigs too, true believers all.

  346. But, of course, it’s racist to point that out, isn’t it? It’s racist to discuss it or even consider it, isn’t it?

    Absolutely not. I’m more than willing to have that discussion and it’s the conclusion that the authors of the study came to which I quoted and linked to above. My contention is with DNW who, in opposition to what the authors of the BACVR study concluded, insists that the problem is merely “liberalism”. Your issue then is with Little Boots, not me.

    Little Boots stated that the only differentiating factor is that San Fran, Seattle, Portland, Minneapolis are college towns that excluded real working class people via high property values. Putting aside the obvious fact that working people do indeed live and work in these communities we are now supposed to believe that high property values are a symbol of liberal failure.

  347. The rightwingers in this forum have chosen weak positions to hold and then used every rhetorical tactic possible to keep us off topic.

    For instance, it has never occurred to Little Boots that he simultaneously regards Detroit as a symbol of liberal failure because of its low property values and that he regards San Francisco as a symbol of liberal failure because of its high property values.

  348. Whistler, my comment was on topic, you are one of the Leftists I was describing. Since I think of you as a little piglet, Iowa’s full of them, you’ll be able to find where on the symbolic sow’s belly you can suck for sustenance for your simple-minded socialist swill.

  349. When I think of “college towns,” I think of someplace like Lexington, Kentucky, where everything revolves around UK and a tenth of the population is either student or employed by UK. San Francisco and Minneapolis and Seattle are much larger, and don’t revolve around one college so much.

    Heck, you could consider any large town a college town in one regard, in that virtually every large town has a college of some sort there.

    But which came first: the high property values or the more responsible citizenry? When I look at Philadelphia, I see a major city, with dozens of colleges in and around (a lot of them are outside the city limits, but part of the metro area), but I see declining property values and a dwindling tax base because of the culture of the place. And, quite frankly, the problem culture is the ever-growing black inner-city culture, which is disastrous to the people in it. It promotes illegitimacy, it degrades education, and it looks on people who actually work for a living with a bit of disdain. In the meantime, doing time in prison actually gives you “street cred,” even though such permanently reduces your chances of ever getting a decent job.

  350. Dana, please see my comment on the “Pardon The Dust” thread. The events I describe may give you reason to examine your reliance on the honor system, or on the honor of one or more of the administrator’s you have trusted.

  351. you are just pissed off that i dont give you anything to specific to attack me …. :)

    i will give you an “a” for effort though.

  352. liberal progressivism is a secular religion. removing god or higher power as authority and putting themselves in his/it’s place.

    funny you should mention “true believers”

    eric hoffers book “true believers” is an eye opener. and hoffer was secular!

  353. This is no. 399. Next poster is 400 and wins a free posting. I see three versions of posting here. 1) is a straight opinion based on one’s ideology and life’s lessons. An example would be me and what it means to have one leg and get around for what passes for normal. 2) is an opinion based on a fact. Now it’s your opinion and your interpretation. and 3) is Perry’s favorite, the citation to base factual data. I think it would be best if one identifies the basis of their argument on these three. I’m sure there are others. And as an administrator/author, I could, but I will not change anyone’s post unless asked. I have gone back after posting my own to correct a spelling error, but not to change a thought.

  354. we are all boxes of text, with our email addresses as identifiers to all administrators…
    evidently.

    if you were after a more ideological explanation regarding authenticity, sorry cant help you …

  355. assovertincups says:
    1 August 2010 at 4:48 pm (Edit)
    we are all boxes of text, with our email addresses as identifiers to all administrators…
    evidently.

    Like AOTC says we administrator do know the email addresses. As you all leave it to the discrection of the administrators and authors to leave this information private, and not to go after someone on the side, we also expect honesty in the email addresses. This Blog (our email group refers to it as the blob) only works on an honor system. Once someone knowingly changes anothers post, they should lose administrative powers.

    (And AOTC was No. 400 on this thread and he wins a free posting)

  356. hey perry, you burning up the google bandwidth with my email address yet? did you share that info with that crazyf*** whistler or your ideological equal, pho?

    i’d put a “lol” as i customarily do ,but frankly, its just not that funny.

  357. so , you are the blog police after all. ive been out of line by not discussing things the way “you do it around here”.

  358. liberal progressivism is a secular religion. removing god or higher power as authority and putting themselves in his/it’s place.

    Assinhead is a reptilian alien from Tau Ceti, here to eat babies and poison the water supply.

    Gosh, it *is* easier to make unsupported crap assertions instead of using reason or logic. Thanks, asshat.

  359. Hoffer’s book is important to the understanding of political and religious obsession especially, and for other forms of possession by evil spirits. His insights reveal the motivating forces at work among many of the fools and misfits who comment on the web.

  360. You really have to get over your obsession with me and my body parts, assinhead. It’s getting pretty creepy, not to mention gay.

  361. read hoffers book. i referenced it for you. if you are a librarian it ought to be available to you handily. if you want it explained to you, get a tutor.

    you dont want it explained to you. you would rather attack me. have at it.

    hoffer was well respected, agnostic/atheist/secular and had a wisdom that is obviously absent in you. reagan presented him with the presidential metal of freedom in 83. naturally you will have total contempt for him and his writings. you see i know you dont have contempt for me or how i say things but rather the things i say. :)

    for a simple shit i piss you off a lot. :)

  362. really, you need be a little more sensitive about gay issues. people might think you were gay bashing or something. and really you have no idea if am gay or not and if i am , do you have a problem with that?

  363. assover: “hey perry, you burning up the google bandwidth with my email address yet? did you share that info with that crazyf*** whistler or your ideological equal, pho?

    i’d put a “lol” as i customarily do ,but frankly, its just not that funny.”

    As I said before, I live up to Dana’s reliance on honor, so the answer obviously is no, and no to ropelight as well.

    I find it mildly amusing that you and ropelight both are exhibiting paranoia, with NO evidence, none, natta. This is ridiculous! People who do this are usually exhibiting mistrust of themselves, in other words, indicating how they might misbehave if given equivalent access. Do you trust yourself, assover? A little introspection is in order here!

  364. really you have no idea if am gay or not

    The fascination with my asshole, and whether it is welcome or not, seems to be a good indication, don’t you think?

  365. Oh, and on a related note, new developments in the charges against Al Gore:

    In any case, this one appears to be over. The prosecutor has closed the inquiry issuing the following reasons:

    1. Ms. Hagerty, who has red hair, states she called Mr. Gore immediately following the alleged incident and told him to “dream of redheaded women” seemingly in contradiction to her assertions that she was terrified of Mr. Gore. Two days after the alleged incident Ms. Hagerty also sent an email to the Hotel Lucia stating that she appreciated the business referrals she received from the hotel. She did not mention any problem with Mr. Gore;

    2. Witnesses at the hotel where the alleged incident occurred state they do not remember seeing or hearing anything unusual—directly contradicting Ms. Hagerty’s published claim in the July 12, 2010 of the National Enquirer that she was “shaking and in shock” and “rushed down the hall and to the lobby where the front desk clerk noticed she was upset was asked if she was OK”;

    3. Forensic testing of pants retained by Ms. Hagerty as possible evidence are negative for the presence of seminal fluid;

    4. Ms. Hagerty has not provided as repeatedly requested medical records she claims are
    related to the case;

    5. Ms. Hagerty has also failed to provide other records related to the case;

    6. Ms. Hagerty failed a polygraph examination;

    7. It appears Ms. Hagerty was paid by the National Enquirer for her story; and

    8. Mr. Gore voluntarily met with detectives and denied all of the allegations.

    Now, shall we go back over the comments threads and see what was said about Al Gore when this “scandal” was first floated by the wingnut blogosphere?

  366. perry, you accused rope of some pretty hardcore stalking without evidnece and you sir are the one with our email addresses. uthe one who

    for a system administrator, your being amused when someone asks a question about who has access to their email is not really consistent with high integrity.

    are you the one who gave me a log in password that doesn’t work?

  367. al gore is a condescending puke. :)

    there pho, add that comment to your compilation.

  368. Controversy proves collusion among liberal journalists

    Glenn Harlan Reynolds
    Knoxville News Sentinel
    Posted August 1, 2010 at midnight

    Conservatives have long claimed that the media is biased against them and tries hard to shape stories in ways that help Democrats and hurt Republicans. This has sometimes been dismissed as paranoia – as in my former MSNBC co-blogger Eric Alterman’s book, “What Liberal Media?” – but it turns out to be truer than they imagined.

    If this were a Hollywood movie, there would have been clandestine meetings in basements or bars or parking garages. But since it was real life, it was just an e-mail list, called “JournoList,” set up by the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein. It had over 400 members, including reporters at top publications like the Post, the New York Times, Newsweek, Politico, PBS, Time, etc.

    Like most email lists, much of the content was profane or sophomoric – like Alterman’s reference to Bush supporters as “f***ing Nascar retards,” public radio producer Sarah Spitz’s expressed desire to stand by laughing as Rush Limbaugh expired from a heart attack, or blogger Spencer Ackerman’s fantasies about shoving conservative pundits through plate-glass windows. Such explosions might raise doubts about these figures’ objectivity or ability to cover news honestly, but overall they are more embarrassing than incriminating.

    More of this story here:

    http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2010/aug/01/controversy-proves-collusion-among-liberal/

  369. assover, I have no idea what you are talking about. I have nothing more to do with the administration of this blog than to instantly edit my own mistakes and to retrieve comments from moderation for all of you. The rest of it is in Dana’s hands where it belongs. You and ropelight are going nuts over all this, with no evidence of wrongdoing whatsoever. Calm down and get back to your commenting as per usual. And yes, the way you two are behaving is so weird as to be somewhat amusing.

  370. No surprise, assover, that such a comment like that would come from you, with no evidence, no discussion, nothing but a stupid statement, as we’ve become accustomed to from you.

  371. Yorkshire, are you trying to make the case that this is an isolated case in which only ‘Libruls’ participate. I am willing to speculate that an equivalent practice exists on all sides of the political spectrum. For heavens sake, you even did some undercover communicating yourself, to inform others of your ilk on here of anti-Dem propaganda that can be used on here. If you would do this, you can be damned sure that others on your side can and do do it as well. And incidentally, I personally am unaware of any such clandestine communications amongst us ‘Libruls’ on this blog. Some of you people behave like bullies, instead of depending on your own powers of persuasion/debating skills/knowledge to make your points convincingly.

  372. Perry speculating wrongly again:

    Yorkshire, are you trying to make the case that this is an isolated case in which only ‘Libruls’ participate.

    Right after JuornoList expire, the Cabalist was started.

    I am willing to speculate that an equivalent practice exists on all sides of the political spectrum. For heavens sake, you even did some undercover communicating yourself, to inform others of your ilk on here of anti-Dem propaganda that can be used on here. If you would do this, you can be damned sure that others on your side can and do do it as well

    And again you’re speculating as to what went on. You have NO idea of the facts and you’re working on ROMA Data!

  373. Yorkshire wrote:

    Perry speculating wrongly again:

    Yorkshire, are you trying to make the case that this is an isolated case in which only ‘Libruls’ participate.

    Right after JuornoList expire, the Cabalist was started.

    I am willing to speculate that an equivalent practice exists on all sides of the political spectrum. For heavens sake, you even did some undercover communicating yourself, to inform others of your ilk on here of anti-Dem propaganda that can be used on here. If you would do this, you can be damned sure that others on your side can and do do it as well

    And again you’re speculating as to what went on. You have NO idea of the facts and you’re working on ROMA Data!

    Speaking of “again”. This part of your posting bears repeating yet again, and again …

    “Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”

  374. mike g says:
    31 July 2010 at 12:16 am

    Seems you missed something. Once again you forgot to address what immediately followed your selective quotation:

    But lets take you at your word and accept that there is an overall statement about liberal policies based on the city of Detroit. If so then why can we not consider San Francisco, Seattle or the liberalism in Minneapolis? All this time you’ve had the opportunity to explain why and, like every other time it was your turn to offer up a rebuttal, you’ve failed to do so. Actually, that’s not necessarily true because you did offer a rebuttal once. When asked why liberal cities like San Francisco and/or Minneapolis should be excluded from your formula of Liberal=Civic Decay you stated that they can’t be considered because they were merely college towns that excluded working people. It was quickly pointed out to you that working people did work in those cities and I believe that was where we left off last time. I described this as “tucking your tail between your legs” and you have since failed to respond. You lose.

    You were saying?”

    In the broader sense of “saying”, I was saying that your attempt to treat a decades long Democrat managerial reign as if it were some static attribute, is as ridiculous now as when you first tried the ploy.

    I was also saying that it was others you needed to learn to quote accurately; not yourself.

    And of course I had been saying that if you still had trouble finding my original early June remarks which you apparently carried clasped to your breast during your trip, only to deliberately misrepresent them via insinuation – and in racialist terms to boot – when you came back, then I would produce those original remarks for you.

    And I did reproduce them. And you still cannot seem to come up with an accurate quote of them.

    And I was saying that Detroit has in fact been governed by Democrats and liberals for nearly 50 unbroken unimpeded years: not, that I wished you to hypothetically grant the proposition Detroit was liberal; and then ask why liberalism’s shamanism, lack of efficacy in, and redounding destructive power upon Detroit (within the context of previously stated larger rule-of-law and political limitations) has not, or has not yet, been duplicated in all other large polities where a similar species of ideological blight has struck

    And I was about to say that if your persistence in this line demonstrated that you wished to move from consideration of the phenomenon of an epically failed liberal governance – which I was noting – to staking your own claim that as an “overall statement about liberal policies” one should attribute the historical prosperity of, say, San Francisco, to the causative agency of liberal Democrat governance, then you should feel perfectly free to make your case.

    For, if you do wish to advance the proposition that Democrat managerial liberalism and its therapeutic practices and political values is the inevitable cause of prosperity there and everywhere else it is tried, we can consider your claim.

    There are perfectly respectable logical schema – dating back to Cohen and Nagel – for judging just such a proposition, asserting just such a universalized causal claim.

    But you are going to have to unambiguously make the arguments you want to make; and not expect me to be dragged through your cloud of unknowing into somehow doing it for you.

  375. Mike Ganzeveld says regarding the racial language he attributed to me:

    “I wasn’t addressing you directly. … I used language that the authors of your precious study used.”

    That’s just another bit of conscious deception and attempted misdirection from you MikeG.

    For while you are now claiming that what you were then overtly describing as my “red-herring” language, was actually attributable to the authors of my so-called “precious study”; you originally never mentioned having read a study, nor having read anything by the authors of a study (which I did not name); nor did you attribute the expressions which I certainly had never used, to them.

    Quotation marks or no, you simply attributed them to me, as my “red-herring”

    Thus, you wrote on June 28 in response to someone else’s reply to your “Also Detroit” remark,

    That’s a reference to DNW’s favorite red-herring from a couple weeks ago. You see, Detroit is apparently the most librul city EVAR so since there’s a lot of unemployment, crime and black people there all you have to do is invoke the name and it trumps any line of reasoning …

    Nothing there from you Ganzeveld, even hinting about other “authors” of some “precious”, (or any other) study as being responsible for the racial language you took the trouble to call out as my “red-herring”.

    In fact, even at that late date on the 28th, you indicate that you hadn’t even read the study which I had never named.

    And when you finally did read the study, how did you characterize the it?

    You said on July 2nd regarding the study:

    “I finally broke down and checked the devastating, non-partisan research provided by BACVR. Republican = Conservative and Democrat = Liberal.”

    The racial language is yours Mike. You clearly and falsely attributed it to me in either an act of unconscious projection, or in an act of deliberate lying malice.

    And now, in order to cover up your lack of ethics and character, you blame your remarks attributing this racial “red-herring” to me, on an article about the study you supposedly had read before leaving.

    You expect to be believed.

    Why believe your new excuse, when we have the evidence of what you actually said and did at the time?

    Ganzeveld on June 28:

    ” “DNW’s favorite red-herring from a couple weeks ago. You see, Detroit is apparently the most librul city EVAR so since there’s a lot of unemployment, crime and black people there …”

    Ganzeveld on July 2:

    “I finally broke down and checked the devastating, non-partisan research provided by BACVR. Republican = Conservative and Democrat = Liberal. “

  376. Meanwhile, let’s say that one can call Detroit the product of years of liberal governance. If one is to then derive some overall statement about liberal policies based on Detroit mustn’t one also consider San Francisco? How about liberalism in Minneapolis?

    Still waiting, DNW.

  377. Right…just how you listed a cut and pasted quote wholesale from an eBay listing yet attributed it to an unnamed source that you insinuated was a “blogging critic”.

    Pot meet kettle.

    I read the author’s conclusions and my language was consistent with the study. Your ploy at playing the victim has failed and now you expect me to go back and find time/date stamps to prove that I’m not guilty. You lose.

    Oh, btw…do you still think working people do not live in Minneapolis? You’ve done a fine job so far of slithering away from that comment. Why the avoidance?

  378. mike g says:

    3 August 2010 at 8:40 pm

    Meanwhile, let’s say that one can call Detroit the product of years of liberal governance. If one is to then derive some overall statement about liberal policies based on Detroit mustn’t one also consider San Francisco? How about liberalism in Minneapolis?

    Still waiting, DNW.”

    It’s obvious that you still cannot come to terms with what I originally and actually wrote. Which is why we have you persistently asking questions along the following lines:

    If one is to make generalized statements about the curative powers and efficacy of Progressive-Democrat Shamanism and dietary regimes upon those naifs and zealots over whom they have near-hypnotic control, shouldn’t one include in the evaluation of such treatments, their effects on still relatively hale subjects (who may be able to draw sustenance and support from outside sources? LOL)

    - See, the redistributive fraud didn’t kill him … yet -

    Meanwhile, let’s say that what you really want to do is to argue some proposition that you want to argue; rather than contest the original observation I made about Detroit being under the control of, and the current product of, Liberal Democrats.

    That if you recall was the observation which sent you into your frenzied predeparture tailspin; the observation which I have since repeatedly quoted, and the observation which you have since repeatedly failed to acknowledge.

    If you have your own argument to make about, say San Francisco, which you believe will demonstrate that the populace of Detroit has not really voted into power and then been governed by self-proclaimed Liberal-Democrats all these years with the results we currently see, then feel free to make it.

    Maybe they were never real Democrat-Progressives, eh?

    And you still have not produced the quote where I supposedly said that working class people cannot afford to live in “Minneapolis”.

  379. ” … just how you listed a cut and pasted quote wholesale from an eBay listing yet attributed it to an unnamed source that you insinuated was a “blogging critic”. “

    It’s unclear what you actually wanted to say there. But taking what you did actually say, here’s the response: In order for your claim of a direct and wholesale quoting of e-Bay to even have been possible at the time I recently wrote, and sourced the material to one of your fellow bloggers, the e-bay listing from years ago would have had to have still been up.

    Yet, you had yourself after busily scanning the ether, while not-brooding during a little quality family time, concluded the text was sourced through blogger Eric Odom.

    Your subsequent complaint there, was based upon my using the term “had to say” in reference to his material. Had I used a reference term presumably more laudatory such as, “had to report”, your complaint would have been instantly seen as patently ridiculous as it is groundless.

    And then too, despite your broadband appeal for assistance in proving your suspicion (as you later tempered it) that the text was substantively false, you have still not presented that evidence.

    So now, Ganzeveld, having been caught out lying and engaging in a race based gambit built around a supposed “red-herring” attributable to me, you think it will aid your cause to shift away from your earlier accusation that I misquoted Odom, quoting; to a new accusation, that I took the passage directly from e-Bay.

    That’s simply silly. But caught out as you were in your race baiting falsehood and attribution manipulations, you probably see painting me with your sins as your best bet. It’s the liberal way, as we saw with Henry Whistler’s lame attempt to ethically shelter himself behind accusations he made against ropelight.

    It’s not your best bet. It’s a dead end. In fact you don’t have an honest bet here in any event.

    You have been caught misattributing a race baiting phrased “red herring” to me, when I had never mentioned either race, or even the name of the study that had characterized Detroit as the most liberal large polity in the U.S.

    And when, Ganzeveld, you finally broke down much later and admitted that you had just read the study I never named, you repeated nothing along your earlier race baiting lines. You merely scoffed that Democrat equalled liberal in the author’s estimation.

    No Ganzeveld, it was only when you were earlier attributing a proposition, or red-herring as you termed it, directly to me, that you referred to blacks as being at the core of it.

    Shows pretty clearly what you are made of.

    By the way, if you wish to go back to an abandoned project, in order to try and prove that the substance of the passage which I had quoted from Odom’s blog was false, feel free.

    It’s your obsession, it’s your time. No skin off my nose as they say. I merely threw one blogger’s material concerning the Bay Area Center in the face of another blogger’s ad hominem style attack on it.

    Fret the issue and surf the net all you like.

    Maybe you can do some research during dinner tonight, and inform Eric Odom of the results.

    In the meantime Ganzeveld, enjoy the shame that rightfully accrues to you as a demonstrated liar and closet racist.

  380. Meanwhile, let’s say that what you really want to do is to argue some proposition that you want to argue; rather than contest the original observation I made about Detroit being under the control of, and the current product of, Liberal Democrats.

    Maybe they were never real Democrat-Progressives, eh?

    Still pretending that I don’t think that Detroiters vote for Democrats, I see. We’ve gone over this many times, Little Boots. I acknowledged it. I was mistaken in doubting that there was the slightest bit of party impurity amongst the falling bricks of Detroit-land. But lets not forget that you made the false claim that Detroit was the most murderous, ignorant and illiterate to try and buttress your argument. That didn’t work out so well. And still, your axiomatic statement about Detroit doesn’t explain the success of similarly liberal communities or is it consistent with the conclusions drawn from the study you advertised. The best you’ve done is to call these cities “college towns” to which even Dana scoffed at. To go deeper would mean having to explain actual policy decisions which, I can only assume by your stubborn adherence to your simplistic model, that you’re entirely unfamiliar with. And, since you can’t base an argument on policy, you’ve chosen to camp out in the realm of armchair psychoanalysis and make believe scenarios. But if you want liberal to equal Detroit then I suppose I can live with Mississippi equaling conservative.

    Your subsequent complaint there, was based upon my using the term “had to say” in reference to his material. Had I used a reference term presumably more laudatory such as, “had to report”, your complaint would have been instantly seen as patently ridiculous as it is groundless.

    Of course! If you hadn’t have written what you wrote and I interpreted it the way that you in hindsight intended then you wouldn’t be falsely attributing quotes!

    That’s simply silly. But caught out as you were in your race baiting falsehood and attribution manipulations, you probably see painting me with your sins as your best bet. It’s the liberal way, as we saw with Henry Whistler’s lame attempt to ethically shelter himself behind accusations he made against ropelight.

    The Mind of the Liberal(tm). You frequently go off the reservation trying to sound like a good writer but the above points out one of your base, simian characteristics; your tendency to blame all of your perceived grievances on a singular agent or force. It’s an intellectual (possibly physiological) defect amongst the mouth-breathers. We’re all victims of your fevered amygdalae.

    “But what about … but what about this town, or that town?”, some may wish to ask. And then they hopefully point to college towns or places where even working class people have been progressively excluded from dwelling by the cost of living. That then, is to be taken as the program and policy of successful, therapeutic, corrective, liberalism? To exclude the very people it pretends it will help through its social management policies, and then proclaim success? LOL

    Spin away! Spin away!

    So, you broached the subject but couldn’t close the deal because you, maybe (LOL!), realized that it was a dead end. Maybe your prostate meds make you sleepy? 50 years!

    And when, Ganzeveld, you finally broke down much later and admitted that you had just read the study I never named, you repeated nothing along your earlier race baiting lines. You merely scoffed that Democrat equalled liberal in the author’s estimation.

    Ummmmmmmm….so? I wasn’t obligated to apologize for calling you a bigot when I wasn’t. As for the scoffing at the Democrat = liberal I was referring to your interpretation. Hence the crack about teaching junior high social studies or whatever. I can’t remember. I’m sure you’ve got the quote hot-keyed.

    Maybe you can do some research during dinner tonight, and inform Eric Odom of the results.

    I’m sure he’d appreciate a proper citation in light of your past abuses.

    It’s your obsession, it’s your time. In the meantime Ganzeveld, enjoy the shame that rightfully accrues to you as a demonstrated liar and closet racist.

    And you certainly are strange. Are you sure I’m not trying to sound like John Wayne pretending to understand machine tools? I’m getting your projections confused.

Comments are closed.