Ah.....screw them

Last one out, turn off the lights.

In all seriousness, looks like the little bitch is finally tumbling to the fact that every single piece of venom on his site is going to be screen captured and copied and disseminated ad nauseum to hurt him and the candidates he supports and works for come election time...

"Ah.....screw them" LOL! Shark, thats just evil.

Tob

Read Kos' update to the original post. He has reinstated a bunch of them already. You call that a purge? This is another example why we can't trust liberals to lead our nation at a time of war.

Looks like a false hope. Plenty of conspiracy-mongering to go around in the comments to that very thread.

If, as many contend, we are free to speak our minds in this country, even if it's some lunatic-fringe, whackjob conspiracy theory, then wouldn't a "purge" be a restriction on freedom of speech.

Methinks I hear the contradictory flapping of moonbat wings approaching...

Why is it that the left's solution for people who they disagree with is always to purge them?

Good question, jd.

I thought the use of the word "purge" was especially revealing....in a Stalinesque sort of way :)

I love the comment where someone asks, apparently in all earnestness, "would you have banned people who during the cold war said the CIA was conducting mind control experiments on their own personnel and opening Americans' mail?"

Well, when you put it that way!

This was an intriguing thread:

So, Kos says that he's banned a number of dairies, because they are claiming there was a conspiracy.

But now he is reinstating them because they weren't warned?

What does the warning entail? A warning not to:

Hold such beliefs?

Continue with those beliefs?

Posting those beliefs?

Making arguments supporting such beliefs?

If these were offensive, then why reinstate the people? How many times would one have to be warned about using the "n-word" before being banned?

If these were controversial, are they more or less controversial than, say, claims that no aircraft hit the Pentagon, or that Bush is a chimp?

If you truly love your moonbats set them free, wait ten minutes then reopen the cave, they'll come home to roost.

Now they are arguing amongst themselves -- too funny.

And oh yeah, Pearl Harbor was fake too according to the goofballs in that thread.

If they are too wacky for Markos, it's scary that they are out walking around. Tom Cruise should get over there quick and give them some vitamins.

You guys are just jealous.

dKos is one of the most influential political blogs around is responsible, in part, for getting the DSM into the mainstream media.

Furthermore, dKos is approaching 60,000 subscribers.

Wizbang's influence pales in comparison.

Karmafish --

I'm a smalltime blogger (at Pennywit.com!!), but my feelings toward Kos and his site are mixed. On the one hand, I certainly covet his numbers -- the user base, the influence, the blogad revenue, the business for his political consulting pracitce.

On the other hand, I'm somewhat glad that I don't run as big a blog as Kos does for at least a couple reasons.

First off, Kos is a huge, big target. If he bends one way, he gets attacked. Bend the other way, he gets attacked. Let the extremists post on his blog, he's an extremist too. Boot them off, and he's a Nazi.

Second, his blog is so huge that it's a full-time job. While blogging is fun and all, it would be truly exhausting to do this sort of thing full-time, day in and day out. It wouldn't kill you, but it could leave you mentally exhausted.

Yeah, he's a big, successful uberblogger. But there's something to be said for running a small, quiet shop, too.

--|PW|--

As for the numbers, Karma, you may recall that quality trumps quantity. But I have to concede one point to you: if by influence, you mean influencing reasonable people to believe that dkos flaps at the head of a 60,000 moonbat rookery, then yes, they've got influence in spades. No one here at Wizbang could ever make them look as bad as their own words do.

Hey! I made my points, and I didn't even compare anyone to Nazis!

Karmafish projects, You guys are just jealous.

And you're a slandering pig. I doubt anybody here is "jealous" of dKos. The guy running it is in another reality challenged universe and has a vision of the world that is not grounded in truth. Jealous? Hahaha...yeah right.

Actually, not a moment too soon but good for him.

Hi Pennywit,

You're comments are fair enough. dKos is huge, no doubt, and I'm sure that Kos has one hell of a job keeping up with things. I wish you the best on your blog.

Lord Floppington,

I love that name!

The quality at dKos is mixed. Like this site, it's pretty wide open. Many of the diaries are very good, even excellent. Of course, some are putrid.

As for likwidshoe,

I'm a "slandering pig," huh?

Jeez, calling someone jealous. What a horrible slander! What an insult!

You claim that Kos has "a vision of the world that is not grounded in truth"?

Would you care to back up that claim? Why should I take this seriously without evidence?

Karmafish,

Kos is the LLL equivalent of the porch light on a summer night. It is "influential" only to others of their ilk.

BTW...

If I use your logic then you must agree that McDonalds makes the best food around because they have sold "Billions and Billions" of them.

"Like this site, it's pretty wide open"

Kos?

Wide open?

I've registered oh, at least 6 times in an attempt to engage in non-trolling debate.

I think we all know what happens next... the herd gets in a kerfuffle and nobody answers a damn question except for "FUCK OFF WINGER."

Wide open, yes indeedy.

SmugMonkey,

that happens here, also.

If I, for example, state on Wizbang that the War in Iraq was founded on a pack of lies and that torturing prisoners in Gitmo is a rather poor idea, I'm likely to get slimed.

Karma -

Bake that wild shit up with some actual facts and I'm (and I'm sure others) all ears.

... or broil it, make me no nevermind...

PIMF

Okay.

*Back

*makes

sigh.

Right up until March, 2003, Bush claimed that the administration hoped to avoid war.

This was untrue.

Evidence:

Joe Wilson
Richard Clark
the Downing Street Memos
the Project for a New American Century

In 1999, Bush told writer Mickey Herskowitz that "If I have a chance to invade….if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency."

http://www.gnn.tv/articles/article.php?id=761

Karmafish rationalizes, Jeez, calling someone jealous. What a horrible slander! What an insult!

Well, you can rationalize it away in any way you want. Still slander though...

You claim that Kos has "a vision of the world that is not grounded in truth"?

Yes.

Would you care to back up that claim?

Redistribution of the wealth in the style of Karl Marx. "Civil rights" which are nothing but an empty charade for special rights. "Equality" while supporting "affirmative" action. "Patriotic" while spitting on the country and our troops. The belief that Republicans are "racists", but that black people couldn't make it without the Democrats. The claim that the right is "fascist", and yet you are the one who wants to control my health care, my retirement, my paycheck, the amount of water in my toilet, the gas mileage in my car, what schools my kids can go to, and on and on and on and on and on...

Do you want more examples or do I make myself clear?

Karmafish brings up Richard Clark. That's a laugh. Which Richard Clark, may I ask? The public speaking Richard Clark? Or perhaps the book Richard Clark? Or perhaps it is the 9/11 testimony Richard Clark? All three are conflicting, so which is it Karmafish?

And then you bring up the Downing Street Memos. Please explain the relevance of these memos outside of moonbat circles. Thank you.

I just finished reading Richard Clarke's book and I must say that it was incredibly informative and loaded with insider information. It was also cleared by the White House and I'm posiive that it wouldn't have been if there were even a hint of misinformation. He goes through the Reagan years, the war between the Russians and Afghans/Taliban/budding AlQaeda and how we armed the mujahadeen (those stinger missiles were devestating to the Russian cause) right through present day. An excellent read and unchallenged from a factual standpoint.

Ho ho ho, the Kos "purge" - ROFWL !

Perhaps his site's $ugar Daddy friends didn't want the conspiracy theorists there to discover this:

7/7/05: at http://www.jsmineset.com/

"Dear Jim [Sinclair]:

I have been around the markets a long time and I have to say that today was perhaps one of the most egregious efforts I can recall witnessing of the unelected and accountable-to-no-one monetary authorities leaving their footprints in a market for those who have the least bit of experience trading.

Very best, Dan [Norcini]"

I love how bloggers are generally such dissent pussies. Case in point, dKos requires registration to post. I have been using the internet for years and refuse to sign up just for a one off, then ban deal. Most bloggers are always afriad of going over the edge, losing popularity, well your little internet world is not the real one, popularity does not matter. My stance that Israel, both Biblical and Today, totally sucks and is the cause of practically all the worlds problems is too controversial for most blogs left or right. It is an instant ban deal. Well truth is Israel still totally sucks and I shall continue to spread the word no matter how many blogs I am banned from as an "anti-semitic hater". dKos is just a wannabe uberwuss, an israeliTOOL of the highest order on par with Charles Johnson of LGF, a guy he supposedly hates.

My stance that Israel, both Biblical and Today, totally sucks and is the cause of practically all the worlds problems is too controversial for most blogs left or right.

Maybe it's just too stupid. Think of that possibility?

Well truth is Israel still totally sucks and I shall continue to spread the word no matter how many blogs I am banned from as an "anti-semitic hater". dKos is just a wannabe uberwuss, an israeliTOOL of the highest order on par with Charles Johnson of LGF, a guy he supposedly hates.

Hahaha. For your sake, it's a good thing that we don't lock up nutcases such as yourself.

RE: Karmafish's post (July 8, 2005 08:32 PM)

Specifically, http://www.gnn.tv/articles/article.php?id=761 since the other material has been sufficiently questioned and discredited by others in many different venues.

Are you kidding me? A few moments of review leads me to believe that this is utter crap, er, makes me question the veracity of such an exposé.

To set the scenario, consider the following:

You've cited the "Guerilla News Network". Scan the site and look at all of the bias. Heck, the name of the network screams out "we're pretty far-out politically, but believe us when we say we're trustworthy, comrade".

The author of the piece, Russ Baker, is not an "independent journalist" in a political sense as far as I can tell. He is independent in the sense that he is not a syndicated journalist who is able to appear regularly. Not that there is anything wrong with that but the term "independent" is misleading. Perhaps it is my own cynicism that is clouding my interpretation.

Next, "research support for this article was provided by the Investigative Fund of The Nation Institute". [http://www.nationinstitute.org/events/] Heh, an extension of The Nation? Gee, you think there's an agenda anywhere that might cloud Mr. Baker's "independence"?

Now to the meat of the actual article that caught my eye regarding Mickey Herskowitz's original "recollections" of Bush's pubescent Presidential policies.

In 1999, when Herskowitz turned in his chapters for Charge to Keep, Bush’s staff expressed displeasure —often over Herskowitz’s use of language provided by Bush himself...

In the end, campaign officials decided not to go with Herskowitz's account, and, moreover, demanded everything back. "The lawyer called me and said, 'Delete it. Shred it. Just do it.'"

"They took it and [communications director] Karen [Hughes] rewrote it," he said. A campaign official arrived at his home at seven a.m. on a Monday morning and took his notes and computer files. However, Herskowitz, who is known for his memory of anecdotes from his long history in journalism and book publishing, says he is confident about his recollections.

So Herskowitz has motivation, also known as an axe to grind, to pay back GWBush for Herskowitz's "firing" (my quotes), to say nothing of any previous motivations to show Mr. Bush in a potentially unflattering light. I'm unfamiliar with Herskowitz's work (other than the titles presented in this piece) so maybe others may chime in with their perceptions of his style and content. The point is that this seems eerily similar to R. Clark's modus operandi and worthy of suspicion. Further, Herskowitz got in trouble for presenting material (on an unrelated topic) that he had presented previously, which was against his contract. Does that mean that his recollections are so poor that he did not remember the previous notes and had to copy them? I don't know but it makes one pause and reconsider his "memory of anecdotes". Maybe he just forgot his contract and the stories are entirely valid.

I don't have a particular fondness for Mr. Bush's policies, but you have presented some dubious sources. I'm not trying to kill the messenger though it may seem that way. Bush may or may not have said or thought the things that were reported. However, the literati assembling this pre-war conspiracy theory leave a lot to be desired. This particular one I'll dismiss out of hand since I have found the sourcing, financing, and reportage to be highly questionable... to be generous.

Karma, the Downing Street memo and Richard Clarke aren't particularly good pieces of evidence. Almost all of them are speculation by low-ranking members of a system about another person's motives, pretty far from acceptable testimony in a criminal court. The DSM doesn't show anything but hearsay, and Clarke only provided information uphill - all he can say is that the information was ignored, fairly useless since anyone that subscribes to the Wall Street Journal since 1993 would have been able to guess the impressive revelation (key to Clarke's arguement) that Osama Bin Laden wanted to attack the U.S.

And Joe Wilson didn't do anything but show that one potential source for WMD material MAY not have been involved with Iraq. His initial report itself admited that his access to Niger was far from perfect.

And have you actually looked at the Project for a New American Century? Although they tried to get Clinton to bomb the crap out of Iraq in 1998, that was one single letter. Since then, they'be spent most of 2000 trying to get more efficent troop positioning in the No Fly Zone around Iraq and have no less than six major papers written between 2000 and 2003 stating that Iran was more of an issue. In fact, they decided that the cost of maintaining troops in and around Iraq "transcended the issue of Saddam"! Makes me not trust this group for political advice, but doesn't seem like a huge conspiracy.

As to your smoking gun, the full quote is :

"One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief. My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it. If I have a chance to invade---if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency."

This is your biggest smoking gun. A rather confused sentence by someone even I'll admit isn't that good of a speaker. Fine. I don't remember the war in Kuwait as being to great a source of political capital, but whatever.

This sounds more like a President admitting that they'd use political capital from a war to further their own personal agenda (something Clinton did).
Maybe, just maybe, damning about the war in Afganistan, but only if you're drunk as hell in the first place. Iraq was a use of political capital, not a source. Simply being used as a metaphor doesn't cause a direct connection.