Liberals play ostrich with facts they don’t like, and American discourse suffers
Bookworm on Mar 22 2011 at 4:38 pm | Filed under: Leftist morality, Media matters
The other day, Mr. Bookworm asked me to tell him “what the right wing wackos were talking about.” Among other things, I mentioned that people were interested in the fact that Hillary had recently announced that she would not return as Secretary of State for Obama’s second term, leading to speculation that she was planning a primary challenge.
“That’s not true,” he exclaimed. “That’s just another of those conspiracy theories that get your little blogosphere so excited.”
Since we were in the car, I mildly responded that it was true and changed the subject. He was troubled, though. That night, after I’d already turned my computer, he told me I was clearly (a) wrong or (b) making things up or (c) in thrall to a conspiracy theory, because his computer search didn’t turn up any mention of Hillary quitting her job.
“That’s peculiar,” I said. “Give me your computer and I’ll find it for you in a second.”
His response startled me: “No. I’m not going to let you use my computer to waste time looking for something that’s not true.”
“Well, if I find it, then it is true and I haven’t wasted time.”
“No. It’s not there so don’t look.”
Next morning, when I turned on my computer, it took me about 1 minute to find a CNN article entitled “Clinton says no to second run” (with a permalink giving the alternative title as “Clinton-running-for-president”). The text was straightforward:
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer she does not want to serve a second term as secretary of state or run for president of the United States.
[snip]
Q- If the president is reelected, do you want to serve a second term as secretary of state?
No
I wasn’t wrong; I didn’t make it up; there was no conspiracy theory. On a liberal venue, in an on-air interview with a liberal media personality, Hillary explicitly announced her upcoming retirement.
I actually wasn’t going to write about this little interaction with Mr. Bookworm, because although silly, it was no big deal. We go through this all the time. I say something, he challenges my veracity, and then he refuses to look at the proof I send him. I thought it was just one of his little eccentricities. I only mention it now because a Lee Stranahan post establishes that Mr. Bookworm is not alone. His behavior appears at the highest echelons of liberal thinking.
Lee Stranahan, as you may recall, is the long-time, self-admitted, well-known Progressive who wrote a HuffPo column calling out the MSM on its hypocrisy regarding civility:
Why isn’t the mainstream media talking about the death threats against Republican politicians in Wisconsin?
[snip]
Burying the death threat story is a clear example of intellectual dishonesty and journalistic bias.
Don’t take my word for it, though. Look into the story of death threats in Wisconsin yourself and see who has been covering the story and who hasn’t. Try for a moment to see this story from the perspective of those who you may disagree with on policy and ask yourself how this looks to them. Can you blame them for feeling that way? Then take a few seconds and read those questions I asked you at the beginning of this article.
And then ask why progressives shouldn’t expect more from our media — and ourselves — than we expect from our political adversaries.
What I’ve since learned is that Stranahan, rather than sparking a wave of self-analysis and honesty from his fellow Progressives, has been subject to opprobrium for having developed a working relationship with Andrew Breitbart. He’s a sell-out, they say, making his criticism completely irrelevant.
Stranahan, in response to these attacks, has written a post explaining why he ended up in a working relationship with Breitbart, despite the fact that Stranahan hasn’t abandoned his Progressive principles. Stranahan never expected to like Breitbart. Their relationship started after Stranahan watched, and was offended by, the media ridicule directed at Jon Stewart for his Rodney King moment in Washington, D.C., (a “can’t we all get along” speech that Stewart’s subsequent outings on his show proved he didn’t mean).
Stranahan decided to “get along” by interviewing the most reviled conservative media figure. He picked Breitbart. I’ll let Stranahan explain the rest:
So I thought about writing a HuffPost piece about this idea that the left was missing the entire point of what Stewart was trying to say. I wanted to interview someone, so I tried to think of the most reviled person in the world by left and Andrew Breitbart sprung.to mind. I only know a little about him. I remembered he was involved the Shirley Sherrod thing and that ACORN thing but my knowledge of these events was pretty shallow. I knew he was called a racist, a homophobe and every other name under the sun. But I also remembered something I’d seen months earlier.
It was an appearance on Good Morning, America with Andrew Breitbart and Eric Boehlert. I’d watched it because I knew Eric Boehlert, who’d written about me and the John Edwards story in his book Bloggers on the Bus. So when I watched, I was a lot more inclined to agree with Boehlert than Breitbart.
There’s a part in that segment where Breitbart discusses the story about racial epithets being yelled at members of the Congressional Black Caucus by members of the Tea Party; a story that was widely reported in the left wing blogosphere. It was so widely reported, I just assumed it was true but here was this Breitbart guy saying he had video tapes that proved the incident didn’t happened as described. Okay, that was interesting – maybe I had the story wrong and this Breitbart guy seemed eager to prove it,
And then – on live television– Eric Boehlert & George Stephanopoulos totally blew off Breitbart’s offer to show them the video tapes.
That stuck with me for months. The story was either true or not and here was someone eager to get to the truth and the liberal host and other liberal guest weren’t a bit interested. And it seemed so dishonest. I knew if they thought the video proved their case, it’d be shown all day and night. It didn’t make me proud to be on the same side ideologically as Boehlert and Stephanopoulos.
(You should read the rest of Stranahan’s post, but that’s the point I wanted to make for purposes of my own post.)
For Stranahan, this was a light bulb moment. For me, it’s my life. Mr. Bookworm is the most common culprit only because he’s the one with whom I most frequently converse. But I see the same thing with other liberals: If it challenges their dogma, they don’t want to know. They understand that bubbles only work if no one pokes them with a sharp object, and facts are the ultimate sharp object. (Or, as John Adams more eloquently said, “facts are stubborn things.”) They’re not going to let anything near them that might puncture their tidy ideological bubble.
I’m not optimistic about reasoned political debate in our country if one side of the debate, after hurling insults and misinformation, then sticks its collective fingers in its collective ears, and hollers “Nyah, nyah, nyah. I caaaan’t hear you.” It’s not that we’re talking different languages or different values. It’s that, thanks to the ostrich media’s (thankfully weakening) stranglehold on the dissemination of information, we’re not actually talking at all.
Email This Post To A Friend
109 Responses to “Liberals play ostrich with facts they don’t like, and American discourse suffers”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The other day, Mr. Bookworm asked me to tell him “what the right wing wackos were talking about.”
Get asked a loaded question by a lib and they should make plans for a medic to attend to their wounds with the truth.
Is he always this charming and glib? Personally, I would have printed out the interview, taken it to Kinko’s have in blown up to poster size, then have additional prints made into napkins with a matching tablecloth and served some version of a crow pie for dessert.
I’m developing a theory that Mr. Bookworm enjoys being kneed in his sensitive regions.
Mr. Bookworm is a provocateur. If I remember to keep my temper, he stops saying things.
Oh, brother, what is it with these people? They are the most narrow-minded bunch of fools that I have ever seen. I “liked” my congressman on Facebook – it’s “Baghdad Jim” McDermott – and I also liked something called the Seattle Coffee Party which is supposed to be a counter to the Tea Party. When I dare to support conservative values on either venue, I get personal attacks, unresponsive responses, and, in the last instance, told indirectly to shut up and go away.
I was pointing out to the Seattle Coffee Party that they were wrong about something. The conversation was between me and the moderator of this “party” as no one else ever seems to respond to the posts. I kept answering this person’s emotions with facts and thought, so suddenly it said “I’m going to do another post.” When it popped up, it said “A core belief: “. . .As voters and grassroots volunteers, we understand that the federal government is not our enemy, but the expression of our collective will – . . . The Coffee Party USA believes that the influence of money, and the politics of fear and exclusion, stand in the way of a government “of, by and for the people.” To this was appended the mission statement of the Coffee Party USA, the first paragraph of which reads, “We are Americans working to create a fair and inclusive society. Our members represent the diversity of thought, background, and circumstance that is found in the cities, towns, and neighborhoods of our country. We are a meeting place for Americans seeking common ground and collective action to strengthen our democracy.”
In other words, no true diversity of thought was permitted and I was to shut up.
The man needs a hobby. I suppose learning to shoot or hunt is out of the question.
I like Sadie’s idea….guess it’s a good thing I married someone who is more or less ideologically in tune.
Oh Wait! So did BW…..and then she changed.
Thankfully, in 42 years (on June 22), neither of us has turned pink-o!
Interesting, Earl. Once upon a time I was a ‘blue’ and married a ‘blue’. We’ve been divorced since the 70′s. I would have been married 45 years last November – had we stayed together, one of us would have been accused of murder
Anyway, we’re still in touch from time to time through email and on rare occasions by phone. Long story short – we now exchange ‘red’ emails. Too old now to get a life sentence in case I get a ‘blue’ one. LOL
Of course they would have to be this way. Only a genius could hold 10,000 contradictory things, mutually so, in their heads at once.
For most normal people, they simply have to shut their eyes in order to function. You don’t have to reconcile mutually exclusive things… if you aren’t aware that they are mutually exclusive.
It’s that, thanks to the ostrich media’s (thankfully weakening) stranglehold on the dissemination of information, we’re not actually talking at all.
I have no interest in talking to the enemy except to accept their abject and unconditional surrender.
I’m muddying over the idea that Book should record his voice, post it here for us to hear, then download our audio responses and play it back at him.
That would be very entertaining, probably.
Book is limited in what she can or cannot say, given she has to live with him.
That’s not quite true of the rest of us.
Bookworm: Among other things, I mentioned that people were interested in the fact that Hillary had recently announced that she would not return as Secretary of State for Obama’s second term, leading to speculation that she was planning a primary challenge.
That Clinton is planning a primary challenge has no foundation, and is contradicted not only by her emphatic statements, but by her actions.
Lee Stranahan: And then – on live television– Eric Boehlert & George Stephanopoulos totally blew off Breitbart’s offer to show them the video tapes.
The video tapes cannot be definitive due to the large number of voices, that they are restricted in vantage and timespan, and the limited ability of the video technology to pick up voices directed at an individual.
Andrew Breitbart: There’s not one shred of objective evidence that corroborates the “Tea Party N-Word” story.
Breitbart has been known to purvey deceptively edited tapes. The only positive evidence are the witnesses, such as John Lewis. Perhaps he heard wrong.
Bookworm: But I see the same thing with other liberals: If it challenges their dogma, they don’t want to know.
That’s actually a phenomena that affects everyone. For instance, consider how long it took the right-wing in the U.S. to understand that Saddam really had disarmed from WMD, that the Iraq War led to massive societal devastation, or that current deficits are largely due to the ecnomic debacle that began during the Bush Administration.
“Breitbart has been known to purvey deceptively edited tapes.”
An utter lie. Zacky could not prove that statement in 1,000 years.
“The only positive evidence are the witnesses, such as John Lewis. Perhaps he heard wrong.”
Perhaps Lewis did. In any case, there is no proof whatsoever that racist slurs were made, no matter how pompously the Perfesser intones.
By the way, somebody should tell Skeets that the word he was trying to use is phenomenon, not phenomena. If he’s going to pretend to lecture his intellectual superiors, he should at least enter the room properly educated.
Charles Martel
Did I tell you just how much I love the title. I have no plans to publish, but I am considering a series of flash cards for students and the seriously stupid
Oh, No You Don’t (You Liberal S***head)
Charles Martel: Zack{riel} could not prove that statement in 1,000 years.
Prosecutors cleared ACORN of criminal charges, saying the tapes were edited to meet an agenda. Breitbart released a tape falsely claiming that Sherrod is relating a racist tale. And then there’s the pimp outfit.
Zachriel: The only positive evidence are the witnesses, such as John Lewis. Perhaps he heard wrong.
Charles Martel: Perhaps Lewis did.
Perhaps John Lewis doesn’t know what the word sounds like when coming from an angry crowd.
SADIE, I can see it now, a series of successful spin-offs:
“Oh, No You Don’t (You Liberal S***head) for Dummies”
“Yes, I Can (You Liberal S***head)” for liberated African Americans
“Oh, No You Don’t (You Liberal Doodiehead)” for liberals’ children
“Mais Non, Tete de Merde” for Canadians
“Nu, Shtik Drek” for Yiddish readers
THERE IS ABOLUTELY NO PROOF THAT RACIST SLURS WERE HURLED.
I realize you have known problems with vocabulary and grammar, but which part of “absolutely no proof” don’t you get?
Charles Martel: I realize you have known problems with vocabulary and grammar, but which part of “absolutely no proof” don’t you get?
There is witness testimony, but no other corroboration. As we suggested above, maybe it was misheard.
Zach, try this:
Charles Martel says he overheard Zacky use the “N word” among a crowd of hundreds of people. He has no proof, just his assertion. Despite having no proof, he feels free to peddle the notion that Zacky is a racist because Martel’s statement is witness testimony.
Oooohhh…the ‘N’ word, like in nudnik
SADIE, knowing our resident chew toy’s M.O., he won’t respond. How can he? Otherwise, we’d have a world in which drunk college skanks could claim a week later that the guy they were groping and went home with raped them, or kids could say they had been tortured at their daycare centers, or resentful daughters could suddenly remember that daddy diddled them. I mean, why not—after all, it’s witness testimony!
Charles Martel, is wink eye witness testimony anything like “I see dead people or ghosts”. Just gotta love that genre of progressive thinking – it’s science fiction in books and film and science friction in real life.
And now for your afternoon giggle. A list of alternate names for: Odyssey Dawn
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2011/03/alternate-names.html#comments
My alternate name: Odd-Sissy goin’ outta of town.
Zach, you claim that it was cacophony of sound that you could not hear the N word. Well I could hear Kill the Bill clear enough which was the push of the rally. There were members of the Black Congressional Caucus carrying their own I-phones recording the events. Where are those videos? On the video that we have you can hear the guard come out with John Lewis and speak why not one shouting the N word? Those kinds of guys are not timid and are rather proud and loud about their passion, What the videos that we have do show is one of two things related to the N word (we know the spitting thing was been dismissed already) either the word was never said or it was uttered by low talkers that could not be recorded.
Book, how do you stay married to such a liberal loon? For me, that’s a fatal flaw, one that I could not overlook. Fortunately, my better half is solidly conservative.
Here is one “witness” that backed off
All three of the men that heard this epithet had heard it when they were young and it was a common theme in life threatening mobs. Women in self defense classes where their classmates are yelling”Take him down!” hear them when they are being attacked years later because the event has a similar feel, the adrenaline brings them back to that moment. I suspect it was likewise for these men, One thing remains clear had Jesse Jackson Junior had his two iphones back when his father was fighting for equality that epithet would have been all you heard. Well not all you heard it was much more violent then too.
I have to add this posit: “Where did those anti-equality laws come from? TEA Partiers?
Charles Martel: Despite having no proof, {Charles Martel} feels free to peddle the notion that Zacky is a racist because Martel’s statement is witness testimony.
Yes, you can lie if you choose to. Are you saying that John Lewis and the others are lying?
MacG: Well I could hear Kill the Bill clear enough which was the push of the rally.
Yes, it was being chanted by the majority of the crowd. Perhaps they misheard, though John Lewis doesn’t seem the excitable type. What about the anti-gay slur? Was that misheard too?
Zach, it is not a lie. I say I heard you say that. I’m not the excitable type. You have to take my word for it because you have already declared that the level of proof that works for you is if somebody says so. I say so.
Zachriel: Are you saying that John Lewis and the others are lying?
You didn’t answer the question.
Charles Martel: You have to take my word for it because you have already declared that the level of proof that works for you is if somebody says so.
We allowed that a witness could be mistaken or lying. You provided an example of the latter case.
Zach, yes, John Lewis is lying. He has no proof.
Zach, you are a racist. I say so.
If John Lewis can say something is true and present no proof, so can I.
Get it?
Charles Martel: John Lewis is lying.
Thank you for the clarification.
Apparently you did not read my source or you would know the answer to that but let me say it this way “All Indians walk in a single file. At least the one I saw did.”
So can you tell me empirically what the affiliation of the shouter was? Perhaps it was Barney’s jilted BF.
MacG: Apparently you did not read my source or you would know the answer to that
Well, no. That could have been misheard too. Is there audio of the slur? Is lack of audio definitive? If it’s not on YouTube, does it really exist?
Zach,
I’m going to post this, ostenably feeding the troll, but I need to put this out there.
You have to pick, you’re trying to have it both ways. Breitbart provided the best audio he had available, with filters, and no one has been able to screen out the racial slurs from the background noise. This, in simple terms, is “good” evidence, provided in good faith.
Lewis claims to have heard the slurs – but Lewis has no audio tapes or other evidence backing him. Again, “good” evidence provided in good faith.
Now on to the jury part of this – the audio tape does not have political, social, or publicity interests in creating or exploiting sound bites for a national audience. Lewis does. Given the “good” evidence standard, as normally used in trials, the eyewitness is portraying an event that – to the best of his memory – happened, but did not, in fact, occur as he recalls. No, he’s not “lying” per se – and yes, this is splitting hairs – but he’s not telling the truth. I’m in the business of picking out lies from untruths, tall tales, and misunderstood circumstances. Lewis, at best, is likely misremembering or projecting an expected aural framework on to indistinct input. Case in point – how many song lyrics have been misunderstood by the listeners?
You are rejecting one “in good faith” over another, using your own bias to decide, rather than using supportive logic. People are fallable. People lie and misunderstand. You’re not helping. You are using false inferences – ACORN wasn’t prosecuted, therefore the tape must have been edited for content. Hate to tell you this, but video of any sort not under evidencial collection and seal is considered tainted from the word go. If it wasn’t the original camera-to-disc item, it isn’t evidence. Since the sting was done with hidden camera onto a temporary drive, there is no “original” that is credible. So, despite what was on video, the prosecutor (correctly) made the decision not to prosecute. Why? No evidence that was admissible was provided. The film maker was not a law enforcement officer, his methods did not meet evidenciary standards, and there was no way to legally re-create the circumstances of the sting to meet the legal thresholds. Plus, ACORN folded and re-organized. No more ACORN, per se, no more charges.
Anyhow, the bottom line (and this is from a professional in the intelligence field) is that the HUMAN source of information is most likely to be wrong in a conflict. People have their filters; it is what we are. Until and unless you realize what your filters are, you will never be able to fully engage the world around you. And yes, I have my filters. I turn them on with my wife and kids – they are perfect, wonderful creatures. I know this may not be true, but that is one set of rosy glasses I can both afford to wear and cannot afford to discard. Mainly because the world is full of lies, liars, and misunderstandings; I deal with them every day.
SFC Dave
“It is not what people do not know, but rather what they know that is not true.”
The film maker was not a law enforcement officer, his methods did not meet evidenciary standards, and there was no way to legally re-create the circumstances of the sting to meet the legal thresholds.
Which means all they need is some kind of local law enforcement “valid of approval” to show that the chain of evidence was “documented” for the grassroots sting to take on official power of law consequences.
That’s one example of hybridization between centralized and de-centralized networks. Advantages of both, detriments of neither.
The shortest I can say is that Dave is lucid, Z is not.
SGT Dave: I’m going to post this, ostenably feeding the troll, but I need to put this out there.
Great way to engage a discussion.
SGT Dave: Breitbart provided the best audio he had available, …
As Breitbart has been known to purvey misleadingly edited videos, this is not necessarily the case. However, anyone could have provided such a recording, and no one has produced video evidence of such slurs.
SGT Dave: … with filters, and no one has been able to screen out the racial slurs from the background noise.
That is correct. However, due to the technology, it can’t pick up every individual voice, especially those that are directed at an individual. Is there video evidence of the gay slur against Frank?
SGT Dave: Lewis claims to have heard the slurs – but Lewis has no audio tapes or other evidence backing him. Again, “good” evidence provided in good faith.
Someone else on this forum said Lewis was lying.
SGT Dave: Given the “good” evidence standard, as normally used in trials, …
It’s not a trial. That some individual in a large crowd may have uttered slurs is really not that important, except insofar it may have been part of a larger pattern. The Tea Party had been accused of tolerating racism, and were repeatedly asked to repudiate it.
SGT Dave: You are rejecting one “in good faith” over another, using your own bias to decide, rather than using supportive logic.
We didn’t reject the possibility of mishearing. Indeed, we suggested it.
SGT Dave: ACORN wasn’t prosecuted, therefore the tape must have been edited for content.
It was the prosecutors who said the tapes were “severely edited” and that there was “no evidence that any of the ACORN employees had the intent to aid and abet such criminal conduct or agreed to join in illegal conduct.” O’Keefe had to be given immunity from prosecution so that he would produce the unedited videos. The edited videos withheld important details that led to a false impression, as did the Sherrod video which Breitbart said showed that Sherrod was telling a “racist tale”.
People may remember this but back in the 60s and 70s, there were a bunch of women who came out talking about how their fathers had molested them. This was either around their social circle, through therapists, or part of the cultural zeitgeist.
In reality, what was happening is that simply by listening to traumatic stories or references concerning other people’s childhood sexual abuse, women were so into it that they started having false memories. The most numerous ones were through therapy, so called regressive deep hypnosis. Where the false memories of being molested were in fact implanted by therapists looking for problems.
This, however, became a surprise due to the sheer number of women who started talking about it and making it public. And as more women made it more public, spurred on by NOW, guess what. More therapies sessions with hypnosis were used. More false memories were created. And what’s amazing is that those women, so called high IQ achievers, could “remember” false memories even without hypnosis. It was So Pervasive in the culture at the time. And some odd decades later, numerous reputations and lives ruined, the Left finally admitted it. Yea, it was all false. Her father didn’t really molest her or rape her. She just thought he did. What the Left never admitted was that it was the Left’s social mind control that made people like those women believe so. Believe fervently so. As it was TRUTH handed from On High. The light shined upon them and they realized, they had “forgotten” past periods of molestation.
So to add to what Dave so ably informed us of, not only are people foolish, ignorant, and just plain dumb, but with the right tools, resources, and time, I can make them believe whatever the hell I want them to. It takes special individuals or those with mental training to resist such methods. Most of humanity, isn’t special, except perhaps in the retarded sense, nor do they have the requisite mental training.
How many women falsely accused their fathers of child molestation? Of the total numbers during those decades, I heard a figure somewhere around 50%. Does that sound about right to you.
Can’t remember the percentages. I do remember the reports as well as women recanting accusations years later and the pain and suffering afflicted upon the women and the parents. The 1960′s and 70′s – the LSD years distorted many aspects of life.
Really quick, as I have to get back to work:
RE:
SGT Dave: ACORN wasn’t prosecuted, therefore the tape must have been edited for content.
It was the prosecutors who said the tapes were “severely edited” and that there was “no evidence that any of the ACORN employees had the intent to aid and abet such criminal conduct or agreed to join in illegal conduct.” O’Keefe had to be given immunity from prosecution so that he would produce the unedited videos. The edited videos withheld important details that led to a false impression, as did the Sherrod video which Breitbart said showed that Sherrod was telling a “racist tale”.
“Severely edited” is a redundant phrase, so let me frame this one. No matter what else was on the original video, people made statements that were, at best, conspiracy to commit fraud. ANY edit is enough to disqualify in civil court. The prosecutor was scoring points with his constituency (note, the man who made the statement was an elected official). The bottom line here is that when the prosecutors said anything beyond “the video, edited or not, does not meet evidencial standards” was political. If the video had risen to the level you want to claim, then ACORN should have – no, WOULD have – filed a civil suit for slander. No immunity for civil cases, no matter what the officials gave for the illegal taping.
Breitbart’s video of Sherrod for the “racist tale” is, in fact, one of racism. Sherrod admitted that he had taken actions based on race, not merit, on video. REPENTENCE OR NOT, HE ADMITTED TO FELONY DISCRIMINATION UNDER EQUAL OPPORTUNITY! I will use your habit of referring to unrelated items to promote my argument – it doesn’t matter if you marry her later, a sexual counter with a female under the age of consent is statutory rape. It doesn’t even matter if you love her – or that she wanted to conduct the act. The act is illegal; Sherrod admitted to such things, even when he said he learned better. By your logic, I can beat you until you are hospitalized and then, if I am able to speak to a public group and state ‘that was really a bad thing I did, and I won’t do it again’ I should be immune to any prosecution or counter action. I really will repent, that is the reason I got up and admitted it.
Yeah, right.
The more important part of the Sherrod video, if you watch it, was the general agreement of the audience to the beginning of the story. They were happy he was discriminating against the whites. Again, even taken out of context, certain things are not forgivable. Chuckling when someone is run over because they were jaywalking is not appropriate. Hearing about an official abusing his authority, no matter the victim, is not a chuckle factor. THAT was the ‘racist incident’. I’m happy Sherrod found god and came clean, promising to go forth and sin no more. I’d prefer he was fired, however, since he broke trust and faith with his employer and his customers. You’d expect that of any business – like a bank firing a teller or manager for mishandling or stealing funds. You break faith, you should have to earn trust once more. I’m not a big one on ‘free’ forgiveness. Burn me once, you have to work hard to burn me again.
Anyhow, this whole mess comes back to perception. And when the hell did I mention the gay slur on Frank? The biggest issue I have with that one is that the party “tolerant” of sexual behaviour, standing on the “it doesn’t hurt anyone” is responsible for outing more people than the “horrible, invasive rethuglicans”. I know you want to say “hypocrisy”, but here’s the deal, kiddo. Either you get out of the ‘bedroom’ or you don’t. You don’t get to pick who has a private sex life and who doesn’t by party affiliation.
SFC Dave
“Stop giving more examples and start supporting the real argument.”
Sherrod was a she…
Other than that, carry on. You’re terrific.
Sadie, what Dave is doing is like clubbing seals. No chance for em. no wonder the Left has to seek drugs and therapy. Their self inflicted psychological damage is huge, and that’s not mentioning the damage received from us.
SueK,
Thanks for the catch on that; for some reason (maybe because I’m working in Spanish, French, and English all at once at work) I shifted to the male pronoun. At least I was consistent. I had to go back and check my other work, finding that I’ve got a gentleman in the counter-drug fight currently listed as “she”. *sigh*
Y,
As I stated at the start, I hate to feed the trolls, but…
One can only tolerate so much as it goes. Every now and again one has to step in and shove the discourse back to its roots. And I’m as guilty as any of drifting far, far off the topic at hand. At least I’ve not pitched into the English vs. colloquial rubbish from the NYT discussion (as yet). I’m soooooo tempted.
But there is work to be done. English has been reset in my brain, genders are properly assigned, and now we go back to the plight of illegal migrants – in Mexico.
SFC Dave
“Another day, another dollar – of which 53 cents are gone in taxes.”
One of the things I’m noticing more and more is how alien Japan’s culture is. Take this as an example. Their schools have two festival types, Founding Festival which celebrates the founder from which the school was named after and a sort of spring festival.
During these festivals, each class is tasked with deciding and creating a business. A class that decides to do a short movie will then assemble, film, and employ class members to create the film. Another class can decide on a cafe or baking sales mission goal, and create that atmosphere. Complete with white linen table cloth, uniforms for the waiters and waitresses, homecooked bread and pastries, and so on and so forth.
All of them require “cash” to enter. This is hosted in the specific classroom itself With the preparation, cleaning, maintenance, and management done entirely by the self-elected members of the student body. With supervision by the school wide student’s council, which is supervised and given powers/authority by the teacher’s body.
In one of the versions of the “cafe” theme is the Japanese otaku “maid” style cafes, where all those serving food are female and they wear a maid costume, while serving customers with greetings like “Welcome home, master” in a cute girl voice. I’ve seen that particular one numerous times in manga depictions. One time when it was hosted for actual adults at a convention.
And oh, if you were wondering the age of those involved, this is not college or university. This is high school. This is Japanese high school, from year 10 to our year 12.
So if people are wondering how come Japan is so economically competitive and ambitious, just look at their culture. What are they teaching their kids? A lot of people think the difference in human manpower and training between countries is due to “education”. I say look to the culture. It’s not because blacks are poor, stupid, or “discriminated” against that they do poorly in school .it’s because Afrikan culture is inferior to white culture. And this can be seen in who starves more: Afrika or Europe. Given that Europe has to send food to Afrika….
If there is a difference, look to the culture.
The maid cafes seem to be very popular amongst the customers, which would be high school boys or guests from outside the school.
This is only possible in Japan. You couldn’t do it in Iran. You couldn’t do it in Saudi Arabia. You sure as hell can’t do it in Britain. And not even in America do you see this kind of student freedom, accountability, and Ambition.
Sherrod = them. If I recall correctly, the Breibart video ‘showcased’ Mr. Sherrod. Shirley Sherrod got most of the press but they both reaped the rewards of their scam.
Ymar – Reasoning with the Left is pretty much like explaining plate tectonics to a three-year old. The visitor, from another planet, rather than stay on topic and address SGT. Dave’s excellent posts, jumps up and down and grabs a Frank comment from another post and becomes disoriented. In fact, this thread like many others before it reminds me of the entire current administration – the ya-but approach.
The Japanese are alternatively extremely bound by social hierarchy and etiquette, yet also extremely fond of freedom and the power required to exercise freedom.
It would be a mass of contradictions if you did not see the underlying foundation tying it all together for them.
The Japanese, like America, can be restrained and bound and hobbled by stupid Leftist laws and bureaucratic clap trap, for humans are mortal and to err is to be human. Yet, regardless of these underlying factors pulling down the maximum potential of both countries, there is still CULTURE running through it all. As much as the world seeks to change and as much as people seek to un-change it or destroy us through too much change, culture remains constant. Regardless of what political winds may blow, Jacksonians are still Jacksonians. Wilsonians are still Wilsonians. And the Japanese are still the Japanese.
SGT Dave: “Severely edited” is a redundant phrase, so let me frame this one.
Anyone can now view the tapes and see they were edited in such a way as to provide an inaccurate picture in many cases. There was problems at ACORN, but O’Keefe did more than expose problems, he created false stories.
SGT Dave: Sherrod admitted that he had taken actions based on race, not merit, on video.
Sherrod admitted to doing *what was required*, going so far as to take him to a lawyer who could help him with his case. Nor was she working for the government, but an organization dedicated to helping historically deprived black farmers. By the way, the white man who shot Sherrod’s father dead in the back was never prosecuted.
SGT Dave: They were happy he was discriminating against the whites.
Which is why they booed when she related how she helped the white farmer? That’s a silly misreading of the people in the audience. It was clearly a story of redemption, and they were encouraging her. Again, anyone who watches the tape can see the truth for themselves.
suek: Sherrod was a she…
Clearly, SGT Dave didn’t watch the original tape.
“There was problems at ACORN.”
Illiterate.
Charles Martel
In his own words:
“By the way.the white man…….”
“It was clearly a story of redemption….”
HALLELUJAH! Can I get a AMEN. Can I can reparations! Can I take a big chunk of the money for myself! Can I do what is required!
Being illiterate is the least annoying problem – it’s the racism that’s nauseating.
Zach :Well, no. That could have been misheard too:
How do I know that you typed this? I cannot reply.
Really I think the the Zach is a collective like the Borg. Perhaps an AI.
MacG, I think you’re right. His obtuseness (and difficulty with English) ranges from college student-like to college professor-like. But it does range.
Book, twice I have tried to post a comment, which the spam filter cut out, perhaps because I linked to a previous thread.
Um, Zach -
Sherrod was a representative for a group helping DISADVANTAGED farmers, a demographic primarily African American, but not exclusively.
Sherrod’s organization assisted in the procurement of government funding, via grants, for these same disadvantaged individuals, primarily because of problems with basic literacy and the cost of legal representation for individuals seeking the grants.
Both Sherrods were involved in the work; I have not seen the tapes in several months.
And yes, while the redemption is the case, I NEVER hear giggles during the part of the sermon where a preacher describes the evil deed, do you? Those fine folks in the audience would have, by my reading of body language and feedback, been just fine without the redeption part. The point I was making is that the speaker’s ultimate intent is irrelevant and the ultimate reaction is also not the datum of importance. What is important is not that they warmed in the end, but rather that they did not, in fact, boo at the start of the story. I’ll give them credit for the redeption, but you need to charge them for their early callousness.
And back to ACORN. Just because someone maneuvers you into an entrapment situation does not give you a clean slate. Similar situations have caused problems with law enforcement in the past, specifically non-law enforcement personnel conducting honey traps for pedophiles. The mid- to late 90s and early 00s video stings by television crews resulted in a large number of failed criminal cases, to the extent that while the video crews are often present, none of the conversations, IMs, or other manner of communication are permitted by the video/news crews. Even the video of the arrest taken by the news crew is not admissable – only the law enforcement cameras (though they often deputize the cameraman for ease of purpose). Entrapment? Oh, hell yes. Do I approve? As the father of two kids, yes, because otherwise I’d be dealing with them. Permanently. But the end line is that these predators are lured in by false pretense and admit things in response to artificial stimuli – like the ACORN drones. And the edit level for both these issues is the key. An honest man won’t pocket a $20 bill you drop – he’ll tap you on the shoulder and point it out. The ACORN folks were like the checker who was laughing along with the dishonest guy that you dropped the $20 and he got it. Bottom line, even with being prompted, they performed far, far below an acceptable standard, no matter what the editing was.
Anyhow, back to work.
SFC Dave
“The point is simple. If they’d been doing the right thing, there wouldn’t have been enough to edit.”
SFC Dave: Sherrod was a representative for a group helping DISADVANTAGED farmers, a demographic primarily African American, but not exclusively.
“We strive to assist in land retention and development, especially for African Americans, but essentially for all family farmers.” One of their three primary missions is “to save, protect and expand the landholdings of Black family farmers in the South”. It’s pretty clear the organization was founded primarily to help disadvantaged black farmers.
http://www.federationsoutherncoop.com/
SFC Dave: I’ll give them credit for the redeption, but you need to charge them for their early callousness.
You are probably referring to when Sherrod was faced with the situation of the white farmer acting superior while asking for help. That’s called irony. She made sure the man got legal advice, which discharged her professional obligation. When it turned out the lawyer wasn’t much help, she went out of her way to provide the family the assistence they needed to hold on to their farm.
SFC Dave: Just because someone maneuvers you into an entrapment situation does not give you a clean slate.
But that wasn’t the issue, was it?
SFC Dave: Entrapment?
The issue was deceptive editing.
SADIE: “By the way.the white man…….” “It was clearly a story of redemption….” HALLELUJAH! Can I get a AMEN. Can I can reparations! Can I take a big chunk of the money for myself! Can I do what is required!
Seriously, SADIE. Her father was murdered with impunity. But she still discovered that helping people was more important to her than holding on to her hate. In return, you mock her cultural language.
Just to emphasize the damage deceptive editing causes, this article is still easily found on Fox News, still implying Sherrod didn’t help the farmer, still suggesting she was working for the government, and still uncorrected.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/19/clip-shows-usda-official-admitting-withheld-help-white-farmer/
SADIE, for you, they called in Perfesser Zach. You know, the one who doesn’t write howlers like “There was problems with ACORN.”
You should feel complimented.
Seriously, Hallelujah and Amen are not her cultural language and even you (pl) should know that much and actually, I was mocking you, because YOU turned it into a race issue. It may have been a race issue in 1977, but when it came to a settlement, it was all about the money.
Sherrod and the group she formed along with family members and others, New Communities. Inc. received the largest single settlement under Pigford.
Zach,
You prove my point while trying to refute it. Try logic.
“We strive to assist in land retention and development, especially for African Americans, but essentially for all family farmers.” It matters not what the white farmer acted like, or how he was portrayed. It matters that the CROWD took pleasure from both her initial denial of assistance and the lawyer’s failures. The redemption means less when you’re cheering on the damned to sin more.
I say entrapment and “investigative reporting”. Same thing. All of which means that the final product is tailored to the audience. Nevertheless, following along with someone who entraps you is at best an avoidable mistake, made easier by being honest enough to not, even jokingly, refer to tax evasion and child trafficking.
And actually, Zach, it is the entire point of that exercise. You stated they were “not guilty”; I made the inference that, while guilty, they were not able to be charged. You’ve dodged the point.
And in part for Sadie, the choir was singing along to the tune of the men who left the man by the side of the road, not realizing there was a good Samaritan coming along the way.
This is my last post on this, BTW. I’ve got too much life and too little time. My nephew is getting married on Saturday and I had to go update my dress uniform for the occasion. The family doesn’t know about the new rocker, so I get to spring it on them. Along with the two service stripes I added since the last time I broke out the uniform. I’ve got work at OMGIE, then four hours driving to where the wife and kids are, then another four to the wedding city. I figure I’ll get about three hours of sleep before I have to get ready for the soiree. But I wouldn’t miss it for the world. He’s a good kid, making a name for himself in the wireless biz. Took the time for an associates, then took over my brother-in-laws business, expanding it about 2.5 times its starting size over the past five years. He’s paying for the wedding and honeymoon out of pocket, since his fiancee’s parents lost out in the last crash (and weren’t that good at saving, anyway). He’s giving the girl of his dreams the wedding of hers – and still has the spare change that he finishes his mortgage in three years (five early on a fifteen year note) and has both cars and her college bills paid off. I’m proud as hell of him (and all my nieces and nephews, even the ones having issues). Can’t wait to see my little girl in her purple dress for the wedding, it’ll be adorable.
SFC Dave
“We can argue all day, but at the end of the day you remain a prisoner of your worldview and I can walk freely the streets of knowledge.”
It is kind of funny when a racist like Zach tells SADIE, a Jew, that Hallelujah and amen are not part of her “cultural language.”
SFC Dave: Have a great time at the wedding! And thanks for your patient gnaws on the room chew toy.
Have a wonderful wedding weekend, SFC Dave, and don’t be a stranger here. I think I speak for everyone when I say we really enjoy your contributions.
SPC Dave – Save travel.
oops…SAFE travel.
SFC Dave: It matters that the CROWD took pleasure from both her initial denial of assistance and the lawyer’s failures.
As explained above, the white farmer was acting superior, but asking for help. That was when the audience laughed. It’s called irony, something that is apparently beyond your kin.
SFC Dave: All of which means that the final product is tailored to the audience.
Now you got it. The deceptive edits were tailored for political effect, even if innocent people were hurt in the process.
SFC Dave: You stated they were “not guilty”;
Please learn the proper use of quotemarks.
I posted four hours ago. The spam filter held the comment up, probably because I included a link to a previous thread. See my comment #52. I will try a re-post.
Zachriel at #37 on 24 Mar 2011 at 6:58 am
As Breitbart has been known to purvey misleadingly edited videos..
I am not going to waste my time arguing with the likes of Zachriel whether or not the videos were misleadingly edited. I will simply point out that Zachriel himself has engaged in a misleading edit when he has quoted me.
From several months ago:
Zachriel at #32 on 07 Jan 2011 at 4:25 pm
Zachriel quoting Gringo: your complaint about any alleged partisan stance on the part of Fox News is absurd.
Zachriel responding to his “quote” of me : That’s funny.
Here is what I actually wrote at #31 on 07 Jan 2011 at 3:30 pm:
I also note that you have not addressed my main point, which is that given the fig leaf of “objectivity” of of the MSM, your complaint about any alleged partisan stance on the part of Fox News is absurd.
That is one misleading edit on Zachriel’s part
IOW, Zachriel’s complaint about “misleading edits” would be comparable to the Mayflower Madam calling for chastity- if she ever did. Or of the Taliban being against drug trafficking. Or of Senators Kerry or McCaskill telling us that it is patriotic to pay our taxes, and that those who do not take the initiative to pay their taxes in full and on time are sleazebags who should be shunned by all decent people.
I will try cutting up the link, to see if I can post this time. Book, I am disappointed that you took the time to comment on this thread but not to do something about my lost comment, which I posted about some 4 hours ago, and promptly posted about.
Try adding this to the generic Bookworm address to get the full link: bookwormroom .com
/2011/01/05/tea-party-derangement-syndrome/#comment-111284
“…something that is apparently beyond your kin.”
Er, Perfesser, I think you meant ken.
Charles Martel
I think you’re onto a script and the title of a new show for kids … Er, Perfesser. I now have a visual in my head of a one half Erkel character and one half Norm from Cheers.
Gringo: I also note that you have not addressed my main point, which is that given the fig leaf of “objectivity” of of the MSM, your complaint about any alleged partisan stance on the part of Fox News is absurd.
Your comment was just above our own comment, so it wasn’t hiding.
Gringo: your complaint about any alleged partisan stance on the part of Fox News is absurd.
Zachriel: That’s funny.
If we hadn’t snipped it there, it may not have have been clear which clause we found funny. Nor did the snip change the nature of the joke, which hinges on “alleged”. We certainly did ignore the other clauses, because they weren’t relevant. It is hard for most people to keep a straight face when confronted with such an obvious joke. That’s true whether they are partisan or not.
Apple had the same problem with the iPad. But then again, they have a sense of humor.
http://jezebel.com/#!5458338/that-time-of-the-month-the-internets-best-period+related-ipad-jokes
SADIE, LOL. I’ve been toying with a running gag to be called “Gaffes from Zach,” but “Er, Perfesser” does sound more laugh-trackable.
The gag would be to reproduce all of Zach’s assaults on English whenever he gets too high on his horse, but I received a warning from Comcast that there currently is no bandwidth in the solar system capable of accommodating it.
Zachriel: It is hard for most people to keep a straight face when confronted with such an obvious joke. That’s true whether they are partisan or not.
For those who don’t remember the thread on Tea Party Derangement Syndrome, the joke under discussion was the mainstream media repeating “teabagger” after the term was used by people in the Tea Party. The Tea Partiers were going to send tea bags to Washington. Or something. Heh.
Zachriel has simply reiterated my point: while he perceives “misleading edits” in others, he has also engaged in “misleading edits” himself. When he quoted only a part of what I wrote, I was quoted out of context. That was a misleading edit.The beam in in one’s eye, et al.
His verbiage reminds me of the “articulate” and “intellectual” Senator John Kerry. Without the support of a prepared text, Kerry is often unable to distinguish between nuance and incoherence.
There is a reason why I pass over most of what Zachriel writes these days.
Gringo
I applaud your efforts. It’s not easy sliding down a greasy pole. The Zachs (there are more than one) are not here to engage and question, but only to be contrary, which may account for the chasm between nuance and incoherence. While our responses are in the singular – their response is a group activity. Personally, I think going outside and playing a game of baseball would be a healthier activity for them.
SADIE, but what language would they communicate in? They all speak different forms of English:
Zach the College Student: “I are going to throws these baseball at youse!”
Zach the Racist: “Martel has proof that I think Negroes are inferior. It’s called ‘witness tesimony’ and I believe him!”
Zach the Perfesser: “I can plagiarize and Wiki in places where the moon does not even shine!”
Zach the Dukakis: ”I would engage you in normal human conversation, but this Asperger thing really gets in the way.”
Gringo: When he quoted only a part of what I wrote, I was quoted out of context.
The context was right there, Gringo, as anyone could see, directly above our own comment. You’re upset because we ignored your point about the mainstream media. It was irrelevant, as we explained above. But we’ll answer it in full — again.
Gringo: I also note that you have not addressed my main point, which is that given the fig leaf of “objectivity” of of the MSM, your complaint about any alleged partisan stance on the part of Fox News is absurd.
Any lack of objectivity in the mainstream media doesn’t render your use of the word “alleged” any less absurd. Fox News is clearly partisan. They even issue daily memos on how to slant the news to support their editorial point-of-view. As for the joking about “teabaggers”, that’s something that transcends partisanship. Apple went through the same thing with iPads. It a matter of having a sense of humor.
SADIE (snipped from above): The Zach{riel}’s (there are more than one) are not here to engage and question, but only to be contrary,
“I are going to throws these baseball at youse!” “I’ve been toying with a running gag to be called ‘Gaffes from Zach,’ but ‘Er, Perfesser’ does sound more laugh-trackable.” “I am not going to waste my time arguing with the likes of Zachriel”
Charles Martel: “Illiterate.”
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
I extensively viewed the Sherrod tapes (when they came out and when people claimed it was fake) and her previous history of working migrant workers on her farm like slaves, and I agreed most intensively with Dave’s points about Sherrod.
Gringo, if the comment doesn’t show up on your page with “IN Moderation”, then it has been automatically deleted.
It literally won’t show up to anyone.
And (1) links to wordpress do not trigger the spam filter. Something else is being triggered.
It a matter of having a sense of humor.
How does someone like Zach, who lacks humor, now presuppose to talk about a sense of humor. Eh? Someone answer that Question of the Day.
Charles Martel (#72)
Is this the Dukaksis group or a sub-group of another? Zach the Inspector Clouseau, who possibly sharpens his wit watching Chris Matthews for the hard hitting news analysis or Comedy Central. Maybe King Wiki-Wacky will substantiate the memos on how to slant the news.
“Any lack of objectivity in the mainstream media doesn’t render your use of the word “alleged” any less absurd. Fox News is clearly partisan. They even issue daily memos on how to slant the news to support their editorial point-of-view. As for the joking about “teabaggers”, that’s something that transcends partisanship. Apple went through the same thing with iPads. It a matter of having a sense of humor.”
Gringo: I also note that you have not addressed my main point, which is that given the fig leaf of “objectivity” of of the MSM, your complaint about any alleged partisan stance on the part of Fox News is absurd.
Zachriel replying to Gringo:
Any lack of objectivity in the mainstream media doesn’t render your use of the word “alleged” any less absurd. Fox News is clearly partisan….
We have here an instance of the poorly-educated Zachriel. A rule of thumb regarding the wealth of meanings that English words have is that the default meaning is the primary meaning. I learned that in elementary school. I used the primary meaning of “ alleged,” as taken from dictionary.reference.com:
1.declared or stated to be as described; asserted: The alleged murderer could not be located for questioning.
2.doubtful; suspect; supposed: The alleged cure-all produced no results when it was tested by reputable doctors
Using the primary meaning of “alleged” means that I was not disputing Zachriel’s claim that Fox News was partisan. I was simply stating that Zachriel asserted or declared that Fox News was partisan. And that Zachriel was complaining about what he saw as the partisanship of Fox News. I doubt that Zachriel can dispute that.
Since Zachriel’s education did not cover what I learned in elementary school- the default meaning of a word is its primary meaning, I will rephrase the above sentence so that even someone with Zachriel’s level of education can understand it. Since big words can be confusing to some people, it may be better to leave them out.
I also note that you have not addressed my main point, which is that given the fig leaf of “objectivity” of of the MSM, your complaint about any partisan stance on the part of Fox News is absurd.
Perhaps resorting to folk phrases would also convey my meaning:
Complaining about the partisan stance of Fox News, given the performance of the MSM, is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Consider the coverage of the Van Jones affair.
Lesson 101 FNC a/k/a Fox, Fox News, Fox News Channel
Fox News: 6-7 p.m. Monday-Friday, hosted by Bret Baier
They even issue daily memos on how to slant the news to support their editorial point-of-view.
Would that include ‘guest’ appearances from Gunga Dim from the Holy Fail network NBC?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePlXsjvu9Bs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcOxigjkutk
Gringo: Using the primary meaning of “alleged” means that I was not disputing Zachriel’s claim that Fox News was partisan.
You were leaving room for doubt. That’s why it was funny.
Gringo: I also note that you have not addressed my main point, which is that given the fig leaf of “objectivity” of of the MSM, your complaint about any partisan stance on the part of Fox News is absurd.
It was funnier the other way. In any case, Fox News didn’t merely present a point of view, but was an active participant.
Anyway, this relates back to the thread topic, and our first comment.
Bookworm: But I see the same thing with other liberals: If it challenges their dogma, they don’t want to know.
That’s actually a phenomena that affects everyone. For instance, consider how long it took the right-wing in the U.S. to understand that Saddam really had disarmed from WMD, that the Iraq War led to massive societal devastation, or that current deficits are largely due to the ecnomic debacle that began during the Bush Administration.
Wow,
I had to come back for the Big Lie.
Zach(s) – I was in Iraq when we found several tons of binary Sarin. In Baghdad. One round was used against a U.S. convoy. Note that the round failed to properly function, since it was emplaced and exploded, rather than fired out of a howitzer as designed.
The economic debacle we currently face started under Reagan, for the specific purpose of bankrupting the USSR. The failure of successive presidents to correct the curve following the fall of the USSR is the problem. That means I blame Bush I, Clinton (especially), Bush II, and the Boy President. A side note to this problem is the massive spending tied to counter terror operations, up to and including KFOR, SFOR, OIF, OEF, OND, and the current mess in Libya. Those I blame on Carter. I’m still of the opinion – and it isn’t a nice one, that the response to the capture of our embassy should have been a 150kt device on Tehran. You capture 400 of ours, we kill them and 400,000 of yours. Nice? No. Effective? How many terror attacks were conducted against the USSR pre-fall? ‘Nuff said. The Russians are not (yet) the USSR, and they’ve had enough of the nice and easy thing after Azerbaijan.
SFC Dave
“If you give a mouse a cookie…”
Zach, of course you’re illiterate. What collective would say the following as it pretends to serious discourse?
“There was problems.”
“Beyond your kin.”
“Witness testimony” = proof.
“That’s actually a phenomena that affects everyone.”
“Right-wing” = noun rather than compound adjective
SFC Dave: I had to come back for the Big Lie.
George Bush recently said he still feels sick about the fact that no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq.
SFC Dave: I was in Iraq when we found several tons of binary Sarin.
There were some unaccounted for munitions left over from previous periods. Though sarin is unstable, the components can still be very dangerous. If you mean something else, then please provide a citation.
SFC Dave: The economic debacle we currently face started under Reagan, for the specific purpose of bankrupting the USSR.
Gorbachev was already calling for the end of the Cold War. Oil prices and general mismanagement did the rest.
SFC Dave: Clinton (especially),
Clinton left structural surpluses.
SFC Dave: I’m still of the opinion – and it isn’t a nice one, that the response to the capture of our embassy should have been a 150kt device on Tehran.
Can’t imagine any unintended consequences of destroying a thousand-year old city, killing and maiming millions.
“George Bush recently said he still feels sick about the fact that no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq.”
Citation, please.
“There were some unaccounted for munitions left over from previous periods.”
Citation, please.
“Gorbachev was already calling for the end of the Cold War. Oil prices and general mismanagement did the rest.”
Citation, please.
There is no point.
His mind’s made up…etc.
You might as well talk to the wall.
Book…
You commented about your reduced “numbers”.
Look no further. Only us diehards left…
suek, speaking of walls, here are some of the most famous walls of history:
—The Great Wall of China
—Wall Street (named after the original defensive wall that marked the northern perimeter of Nieuw Amsterdam)
—The Vietnam Memorial in Washington, DC
—The Wailing Wall in Jerusalem
—the Wall of Weird (Chloe Sullivan’s scarpbook of strange events in the TV series “Smallville”)
—Hadrian’s Wall in Scotland
—Wal Mart
—The walls of Jericho
—The cave walls at Lescaux
I’ll try to think of some more.
-Waldo
-Christopher Walken
-Wally Cox
-Wallpaper
Zachriel: George Bush recently said he still feels sick about the fact that no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq.
Charles Martel: Citation, please.
“No one was more shocked and angry than I was when we didn’t find the weapons.” “I had a sickening feeling every time I thought about it. I still do.” George Bush, Decision Points, 2010.
He also said it on the Oprah show.
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/11/ap-iraq-bush-says-he-was-sick-about-finding-no-wmd-110910/
Zachriel: There were some unaccounted for munitions left over from previous periods.
Charles Martel: Citation, please.
The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended… “I do believe the former regime did a very poor job of accountability of munitions, and certainly did not document the destruction of munitions,” {Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency}, said.
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918
SFC Dave: The economic debacle we currently face started under Reagan, for the specific purpose of bankrupting the USSR.
Zachriel: Gorbachev was already calling for the end of the Cold War. Oil prices and general mismanagement did the rest.
Charles Martel: Citation, please.
The Soviet Union had significant foreign debt at the time, and was relying on oil exports. The decline in GDP followed the decline in oil prices. Note prices during the 1980′s.
http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1947.gif
Gorbachev unilaterally reduced Soviet troops by 10%, tanks in the Eastern bloc by 50%, ended the war in Afghanistan, instituted glasnost, and abandoned the Brezhnev Doctrine, allowing Eastern Europe to devolve peaceably.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1990/
Zachriel: George Bush recently said he still feels sick about the fact that no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq.
Charles Martel: Citation, please.
“No one was more shocked and angry than I was when we didn’t find the weapons.” “I had a sickening feeling every time I thought about it. I still do.” George Bush, Decision Points, 2010.
He also said it on the Oprah show.
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/11/ap-iraq-bush-says-he-was-sick-about-finding-no-wmd-110910/
Zachriel: There were some unaccounted for munitions left over from previous periods.
Charles Martel: Citation, please.
The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended… “I do believe the former regime did a very poor job of accountability of munitions, and certainly did not document the destruction of munitions,” {Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency}, said.
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918
SFC Dave: The economic debacle we currently face started under Reagan, for the specific purpose of bankrupting the USSR.
Zachriel: Gorbachev was already calling for the end of the Cold War. Oil prices and general mismanagement did the rest.
Charles Martel: Citation, please.
The Soviet Union had significant foreign debt at the time, and was relying on oil exports. The decline in GDP followed the decline in oil prices. Note prices during the 1980′s.
http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1947.gif
Gorbachev unilaterally reduced Soviet troops by 10%, tanks in the Eastern bloc by 50%, ended the war in Afghanistan, instituted glasnost, and abandoned the Brezhnev Doctrine, allowing Eastern Europe to devolve peaceably.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1990/
Zachy, thank you for doing my assignments. While you were busy running around the Internet like a good little student, I was finishing up two freelance articles for a publication I contribute to.
May I ask what you do to earn money?
PS: The citation from the Nobel Prize people as “proof” is priceless (as well as clueless).
SADIE:
—George Wallace
—Hall Wallis
—Walgreens
—Walleyed bass
—Whitewall tires
—Stonewall Jackson
—Wallachia
—Wallis Simpson
—Snakeskin wallets
—Cornwall
Charles Martel: The citation from the Nobel Prize people as “proof” is priceless (as well as clueless).
It wasn’t offered as “proof”, but related related information as a starting point. We thought that you had asked because you were actually interested in the topic. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Charles Martel
Walla Walla (pronounced voila voila in some cultural languages)
and don’t put your head in wall oven waiting for an answer – you may wallop your head as suek suggested.
I hate to tell you this Z, but George Bush ain’t here on this here forum writing anything. Nor do you speak for him.
Why is it the Left always seek to become the authority and master of other people’s lives? Is not your own life imperfect enough for you to seek mastery in.
I’m still of the opinion – and it isn’t a nice one, that the response to the capture of our embassy should have been a 150kt device on Tehran.
I’m of a similar opinion, although my targets and methodology would vary.
I was in Iraq when we found several tons of binary Sarin. In Baghdad. One round was used against a U.S. convoy.
I’ve heard some other material from those frequently in Iraq, such as BillT, concerning classified weapons grade materials found.
The thing is, Z has presented here constant demands that America either follows her treaties like law (like we should treat the Hague on War Trials the same as the First Amendment) or else America’s word means nothing. Right here you see an example of Z defending Iraq and Saddam’s lack of committal to following their promise to disarm. And Z bats no eye at such failures.
Ever wonder why the Left constantly complains and hamstrings American success while ignoring or aiding and abetting our enemies?
Ymar…
Gotta giggle out of your post #95. I am sure 20-30 years after GWB is dead and gone, the Leftovers will still be bitching and moaning. In the meantime, I look forward to Obama debating (?) while still blaming Bush.
The better target for a small U.S. nuke would be the well in Qom where the 12th Imam lives.
Since we are too politically correct to flush out the Mahdi, I think it will be the Chinese or Indians who wind up doing it.
Zach, just so you don’t exhaust yourself running around looking up my allusions:
Qom = a holy city in Iran
12th Imam = a Shi’ite hero said to be next in licit succession to Mohammed the Pederast (pbuh)
Mahdi = The magical Christ-like figure who will bring Allah’s wonderful peace upon the earth
Ymarsakar: I hate to tell you this Z, but George Bush ain’t here on this here forum writing anything. Nor do you speak for him.
Your point isn’t clear. We didn’t speak for Bush. We cited him. Let’s review.
This thread concerns people having troubles facing facts. We pointed out that some people have troubles acknowledging that Saddam had disarmed his WMD. A commenter indicated this was a “Big Lie”. In response, we noted that the former President admitted that there were no significant stockpiles of WMD in Iraq. As he has a vested interest in the existence of such WMD, and as he had access to information at the highest levels, this is strong support for the claim.
Ymarsakar: Right here you see an example of Z defending Iraq and Saddam’s lack of committal to following their promise to disarm.
With the help of you and the previous commenter, we can see how some people have trouble facing facts.
Ymar, that would be a hoot to see a teleprompterless empty suit like Obama take on somebody with real wit and intelligence.
Not that I think he’d ever get near the nomination, but it would be a delight to watch Rudy Giuliani slice, dice and eviscerate NBOTUS (Nancy Boy of the United States). Watching The One dissolve as Rudy casts magic Dorothy water on him would be a true “Take me now, Lord” moment.
(Zach, just so you understand what I’m talking about:
Dorothy water = the contents of the slop pail that Dorothy Gale threw on the Wicked Witch of the West in “The Wizard of Oz,” a 1939 Technicolor film from MGM that was based on a popular children’s book.
Rudy Giuliani = a former mayor of New York City noted for oppressing people of color so much that the city’s crime rate inexplicably plummeted.
NBOTUS = the current president of the United States, elected by mental giants like you.
Take me now, Lord = a whimsical declaration intended to indicate great pleasure at life’s current circumstances.
English = the language that I have been schooling you in for several weeks now.)
In response, we noted that the former President admitted that there were no significant stockpiles of WMD in Iraq. As he has a vested interest in the existence of such WMD, and as he had access to information at the highest levels, this is strong support for the claim.
So you are speaking for Bush, by making him say that he admitted things he did not. Like I said.
Until Bush comes up here, reads the topic of note, and makes a direct comment, by himself and not through a flunky or proxy, it didn’t come from Bush. And you’re not Bush, Z. What is so hard to understand about the chain of evidence or proxies here.
In the absence of such, all we can truly rely upon is the honor of one’s word. And your word, Z, is not held to high standards of respect here. It is not sufficient enough by itself.
On a thread about how some people ignore even the most stubborn of facts.
Ymarsakar: So you are speaking for Bush, by making him say that he admitted things he did not.
George Bush, 11/9/2010: “When we didn’t find weapons, I felt terrible about it, and sick about it and still do because a lot of the case in removing Saddam Hussein was based upon weapons of mass destruction.”
http://tinyurl.com/5wesuon
Like I said, that is not George Bush talking to us here. That is you Zach making a point using an interpretation and probably misquotation of somebody you don’t know anything about. That you have never met. Who does not consider you a friend, a trusted confidante, or even an unknown bureaucratic clerk when he was President.
Leftists like you often like to quote other people and use their authority and credentials as a surrogate for your own lack of judgment and capability. That doesn’t work against conservatives most of the time.
Unlike you, some of us know how to manipulate other people’s words. In fact, Sarah Palin’s interview was edited such that her own words were used against her to make her say and imply things that she never said or implied.
Unlike you, Zach, we are overly familiar with propaganda methods. Ignorance is no excuse for you and George W. Bush isn’t going to come riding in here on his horse to help ya out.
On a thread about refusing to face facts…
Zachriel: George Bush, 11/9/2010: “When we didn’t find weapons, I felt terrible about it, and sick about it and still do because a lot of the case in removing Saddam Hussein was based upon weapons of mass destruction.”
http://tinyurl.com/5wesuon
Ymarsakar: Like I said, that is not George Bush talking to us here.
No, it’s called quoting him. He even wrote it down in his memoir.
“No one was more shocked or angry than I was when we didn’t find weapons of mass destruction. I had a sickening feeling every time I thought about it. I still do.” — George Bush, Decision Point 2010.
Lee Stranahan provides video and update of Pigford. It’s not nice, in fact it’s lousy.
It’s back to business on our investigation of the Pigford story – the ongoing fraud that needs your help and attention to make it stop. The mainstream – with a few exceptions like John Stossel – are ignoring the story of the one of the biggest frauds in U.S. history because it doesn’t fit their narrative. The good guys are the real farmers who faced discrimination at the hands of the UsDA and the people, mostly conservative at this point, trying to bring their story to light. The bad guys are the trial lawyers, politicians, race hustlers and those inside the USDA who profit by lying to the public about how the Pigford settlement is a ‘victory’ for black farmers.
http://biggovernment.com/lstranahan/2011/03/29/original-pigford-claimant-calls-it-one-of-the-biggest-conspiracies-against-the-u-s-treasury-ever/
[...] Room captures my frustration with the leftist mindset. It is armor-plated with myths and slogans, and nearly [...]
[...] Room captures my frustration with the leftist mindset. It is armor-plated with myths and slogans, and nearly [...]