« Anna Nicole Smith Dead After Collapse | Main | Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners »

Edwards Gives Potty Mouth Bloggers A Second Chance

When I wrote yesterday that Salon was reporting Edwards had fired the two bloggers he hired to work on his campaign for profane and anti-Christian statements, I also ran this quote:

The Salon report says the bloggers were fired, but also includes this quote from Jennifer Palmieri saying she would "caution [Salon] against reporting that they have been fired. We will have something to say later." I will update as new information is available.

Well, now I am updating and we know what Palmieri meant. Edwards says he has talked to the bloggers and he has decided not to fire them.

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards said Thursday he was personally offended by the provocative messages two of his campaign bloggers wrote criticizing the Catholic church, but he's not going to fire them.

Edwards issued a statement and answered questions about the fate of Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwen, two days after the head of the conservative Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights demanded they be fired for messages they wrote before working on the campaign.

"I talked personally to the two women who were involved. They gave me their word they, under no circumstances, intended to denigrate any church or anybody's religion and offered their apologies for anything that indicated otherwise. I took them at their word," Edwards told reporters during a campaign stop in Charleston, South Carolina

I know this might earn him some credibility with his lunatic fringe Bush-hating base, but don't think it will play so well in the general election. What will be most interesting to watch is whether or not Hillary or any of Edwards' other primary opponents will be able to use this without ticking off their D.U.-Kos supporters. I think when all is said and done, this is one Edwards will regret.


Update: Michelle Malkin says the "pandagonization" of Edwards is complete. She also rounds up reaction.

Update II: The Anchoress was against firing the bloggers, but she still has plenty to say, and she has a great roundup of others blogging.

Bill Faith wins first prize for best blog post title just edging out Misha.

Update III: I agree with Bryan at Hot Air: "If they truly never meant to malign anyone's faith, as Edwards says, Marcotte and McEwan are two of the most incompetent writers on the planet. Or they lied to him and he bought it whole. Or as Allah says, he's just taking us all for fools."

Certainly Edwards must have finally bitten the bullet and gotten around to reading some of the writing the bloggers have been criticized for when making his decision to keep them on. That means John Edwards has put himself on record saying he believes Marcotte's comments on the immaculate conception could possibly be construed as anything other than denigrating someone's religion. Of course, he could be resting it all on the word "intended." Maybe it was just an accident that they denigrated anyone's religion. My guess is he is counting on the fact that most of the offensive blog posts are so extreme that no mainstream media outlets will be able to repeat them. Whatever Edwards was thinking, this does not make him look good.

More from Sister Toldjah, who says this isn't bad for our side.

Update IV: John Hawkins exaggerates a bit in the following, but there is evidence on quite a few liberal blogs indicating that his comment has at least some truth to it: "If liberal candidates like John Edwards couldn't hire people who hated Christians and Southerners, how could they ever fill up a staff? After all, that's probably a description of 3/4ths of the liberal activists on the planet and half the candidates. So, what else could he do but keep Marcotte and what's her face?"


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Edwards Gives Potty Mouth Bloggers A Second Chance:

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Catholics slam bloggers hired by Edwards

» Michelle Malkin linked with The Pandagonization of John Edwards is complete

» America's North Shore Journal linked with John Edwards Is Too Rich To Matter

» Right Pundits linked with John Edwards, Poopulist

Comments (151)

I have read Padagon off & o... (Below threshold)
Fitz:

I have read Padagon off & on for quite some time. It always struck me as one of the most vitriolic, veracious, and anti-religious sites on the web. (I suppose that's why its popular among the cultural left)

So when I heard that she had been hired by a previous Democratic vice-presidential candidate I felt I had to do something.

You combine the name calling with what isproperly described as a complete ignorance of Catholic teachings. (I believe it goes beyond that, surely they are aware that said teachings have greater purpose than mere prudery or misogyny) Yet they persistently combine such claims along with pictures, epitaphs, slander, and sneer.

The blog itself concerns itself with attacks on the religious right along with mostly pro-gay extremist rhetoric.

One assumes that Edwards staffers took would take another look at what's posted their and justifiably run for cover.

"Ohhhhhh NOOOOOOoooooooo, I... (Below threshold)

"Ohhhhhh NOOOOOOoooooooo, I would never mean to offend those people whom I clearly despise. PROMISE!!"

I think this was the worst strategy -- fire them and rehire them. He loses respect from both sides.

Sounds like he learned something from Kerry.

Reposting from another thre... (Below threshold)
Old Coot:

Reposting from another thread:

Is there any doubt about what the nutroots would be saying if Marcotte had aimed her potty-mouth at Mohammed? Is there any doubt about what those same folks would say if a Republican candidate hired Ann Coulter? F'n hypocrites.

I guess Marcotte is just li... (Below threshold)
eddie bear:

I guess Marcotte is just living up to the moonbats' claim to be "speaking truth to power".

I'm with Wavemaker; it was ... (Below threshold)
Cousin Dave:

I'm with Wavemaker; it was a totally political tone-deaf response. Edwards had two choices: either fire them, or take a stand and support them. Instead, he mumbled a half-assed apology, and now he's putting his head in the sand waiting for it all to go away. The result is that the moderate voters are going to be turned off, and the nutroots are going to regard him as pwned and won't feel obligated to support him.

Well, it's not like Edwards... (Below threshold)
Terf1016:

Well, it's not like Edwards is actually going to be a contender, anyway.

And Glenn Reynolds approves... (Below threshold)
mikem:

And Glenn Reynolds approves of Edwards' decision. Gee, what a shock!!

Lorie"I know th... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Lorie

"I know this might earn him some credibility with his lunatic fringe Bush-hating base,"

And...you,Lorie & Kim have credibility w/ your lunatic fringe, Democratic-hating base.

You sup, licking at the feet of Malkin/Slattern or the "temperate?" hater, Coulter, and you have the nerve to script a post like this?

Just look at the kind of posting that you 2 do, virtually everyday. Link w/ extremist rightie haters like the 2 above,give currency to their hate- shit, yell and scream as you poison the well, and, then never correct the shit you began with. You two are filled w/ psychotic hate. No wonder that you are unsurpassed in seeing the same in others.

Trollop!... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Trollop!

Thanks for the prize, Lorie... (Below threshold)

Thanks for the prize, Lorie, but I feel guilty; I just swiped Misha's title and then tweaked it a little. All Hail His Rottiness.

I read somewhere that about... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

I read somewhere that about 8% of voters read blogs. If that's correct 40% or so are dems and 40% or so are repubs; that makes about 3.2% repubs who read blogs + 1.6% independents. Maybe 4.8% of the voters, at best, give a hoot about this issue one and a half years before the primaries.

Yawn

Lorie wrote -- "The Salo... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Lorie wrote -- "The Salon report says the bloggers were fired, but also includes this quote from Jennifer Palmieri saying she would "caution [Salon] against reporting that they have been fired. We will have something to say later." I will update as new information is available."

And at the end of your last update on the previous post you wrote this:

"Regarding Pam's post, it will be interesting to see if there is any fallout in the left blogosphere over the firing."

What firing?

Sure, you quoted Salon, but that didn't stop you from pushing the meme that they were being fired.

Think about it this way - b... (Below threshold)
Mike:

Think about it this way - barely six months ago Democrats smashed Jim Allen down to the depths of Hell and recreated him in the image of the Devil Incarnate just because he used the word "macaca" in a verbal aside.

But those same liberals seem okay with Marcotte and her incrediblely offensive religious slurs and seething hatred of Christianity. Her intolerance is just fine, and besides, well, she didn't really mean it anyway.

Incredible. Just ... incredible.

And who better to comment o... (Below threshold)
LissaKay:

And who better to comment on hatefulness than Puke him/herself? Heh ...

Puke, since you are such an expert on hate, why don't you go round up some examples of Malkin or Coulter that exemplify your assertion that they have said anything on a par with some of the vile and disgusting things Marcotte has posted.

To help you out, here is a round up of some of the choicer Marcotte bits.

Ready? Set? Go!

YawnPosted by: Hu... (Below threshold)
LissaKay:
Yawn Posted by: Hugh

That's the problem with the left ... no sense of humor. Come on! That IMPORTANT ACTION ALERT is freakin' hi-larious!

Lorie...you are more obsess... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

Lorie...you are more obsessed with the Democratic Party than Democrats are..
Are you ever gonna post your views on Rudi?
..Do you have any problem with his fidelity issues?..His pro-choice stance..his pro gay stance?

How about Milt?...any problems with his flip/flops?

How about McCain? Any problems with his slamming the religious right in 2000?

All your stuff has to do with Dems...

Do you even have a position on Republican Candidates? Do you disaree with any Republicans?

You slam lefty blogs..but at least they criticize Dems..

Lorie's written a bunch on ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Lorie's written a bunch on Rudy, actually.

Posted by: aRepukelican... (Below threshold)
marc:

Posted by: aRepukelican at February 8, 2007 05:30 PM

And your point is? Other than mimicking what you're condemning others for.

Something on the Edwards topic would be nice.

That's the problem... (Below threshold)
That's the problem with the left ... no sense of humor. Come on! That IMPORTANT ACTION ALERT is freakin' hi-larious! Posted by: LissaKay at February 8, 2007 05:50 PM

That is exactly right. Nothing that comes out of the word-holes of repuke, nogo, Lee et al is even remotely positive or even funny.

They and their cohorts live in a self-imposed black pit of despair. I didn't care for Clinton and her husband for 8 years, but I didn't whine about it constantly. I went about my day and lived my life. I didn't blame Clinton for any hardships in my life. But that's the opposite of you trolls.

That and you're really not funny. Bunch of whiny petulant doom-sayers who want to bring everyone else down to their level in some sick twisted version of robin hood.

Trolls, just because you and your lives suck doesn't mean the rest of us want to join you. You should try to get that thought to fire across your thick skulls one of these days.

mantissuch as what... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

mantis

such as what?

I would believe you mantis ... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

I would believe you mantis but my experience here persuades me that so many doubt your credibility..that I have..primal doubts..

However,; if true than I retract my charge concerning Lorie and Rudi...

Anyone have any spare despa... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Anyone have any spare despair, my black pit is running low. Nogo? aR?

Humor is in the eye of the beholder, Steve. Watching conservatives kvetch and fart over the fact that their make-belief world of being tough on terrorism -- and shaping our country's morals in His image -- has now come falling down around their petty, intolerant heads is, to me, a genuine laugh-riot.

I can understand why you wouldn't share that view...but seriously, lighten up. Look on the bright side. In twenty years or so religious conservatism may have another shot at running this country, and who knows -- maybe, just maybe, you guys will do a better job next time, and not be laughed out of office with the lowest approval ratings imaginable.

It may be nearly a year bef... (Below threshold)

It may be nearly a year before the first primaries, but how would YOU like to be named coordinator of "Catholics for Edwards" for the campaign now?

The idea that they didn't want to denigrate someone's faith with those vile screeds is laughable.

Personally, I expect both of them to leave the campaign once the controversy fades a bit - probably not because Edwards asks them to, either. Being a campaign blogger has to be the most boring and confining position any blogger can imagine. You have to say nothing but wonderful things about your guy, defend him even when he screws up royally, and be extremely careful what you post at all times.

For bloggers used to the total freedom these gals apparently had (given the stuff they wrote), being an "official campaign blogger" is going to get old reeeeeeeeal fast.

I suspect Pat Hynes may be having second thoughts himself. He's finding you can't really maintain your own separate blog because everything you post is seen in the light of your political relationship, even if it has nothing to do with it. For instance, anything he posts about any other GOP contender is immediately under fire, even from his loyal conservative readers, because of the McCain thing.

In order to make the position of "campaign blogger" tolerable, one would have to be a 100% true believer in the candidate. It would still be boring and confining in many ways, but the paycheck might compensate for that if one's heart was truly in it.

well it's apparent that bri... (Below threshold)

well it's apparent that brief the period of reflection on civility brought about by DJ has ended...

I have little use for the b... (Below threshold)
BC:

I have little use for the blogosphere in general, with right side in chronic smear 'n' confuse mode when they aren't going foaming mad dog over piddly, bizarre issues, and the left just talking the talk without ever really taking a bite, nevermind going for the jungular however well-deserved. So I'm not too sure what to make of this mini-battle between right and left bloggers over this matter. I did go to Pandagon.com to quickly peruse a bunch of Amanda Marcotte's writings to see what her deal was. As expected, the right's complaints were a combo of smear 'n' confuse with mad dog foaming at the mouth nonsense. Marcotte's stuff was pretty standard issue liberal smart-aleckly journalism that's been the norm for alternative weeklies since the 60's. If you're out living somewhere in the cow tipping area of the country and generally get your news from the guy sitting next to you in the bar, the concept of "alternative weeklies" may be a never before heard about alien concept, much like recycling and intelligent conversation, but they are indeed things common in areas of the nations with college radio, espresso drinks and sidewalks.

What's interesting to me about this tempest in a mug is that the left side bloggers actually finally stood up a little bit to the so called "wingnuts" (I think that term is way, WAY too polite) and actually made a difference apprarently in the end result. The right wing bloggers like Malkin seem to be going "Huh?!?" more than anything, having gotten use to their usually clueless, often vile and smearing nonsense to be blissfully linked to and distributed all over with nary a discouraging word, nevermind actually being checked.

A promising sign of better things to come? Ehh...

The world of real journalism is in tougher shape everyday -- witness the Boston Globe -- and even very good bloggers are no compensation for even a mediocre newspaper, and the vast bulk of the blogging community isn't worth a single mug of tempest.

-BC

Ah well, we still got some ... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Ah well, we still got some great PR mileage out of the whole thing.

Edwards looks bad for hiring classless haters, we on the right get to point out the hypocrisy of the left (who apparently love hate speech now) and the MSM was forced to report the whole thing thanks to the rightwing blogs and Fox News!

Whooooo hooooo!

From reading the Edwards bl... (Below threshold)
Jo:

From reading the Edwards blog, John was NOT pleased with these two, although he gave them a second chance. First however he sat them down and gave them a good scolding.

Ha! Two hateful, vulgar, classless bioches got a Time Out from Edwards!!

Sweeeeeeeet!!!

Norway Steve..to me a troll... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

Norway Steve..to me a troll is someone who does a hit and run on a blog...I have been here for quite some time...it is true I have agreed with Jay more than Lorie...but Wizbang is like all quality blogs...you know kinda like a grade school lunchroom...noisy and messy...
I have been right..and I have been proven wrong..
But I have attempted, in most cases to back up my assertions with facts...
for example...
It was in August of 2006 that we started having more troops in Baghdad...the toll of American lives has gone up..send more troops into Baghdad will probably just mean more dead troops..for proof
http://www.icasualties.org/oif/

I read Elizabeth Edwards bo... (Below threshold)
PattyMelt:

I read Elizabeth Edwards book and she seems like such a decent nice church going woman. I'm just glad she got to see what kind of people are on "her side." I bet she was disgusted. Talk about a rude awakening. Very eye opening for her.

The rest of us have known for years.

A promising sign of bet... (Below threshold)
marc:

A promising sign of better things to come? Ehh...
-BC Posted by: BC at February 8, 2007 06:35 PM

And a quick look at the site linked to via BC's name tells you all you need to know, assuming the link is an endorsement of the link and its "information."

A "promising sign of better things" is when faked memos are real and "appointed" presidents weren't presidents.

Norway Steve..to me a t... (Below threshold)
marc:

Norway Steve..to me a troll is someone who does a hit and run on a blog...I have been here for quite some time..Posted by: nogo postal at February 8, 2007 06:49 PM

Ok nogo so you don't agree with the definition.

Although it's generally accepted a blog troll is one who consistently posts things to steer the debate away from its intended direction or just to be provocative or as desplyued in so many of your posts OFF topic.

But perhaps we can come to a more suitable description of you.

Blogroach:

noun. A reader who infests the comment section of a weblog, disagreeing with everything posted in the most obnoxious manner possible.

There, hows that? Will that work for you?

Lee, Regarding me pu... (Below threshold)
Lorie Byrd:

Lee,
Regarding me pushing a "meme" that Marcotte was fired... did you read Pam's post that I linked and quoted from Pandagon (which is Marcotte's blog)? Pam's post was all about Edwards firing Marcotte. If anything I was not "pushing" a meme, but a Salon report which I noted was contested (in a vague cryptic way) by the campaign.

As for me linking all the "haters" on the right (Puke's post)...I have written very critically of Ann Coulter and used to link her occasionally, but rarely ever do now. Even though she makes some excellent points, I think she has hurt her credibility with some of the things she has said and that is why I rarely ever link her. As for Michelle, I don't read every word she writes, but I would be shocked to learn she had written anything like Marcotte's "hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit" comment and know that she does not regularly use the "f" word and the "c" word in her posts. Have you read Marcotte?

Nogo -- I have not only written on all the issues you raised relating to Rudy, but I have also written quite a bit on McCain, and quite critically of him actually. You are right about Romney. I don't know if I have written anything about him at all. The one time there was something I was going to post about him Kim beat me to it. Sorry, but I have a life and there are only 24 hours in a day. I can't write about everything. If I did that I wouldn't have time to watch "24" every week.

Sorry I didn't make it through all the comments. Maybe I will catch up later.

Pattymelt,Elizabeth ... (Below threshold)
Lorie Byrd:

Pattymelt,
Elizabeth Edwards should know all about those on her side since she admitted to being a reader of the Democratic Underground back in the 2004 election. They know, they just don't think the general public will ever find out.

Once and for all, what does... (Below threshold)
Pete:

Once and for all, what does Ann Coulter have to do with any of this? Which presidential candidate has hired her (or Limbaugh or O'Reilly or Malkin or whoever else the hippies claim is Mandy's analog) to be his or her official blogger?

The best part about this is the hilarity of Marcotte, the model Roaring Feminist, retreating like a little girl for a buck after a scolding by a member of the rich white heterosexual Christian patriarchy. What a phony.

Bush flipping the bird.<br ... (Below threshold)
RedStayteColuge:

Bush flipping the bird.
Bush and Cheney refering to the reporter as a "major league asshole?.
Cheney telling a congressman to "Go Fuck Yourself".


Potty Mouths?

Wah. Eat it, cobags.

Lorie...I stand corrected..... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

Lorie...I stand corrected...it is so easy to give "tap on the knee" responses...that is what I did with you...I was wrong...

I may not agree with you but I respect the passion with which you post...

Oh goodie. I'm glad (as a ... (Below threshold)
bbozum:

Oh goodie. I'm glad (as a Catholic) that they didn't really mean all those nasty things that they said, it was satire after all. Who knew? Boy am I embarassed! Thank God lawyer John Edwards could sort all this out for us. Now if Edwards would just channel the thoughts of an "unborn" fetus who is getting it's brains sucked out in a partial birth abortion, I might just vote for the guy.

"not be laughed out of of... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"not be laughed out of office with the lowest approval ratings imaginable."

Sorry Loser Lee, People just got fed up and tired of hearing the Democrats Cry like babies about their Bottles , I mean not having any Power. Democrats did nothing to merit the Majority and did not even believe they were going to win as they were already geared up to air two shows that complained about voting machines not being reliable and voting fraud. What a shock it was when they realized they sqeaked it out thanks to their Media Fraud and Terrorist Partners.

Why don't you and your party of Criminal Commy Cowards have the guts and admit what you are and your intentions so we can begin with your extermination? Of course you can't , that's part of the scam and the only way you can still exist in this Country. We know you'll never admit to it , because your Democrats. No matter though your actions speak just as loud as your lies your Media hides from the public. Good luck in 08 , your lies are coming back sooner than your Rats hoped. You know the taste of leather well so you should be used to it by now. Happy chewing.

Lorie: "Lee, Regarding m... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Lorie: "Lee, Regarding me pushing a "meme" that Marcotte was fired... did you read Pam's post that I linked and quoted from Pandagon (which is Marcotte's blog)? Pam's post was all about Edwards firing Marcotte. If anything I was not "pushing" a meme, but a Salon report which I noted was contested (in a vague cryptic way) by the campaign."

I did read Pam's post, and I didn't come to the conclusion anyone had been fired. I don't have any reason to put credibility into something Pam wrote (and in retrospect that was a good move for me).

You apparently did, however, buy into the meme that these bloggers were being fired, because after reading and linking to Pam's post, your write:

"Regarding Pam's post, it will be interesting to see if there is any fallout in the left blogosphere over the firing."

I repeat again, what firing? You have to buy into them being fired in order to have any reason to wonder what the fallout is "over the firing".

Look over your shoulder every once in a while, Lorie -- backpedaling this furiously you have to be careful... you might run into something you said earlier. Just ask Kim.

ah Rob..."Democrats did not... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

ah Rob..."Democrats did nothing to merit the Majority"..yes they did..the election of 2006 by those who voted..
I know it is in question because the Supreme Court did not decide it...but what ya gonna do?

"taste of leather"? Please leave out you sexual preferences...

"so we can begin your exter... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

"so we can begin your extermination"...Rob..this is ..ah very simply Nazi hate speech....I have not seen many posts by you here before...
Yeah...this blog brings out our views..but I doubt few here...on either side share your KKK/Islamofacist/Nazi..viewpoints...may I suggest you keep your posts to the appropiate white power blogs

"As for Michelle, I don't r... (Below threshold)
jp2:

"As for Michelle, I don't read every word she writes, but I would be shocked to learn she had written anything like Marcotte's "hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit..."

At what point does she lose credibility Lorie? What would she have to do? Would you positively link to Dan Rather pieces?

Her Jamil Hussein search (which you unfortunately supported) was embarrassing. And suggesting that Kerry shot himself? Why do you link to her and Coulter at all? Why do you associate yourself with them?

(Personally, she was out for me when she wrote a book with a racist premise. It's staggering she has support, even among the right)

Although it's generally ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Although it's generally accepted a blog troll is one who consistently posts things to steer the debate away from its intended direction or just to be provocative

Well, kinda right, though there is a well-established definition that you can refer to if you don't fully know. But even according to your definition, the term does not apply to someone who simply disagrees with you. That so many here use it in that situation, while ignoring those few on the right who post nothing but hateful off-topic insults, demonstrates either a hateful insecurity with opposing views, or a lack of basic comprehension.

I think this was the wor... (Below threshold)
Brian:

I think this was the worst strategy -- fire them and rehire them. He loses respect from both sides.

Kinda like what Bush did with Rumsfeld, except in reverse.

Edwards had two choices: either fire them, or take a stand and support them.

Or he could have done what Bush did: both.

Hey Redstayte -- is was Pat... (Below threshold)

Hey Redstayte -- is was Pat Leahy he told to go fuck himself -- and righteously so. But you can't truly be serious to equate an occasional offhand curse with serial flith, can you?

Oh I'm sorry , I forgot ... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

Oh I'm sorry , I forgot the party that 85% of felons vote for and proudly claimed by the democrats are interested in earning their positions. Since it much more difficult for incompetant blowhards to actually do the work they claim to be able to do. It's much easier to lie and pretend to care and let words dribble out ones lips. How can ya blame them when they have imbeciles like you to repeat their lies for them. Fools and willing tools.

"by those who voted.." like dead people , illegals , double voters, even voting for dollars. Why aren't you proud of the effort made trying to steal yet another election in 2000? It was your bet effort yet . The media and Terrorist Partners gave ya this one , at least get off your lazy ass and pull your own weight.

Edwards had two choices: ei... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Edwards had two choices: either fire them, or take a stand and support them.

Or he could have done what Bush did: both
-----------------------------------------------
Or Edward could continue what liberals usually do: promote the bad behaviors. Better yet to find another liar like Wilson to work with this blogger to come up with another big lie and set the liberal MSM/blogs in action to support another campaign based on lies.

But even according to y... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

But even according to your definition, the term does not apply to someone who simply disagrees with you. That so many here use it in that situation, while ignoring those few on the right who post nothing but hateful off-topic insults, demonstrates either a hateful insecurity with opposing views, or a lack of basic comprehension.

Sorry Brian, but in the case of folks like nogo, BryanD, Barney, Lee, John, Maggy and a few others, the definition applies more often then it does not. I'll grant that there are 2-3 (you might make that number as high as 5) regular posters on the right post mostly hateful comments. But when there were only 2-3 hateful lefties, they were ignored too. As it is, Jhow and company limit themselves to mostly being hateful in return to the nasty bile that comes from the aforementioned trolls.

I stand corrected Lee, nogo... (Below threshold)

I stand corrected Lee, nogo...you guys are joyless d-bags who have this unremitting passion for seeing this country fail.

You're the glass-half-empty crowd...if that's how you want to live your lives, hey, so be it.

"I have not seen many posts... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"I have not seen many posts by you here before."

Por que eres un perra madre who thinks life is something to be played with . Tienes el cabeza so full of that stuff that comes out Fraud Kerry , Clinton's and Pelosi's ass. I'm am still currently registered Democratic, stupid and you ought to think twice before you assume I studied under your Senior Senator Bobby "SHEETS" Byrd, hijo de tres mil putas.

Lorie, a small correction: ... (Below threshold)
goddessoftheclassroom:

Lorie, a small correction: Marcotte's disgusting insult to an article of faith was NOT the Immaculate Conception but of Christ's conception. The Immaculate Conception is a Roman Catholic doctrine that states that the Virgin Mary herselt was conceived without original sin in order to be a fit mother for Christ.

Christ's own conception was put forth in the Nicean Creed as "I believe in Jeseus Christ, His {God's} only son, our Lord. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgina Mary..." This is part of the standard declaration of faith by many Christian demoninationsk Protestant as wll as Catholic, and as an Episcopalian, I am appalled by her crassness.

Well, kinda right, thou... (Below threshold)
marc:

Well, kinda right, though there is a well-established definition that you can refer to if you don't fully know. Posted by: Brian at February 8, 2007 08:07 PM

Anything posted at wikipedia could be "well-established" on the other hand any, and everyone can edit it to suit their own desires and agenda.

However, what is the demonstrable difference between my definition:

"... a blog troll is one who consistently posts things to steer the debate away from its intended direction or just to be provocative or as desplyued in so many of your posts OFF topic.

And yours as provided at the link:

"... a troll is a person who enters an established community such as an online discussion forum and intentionally tries to cause disruption, often in the form of posting messages that are inflammatory, insulting, incorrect, inaccurate, or off-topic, with the intent of provoking a reaction from others.

Maybe there is in your mind, and I might believe you. At the same time I take into account you believe what is written about the validity of Loose Change.

marc a wrote:"A... (Below threshold)
BC:

marc a wrote:

"A promising sign of better things to come? Ehh..."
-BC Posted by: BC at February 8, 2007 06:35 PM

And a quick look at the site linked to via BC's name tells you all you need to know, assuming the link is an endorsement of the link and its "information."

A "promising sign of better things" is when faked memos are real and "appointed" presidents weren't presidents.

Guess what, Sherlock: the memos aren't fake and the moon landings weren't staged (and Bush was appointed, although I don't know why you brought that up). And it's a sad ass commentary on the state of our free press that so many people believe otherwise. It you had bothered to take more than a quick glance at the site, you would have noted that it goes into extreme detail about everything and anything involving the memos. and it pretty much kills bit by bit all of the tremendous nonsense and BS propagated by the likes of LGF and the Freepers, and aided indirectly by a lazy ass corporate media increasingly adverse to actual research and investigation.

Actually I've managed to get some right wingers and typographers in other contexts to reluctantly agree that Word could not have been used, although they've claimed that I have to eliminate all other modern word processors, meaning from the past 15 years or so as well -- yeah right...

You can dismiss it if you want, but unlike the others, I actually did my homework.

I do have another experiment to do that I haven't finished yet because it's a pain in the butt and I haven't had much free time lately. We'll see though....

But those same liberals ... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

But those same liberals seem okay with Marcotte and her incrediblely offensive religious slurs and seething hatred of Christianity. Her intolerance is just fine, and besides, well, she didn't really mean it anyway.

Incredible. Just ... incredible.

It's hardly incredible. The left has ALWAYS lived by the mantra of "It's not bad if we do it". There are legions of examples of it.

Just look at the kind of posting that you 2 do, virtually everyday. Link w/ extremist rightie haters like the 2 above,give currency to their hate- shit, yell and scream as you poison the well, and, then never correct the shit you began with. You two are filled w/ psychotic hate. No wonder that you are unsurpassed in seeing the same in others.

This is when examples help.

Her Jamil Hussein search (which you unfortunately supported) was embarrassing. And suggesting that Kerry shot himself? Why do you link to her and Coulter at all? Why do you associate yourself with them?

Except it proved nobody named Jamil Hussein worked for the Iraqi olice (and AP never even asked for his name).

Nobody outside of the AP has verified his existence.

The mosques that they claimed burned to the ground are, in fact, still standing.

Yeah, that's some harsh embarrassment there.

Like sexual harassment, hate speech ceases to be a concern the moment a lib is guilty of it.
-=Mike

marc, Loose Change rocks. E... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

marc, Loose Change rocks. Especially at around the 54th minute of the film, as the cutter charges are videotaped detonating 20 floors below and ahead of the collapsing structure. But back on topic: jhow666 is a national treasure. Or is this on-topic: The weird men of the Catholic League are critizising ANYBODY??? Catholic seminaries are run by poofters. That's why the Swiss and African wings are gradually disowming the priestly celibacy charade.

"Except it proved nobody na... (Below threshold)
jp2:

"Except it proved nobody named Jamil Hussein worked for the Iraqi olice (and AP never even asked for his name)."

As Malkin and her troops found out the source did exist. They found his real name and threatened to release it. Have you not been paying attention at all?

"Nobody outside of the AP has verified his existence."

Wrong. Read up. Does the government count?

"The mosques that they claimed burned to the ground are, in fact, still standing."

Wrong. The AP stated they were destroyed. Again, read up. You are very misinformed.

the memos aren't fake</b... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

the memos aren't fake

A lie. A rather bad one, to boot. Do you spend time in reality ever?

And it's a sad ass commentary on the state of our free press that so many people believe otherwise.

Hmm, we have layover of MS Word-created documents and the memos that merge perfectly. The memos were faxed from a kinko's in TX right near the home of a psychotic Bush hater. The same one, mind you, who Mary Mapes put in contact with the Kerry campaign for this. The same memos their own experts told them could not possibly be authenticated.

Your basis of them not being fake is...what?

And it's a sad ass commentary on the state of our free press that so many people believe otherwise. It you had bothered to take more than a quick glance at the site, you would have noted that it goes into extreme detail about everything and anything involving the memos. and it pretty much kills bit by bit all of the tremendous nonsense and BS propagated by the likes of LGF and the Freepers, and aided indirectly by a lazy ass corporate media increasingly adverse to actual research and investigation.

Read the site. There is LITERALLY no evidence, whatsoever, presented to back uo your claims.

None.

Actually I've managed to get some right wingers and typographers in other contexts to reluctantly agree that Word could not have been used, although they've claimed that I have to eliminate all other modern word processors, meaning from the past 15 years or so as well -- yeah right...

Cite these people. God knows you don't have a track record enough to make "your word" good enough.
-=Mike

As Malkin and her troops... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

As Malkin and her troops found out the source did exist.

Name wasn't Jamil Hussein.

And he said he didn't speak to anybody with the AP.

And he wasn't under any risk of criminal prosecution nor was he in danger of being killed any moreso than, you know, an Iraqi policeman would be.

Wrong. Read up. Does the government count?

And you also ignore that the story the AP claims he told them was a COMPLETE lie.

Wrong. The AP stated they were destroyed. Again, read up. You are very misinformed.

No, they did not. In fact, they quickly changed the story from four to one --- but not even ONE was destroyed.

You, my friend, need to actually read.

Here, a post from Malkin with PICTURES inside one of the "destroyed" mosques:
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006728.htm
-=Mike
...Aren't you ever tired of playing the fool, jp?

I guarantee you that after ... (Below threshold)
Hal:

I guarantee you that after Edwards receives all this flack, these two birds are going to conveniently resign from his campaign for the sake of Edwards presidential race of course. We will know however that Edwards will have seen the light, and asked them to leave.

Did Edwards muss his hair a... (Below threshold)
shark:

Did Edwards muss his hair at any point during this saga?

I would believe you mant... (Below threshold)
mantis:

I would believe you mantis but my experience here persuades me that so many doubt your credibility..that I have..primal doubts..

Ahhhhh, primal doubts! Wait, your basing my credibility on the opinions of others here? What does that say about your credibility?

You know, there's this thing called google. I'm sure you've heard of it.

"Serious fire damage"... (Below threshold)
jp2:

"Serious fire damage"
"The other side of the dome was partially blown out."
"RPG damage to the exterior of the Muhaymin mosque."

Huh. I think you posted the wrong link, Mike. It didn't really prove your point...

You didn't address one of your lies though:
"Nobody outside of the AP has verified his existence."

This is a lie. Would you care to correct, or are you just going to spout more?

OK. Others have acknowledge... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

OK. Others have acknowledged his existence. I did more research on it.

Acknowledge that nobody died in the stories, that all of the mosques still stand, and that his stories have never been corroborated.

And NONE of the mosques were burnt down. NOT ONE. Nor was ANYBODY killed in them.

Continue living in obliviousness.

And the RPG damage is FAR different than destroying the mosque. There is a whole in the wall. My State House has more damage to it from cannonball fire.
-=Mike

..demonstrates either a ... (Below threshold)
snowballs:

..demonstrates either a hateful insecurity with opposing views, or a lack of basic comprehension.

Brian, you, without question, are the funniest person posting comments to any Blog I've ever read.

I swear to God, I walked around laughing about that comment for two days - and it was even funnier that I couldn't bring myself to send anyone the link or tell them why I was laughing

Holy Crap - American humor rules, even if by accident!

Thanks dude - I was having a shitty few days at work until then.

Snowball, Thanks fo... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Snowball,
Thanks for the link to typical Brian's post. That is really funny. For a moment, I thought he was talking about how the liberals have been attacking our leader non-stop and trying to divide our country to give aid/comfort to the terrorists. Then I realized Brian was subtly showing how thin-skinned the liberals are. Compared to what Bush has received from the liberal left, the criticism towards Pelosi is kids' stuff. Again, the liberals can dish out the lies, distortions, name calling etc... But simply cannot take the heat of the kitchen.

That 's really a funny post though. It made me laugh so hard also. Thanks again.

Just hope he doesn't fire t... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

Just hope he doesn't fire them. Won't it be nice to pull one of their rants out at every one of The Breck Boys stops, read it aloud and ask if the person who wrote it works for his campaign? Watch for the lawyer answer. I doubt the conservatives will have to use any of the smut. His democrat opponents will hammer him to death with it.

Thanks 'wuzzy."bc"... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Thanks 'wuzzy.

"bc"- hang in there as I know you are right as they used my typewriter the day I got back from Mars.
"bryanDumbass"--you are right also as I help set the charges. I got the charges the day I went to the moon to stock up on swiss cheese that was on sale. That's why they can't trace the charges.

LissaKay at February 8, 200... (Below threshold)
snowballs:

LissaKay at February 8, 2007 05:50 PM ,

Yawn Posted by: Hugh

I know, it defeats it's own purpose doesn't it?

Again, American Humor rules!

I suppose that I should jus... (Below threshold)
snowballs:

I suppose that I should just say, for the sake of being impartial, c'mon fellow Wiznuts, leave Edwards alone, the poor guy. If he continues towards the path of the next Democratic hopeful, then it's ok for him to be a Democrat. However, if he hangs it all up tomorrow, he'll be chastised (suddenly) by the left for owning too big a house!

Let's all give him a second chance already, and let him step on his own ""[vulgarity removed]"".

However, what is the dem... (Below threshold)
Brian:

However, what is the demonstrable difference between my definition:
And yours as provided at the link:

The accepted definition of a troll is someone who "intentionally tries to cause disruption".

As much as you might not like what those on the left have to say, simply disagreeing with you is not considered "intentional disruption".

And if you're going to go further in the definition: "often in the form of posting messages that are inflammatory, insulting, incorrect, inaccurate, or off-topic." Yes, some posts from anyone (left or right) meets one of those criteria on occasion. But doing so in the course of defending one's argument, again, is not "intentional disruption". Heated debate, perhaps.

So you cannot honestly say that those on the left you call "trolls" consistently fall into those categories. While I can surely name at least three on the right who do. And judging by some of the other comments in here, others on the right can too.

I forgot the party that ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

I forgot the party that 85% of felons vote for

OK, we got the felons, and you got the mentally ill. Seems fair to me.

Brian, you, without ques... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Brian, you, without question, are the funniest person posting comments to any Blog I've ever read.

Thank you. I'm here all week for your entertainment.

Thanks for the link to t... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Thanks for the link to typical Brian's post. That is really funny. For a moment, I thought he was talking about how the liberals have been attacking our leader non-stop and trying to divide our country to give aid/comfort to the terrorists.

No, as should be clear by now, I was talking about how the Republicans have been attacking our leader non-stop and trying to divide our country to give aid/comfort to the terrorists.

Then I realized Brian was subtly showing how thin-skinned the liberals are.

Nope, just how hypocritical the Republicans are.

Again, the liberals can dish out the lies, distortions, name calling etc... But simply cannot take the heat of the kitchen.

Sorry, you had a typo. I think "liberals" above was supposed to be "Republicans". There, that makes more sense.

That 's really a funny post though. It made me laugh so hard also. Thanks again.

Glad to return the favor. After all, most of your posts make me laugh also. Hmm... or is that, shake my head in disbelief? Sorry, they're so forgettable, I can't remember.


posts make me laugh also. Hmm... or is that, shake my head in disbelief? Sorry, they're so forgettable, I can't remember.


This is such a non-story, i... (Below threshold)
Jaku:

This is such a non-story, it's pathetic to the degree that some are pursuing it.

Edwards hires these two not based on what they wrote, but what they can offer him in the future. Why don't we examine
every single employee for every single potential presidential candidate and see if we can find something 'offensive'.


Isn't it funny that it's Michelle Malkin and William Donohoe leading the rabid pack? As if the two of them are the ideal for
polite, non offensive political discourse? Hysterical.

And Donohoe just said tonight on Fox News about Edwards "He's nothing more than David Duke with a blow-dried haircut
Way to go Bill! He also promises to take out full page ads in newspapers and all that, and I hope he goes all out.

And they call the left unhinged?

I hope he does show himself for the obsessed unbalanced closet case that he is. As if the followers of Malkin or
Donohoe would ever vote for Edwards in the first place!

And Edwards swatted the little annoying gnats by rehiring both the bloggers, what a great move.

And With Anna-TV in full weekend mode, this non story will die by Monday. For the sane at least.

No, as should be clear b... (Below threshold)
snowballs:

No, as should be clear by now, I was talking about how the Republicans have been attacking our leader non-stop and trying to divide our country to give aid/comfort to the terrorists.

OMG, you just don't quit. I'm sure the Taliban and the Islamist Radicals are simply thrilled with any female even giving a car a tune-up or staining a fence, much less leading a political party in America.

Keep 'em coming Brian. Laughter is good for the soul.

Malkin embarrasses the Left... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Malkin embarrasses the Left at least once a day on her blog.

Malkin embarrasses the Left... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Malkin embarrasses the Left at least once a day on her blog. That and that alone is the only reason they loathe her. Everything else is pretense.

Mike, I enjoyed your posts ripping jp to shreds. Thank you! : )

This is such a non-story... (Below threshold)
snowballs:

This is such a non-story, it's pathetic to the degree that some are pursuing it.

..same comment..

..And Donohoe just said tonight on Fox News about Edwards..

Jeezus that's funny!!!!

Looks like Edwards feared t... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Looks like Edwards feared the nutroots and their (what was it?) "action alert" if he fired them. Oh my gosh, if Edwards is too scaredy cat to fire two insignificant bitchy ugly hateful women, how in the world can he handle, oh something like, Iran?

Dear God, please give the liberals back their male genitalia. This really has gone on far too long.

Malkin embarrasses the L... (Below threshold)
Jaku:

Malkin embarrasses the Left at least once a day on her blog.
I'm not sure if there is some universal meter for the left that shows ups and downs for embarrasing daily episodes, but if you really believe that's why she is hated so mucht, that's your opinion. I loathe her because she's freakin nuts, but that's just my take.

Malkin embarrases herself daily every time she writes a column.

Oh my gosh, if Edwards i... (Below threshold)
Jaku:

Oh my gosh, if Edwards is too scaredy cat to fire two insignificant bitchy ugly hateful women, how in the world can he handle, oh something like, Iran?

They were insignificant until malkin and donuthole made them superstars. Just like they did with Ward Churchill. The right loves to find these nobodies and them they blow them up really big as if they are the total representive voice of anyone who identifies as a liberal or a democrat.

Funny again, but in a sad way.

And the fact that Edwards did hire them back totally swatted down the annoying gnats , but I really do hope donuthead continues his obsession. That will really help his party in the 08 elections, to continue to harp on such a miniscule blip on the radar.

after all the tedious vagin... (Below threshold)

after all the tedious vagina-supremacy schtick from Amanda, her sneering at non-left women as traitors to their sex, it is very sweet to see who owns Amanda's vagina now.

Big John gave her the "you've been a bad girl" speech and she fell to her knees to please him ... negating every More.Feminist.Than.Thou tantrum she's pulled.

swwwweeeeet

Brian @ February 9, 2007 12... (Below threshold)
snowballs:

Brian @ February 9, 2007 12:34 AM

Did you seriously mean to link to an article that states the following?

Lohse says his study is no joke. The thesis draws on a survey of 69 psychiatric outpatients in three Connecticut locations during the 2004 presidential election.

I can't stand it! If humor could be classified as assault, Brian would be a serial killer!

Ha!

Jaku, huh? lol.Da... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Jaku, huh? lol.

Darleen, bwhwahahahahahahahahahahahahahah....

Memo to Amanda: It really is a rich, white, southern man's world isn't it?

Oh yeah, and one more thing Mandy: Payback is a bitch ain't it sweetie?

Dear God, please give th... (Below threshold)
Jaku:

Dear God, please give the liberals back their male genitalia. This really has gone on far too long.
Posted by: Jo at February 9, 2007 01:26 AM

after all the tedious vagina-supremacy schtick from Amanda, her sneering at non-left women as traitors to their sex, it is very sweet to see who owns Amanda's vagina now.

What is with this sex obsession here? Do you not get any, or what you do get isn't any good?

OMG, you just don't quit... (Below threshold)
Brian:

OMG, you just don't quit. I'm sure the Taliban and the Islamist Radicals are simply thrilled with any female even giving a car a tune-up or staining a fence, much less leading a political party in America.

Oh, I see. So by attacking Pelosi, you are actually trying to appease the terrorists. Thanks for clearing that up. Seriously, I don't think you should try out for the job of Republican spokesman.

Keep 'em coming Brian. Laughter is good for the soul.

I got a million of 'em. Good to see you can laugh at yourself.

Did you seriously mean to link to an article that states the following?

Yep. If you'd like to compare it to the validity of the study that Rob linked to to make his claim, go right ahead.

Jaku, I enjoyed your posts ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Jaku, I enjoyed your posts ripping Jo to shreds. Thank you! : )

Oh, I see. So by attacki... (Below threshold)
snowballs:

Oh, I see. So by attacking Pelosi..

Ok. That's a cheap shot on my part, you know, characterizing our enemy. If you'll notice, I defended Pelosi's action in the first few comments in the previous thread where you almost gave me a triple inguinal hernia of the spine in six places.

Yep. If you'd like to compare it to the validity of the study that Rob linked to to make his claim, go right ahead.

No thanks.

I got a million of 'em. Good to see you can laugh at yourself.

I'll tell you what, my dogs sure do seem happy about the out-loud laughter, so thanks again.

They were insig... (Below threshold)
marc:

They were insignificant until malkin and donuthole made them superstars. Just like they did with Ward Churchill. The right loves to find these nobodies and them they blow them up really big as if they are the total representive voice of anyone who identifies as a liberal or a democrat Posted by: Jaku at February 9, 2007 01:32 AM

Your right to feel, and state that as fact. But is your assessment showing ignorance or a willful distortion of Pandagon's popularity?

Among political blogs its been very popular for a few years. Currently it's rated #69 out of thousands of blogs in the ecco-system.

Hardly so called "nobodies."

Jaku continues:

And Donohoe just said tonight on Fox News about Edwards "He's nothing more than David Duke with a blow-dried haircut
Way to go Bill! He also promises to take out full page ads in newspapers and all that, and I hope he goes all out. And they call the left unhinged?

Yes some do that but like nutcake Donohoe its well deserved but hardly representative of the right.

All the left leaning bloggers are glad handing themselves over winning a "war" over these two.

But they in reality have only won a battle and a rather insignificant one at that.

Where Edwards has screwed himself is pissing off the very people he and others from the left covet to get elected, liberal Christians:

"We have gone so far to rebuild that coalition [between Democrats and religious Christians] and something like this sets it back," said Brian O'Dwyer, a New York lawyer and Irish-American leader who chairs the National Democratic Ethnic Leadership Council, a Democratic Party group. O'Dwyer said Edwards should have fired the bloggers. "It's not only wrong morally - it's stupid politically."

O'Dwyer e-mailed a statement to reporters saying: "Senator Edwards is condoning bigotry by keeping the two bloggers on his staff. Playing to the cheap seats with anti-Catholic bigotry has no place in the Democratic Party." ...

"I thought his explanation was not satisfying," said Cornell's Penalver. "It's obvious that they did mean to give offense."

"You imagine a similar kind of comment directed at the Jewish community or at the gay community - something at this level of intentional offensiveness -- and I have a hard time believing it gets resolved in the same way," he said.

So Jaku, you and many others can crow about how unimportant two idiots Edwards hired are, or how important it was for his campaign to "win one" against the "right wing attack machine" in the end he has marginalized himself even more than he was.

And he was an empty suit before.

MikeSC wrote <i... (Below threshold)
BC:

MikeSC wrote

the memos aren't fake

A lie. A rather bad one, to boot. Do you spend time in reality ever?

Gawd.... Sorry, but I'm not going to waste much time here on a fool who can't click and read. The short summary is that you can't replicate at all well all of the memos with Word -- ever wondered why only the CYA memo overlay, like what Charles Johnson of LGF did, got circulated and not any of the others? Because the overlay trick fails completely if you try it with all of the memos, including the 2 extra ones that USA Today had. And the CYA overlay is indeed a trick -- Word's proportional spacing is based on prior word processing systems going back to the 60's (what, you didn't know they had word processors back then?) and was done apparently by resizing and lining up for a best fit. The CYA memo was short enough, didn't have a letterhead (which some of the others had and can't be lined up in Word), and no "st" superscripts (which are not superscripted in any of the memos, a very tell-tale sign that the memos are indeed old -- only "th" superscripting was commonly done in the 70's) which resulted in a seemingly good match at first glance. However even here a careful character by character examination shows too many font discrepencies (the Word characters are all a shade too tall) and too many consistent variations in the spacing for Word to have been used.

And then there is the contents issue -- the contents blend and align up with official DoD docs to such a fine and subtle degree that this by itself should have laughed out the created-by-Word nonsense. Your comments about Kinkos and Mary Mapes & the Kerry compaign are all typical of the drooling, nutcase conspiracy nonsense the right wing blogosphere generated at the time, and which has since served them as a template ever since -- witness this witless, distorted beyond all recognition nonsense involving Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan.

Recently I've commented on a new round of vile, lying ass and utterly vicious attacks on John Kerry by the right wing, including this blog. Which makes utterly and laughably hypocritical the complaints by the right wing about how supposely Marcotte and McEwan are these mean, foul mouth, anti-Catholic, anti-Southern people who should be hung out to dry. Hah! Like I had said, I went through a good chunk of Marcotte's posts at Pandagon.net and of course found out that the right is very much wrong again. The likes of Michelle Malkin regularly create genuinely, vile posts with no purpose other than to smear, mock and confuse, but evidently even the harshest posts of Marcotte show far, far more genuine thought and insightful criticism.

Hope this clarifies (but I'm doubtful for some reason...)

BC ... Nice, but w... (Below threshold)
LissaKay:

BC ...

Nice, but wayyyy out there. And totally off topic.

However, I will ask the burning question ... how is it a "smear" to quote word-for-word what Marcotte posted on her site? "Hot, white, sticky Holy Ghost" ?? Name ONE quote by Malkin that even comes close to that. ONE.

I'm still waiting for Puke to rise to the challenge, and so far ... nothing.

I am not surprised.

Then I realized Brian was s... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Then I realized Brian was subtly showing how thin-skinned the liberals are.

Nope, just how hypocritical the Republicans are.
-------------------------------------------------
Your post is a perfect example of typical liberal hypocrisy. You take every chance to criticize Bush. The liberals have been bashing/sliming/lying against Bush and the American military for years. And here you are complaining about Pelosi getting the criticism she deserves. I guess Brian is OK with the Pelosi 's incompetence and hypocrisy (exempt her SF company from her minimum wage legislation).

Brian, your posts are perfect example of liberal hypocrisy. It is really funny because you don't even know what hypocrisy means.

Need to make Lee happy agai... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Need to make Lee happy again and sorry for getting off topic on Edwards. Gerald Baker can write it better than I do. Brian is another example of liberals promoting defending the dishonest, elitist, arrogant, hypocritical, incompetent Pelosi. Now Murtha even threatened the Pentagon. That 's just typical liberal hypocrisy again. No surprise here, just what expected from liberals. Brian just fits the bill nicely though

But that was before Nancy Pelosi discovered the discreet charm of the private jet. It has been the custom since September 11, 2001 that the Speakers of the House of Representatives, for security reasons, get a private military aircraft to fly them to and from their constituencies. Ms Pelosi's Republican predecessor, Dennis Hastert, an ample man with an ample entourage, made do with a small 16-seat commuter jet. But Ms Pelosi decided that was inadequate. She'd need something with a longer range to get her from Washington to her home in San Francisco.

But eyebrows were raised in the Pentagon when they saw what she had in mind. A US Air Force C32 would fit the bill nicely, she said; and it should have all the trimmings -- 42 seats, all leather-upholstered, a state room, an entertainment centre, a state-of-the-art communications facility, a private bedroom and presumably, if Democratic pronouncements on climate change are to be taken at face value, enough carbon emissions to send a couple of small villages in SouthEast Asia sliding into the sea. Ladies and gentlemen, the seat belt sign has been turned off. You are now free to lord it over the country.

BC,Hah! L... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

BC,

Hah! Like I had said, I went through a good chunk of Marcotte's posts at Pandagon.net and of course found out that the right is very much wrong again.

Interesting. John Edwards said:

The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte's and Melissa McEwan's posts personally offended me.

Don't worry, if even the guy that hired them finds stuff they wrote personally offensive I'm sure you can go ahead an say it's not the case.

The likes of Michelle Malkin regularly create genuinely, vile posts with no purpose other than to smear, mock and confuse,

Show me.

That was an impressive mis-... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

That was an impressive mis-use of blockquotes.

BC if you can reply to that mess, you win.

LoveAmeriKa Enemagrunt... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

LoveAmeriKa Enemagrunt

Apologies for being off-topic on this thread, but I can't help but comment on your diahrretic drivel, " defending the dishonest, elitist, arrogant, hypocritical, incompetent Pelosi," with this link.

Notwithstanding that it's from Think Progress, the internal links show what horsehit of which you are so full.

Heralder, excellent.<... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Heralder, excellent.

BC you lose again.

Communist agent Puke,... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Communist agent Puke,
Pelosi is not only dishonest, elitist, arrogant, hypocritical, incompetent, but also low class.
Noone criticized her for flying a military plane. Look at her request for all the extravaganza with a larger plane (her explanation of long flight is simply after the fact). Her deputy threatened the Pentagon while they are working out an arrangement for him. Why should we believe her since she lied about the minimum wage already (she exempted her SF company for her own legislation).
So we can agree now that the white class has some class in defending Pelosi. This shows how low class the liberal dems are. Have you seen them defend Bush from the known liars like Wilson? Not only that, but they have been willing to participate in this lying campaign.

Aka-communist agent, can you be honest enough to admit how arrogant and low class the liberal dems are?

communist-agent, Us... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

communist-agent,
Using your own standard, why should I take seriously a link from the liberal sewage when it is clear that the liberals have been promoting and defending a known liar like Wilson? Even Pelosi and her dem colleagues have been willing to participate and enable this campaign of lies.

Thanks for reminding me of how class and mean-spirited the liberal left is. At least the White House and Bush has more class than the liberal left.

AAAACCKKK!Ok, I'll... (Below threshold)
Lee:

AAAACCKKK!

Ok, I'll stop now, but it is just plain weird...

Just do it to make you happ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Just do it to make you happy Lee

BTW, we had enough fun from... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

BTW, we had enough fun from Brian 's post. So I decided to return the favor since you guys don't have much content in any case except what you get from the liberal sites.

LoveAmeriKa Enemagrunt... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

LoveAmeriKa Enemagrunt

Your 2 illiterate and unhinged posts above are proof that the Republican Party should not be so desperate for voters that they solicit and encourage the registration of Mongoloids.

I like it much better when ... (Below threshold)
Jo:

I like it much better when Lee's posts are just one sentence.

Please Lee continue this trend.

"Just do it to make you ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"Just do it to make you happy Lee"

No, you're lying again. You've done it for months. The fact that may not realize you do it makes it all the more weird, but I've lost interest and won't Aaaack anymore. I think it's indicative of some sort of psychological damage, and that's confirmed by your incoherent ramblings and disjointed and twisted "logic pretzel" rants against make-believe enemies of the state.

One other question and then I promise I won't bother you anymore. Are you male or female, LAI?

I honestly am at "Who gives... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

I honestly am at "Who gives a flying fark" about this. Personally, I'd like it if we take the oversensitivity out of politics, and if Edwards wants some firebreathers writing for him, however leashed they may be, more power to him. At least he's doing something to stand out from the crowd.

The funny part is that if y... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

The funny part is that if you replace the word Christian with, say, "black" --- you'd have a firestorm the likes of which you never said.

But you don't --- because it isn't hate speech if the left does it.
-=Mike

because it isn't h... (Below threshold)
LissaKay:
because it isn't hate speech if the left does it.

-=Mike

Posted by: MikeSC at February 9, 2007 01:06 PM

Nor is it hate speech if the target is white, Christian and/or not a lefty

Your post is a perfect e... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Your post is a perfect example of typical liberal hypocrisy. You take every chance to criticize Bush. The liberals have been bashing/sliming/lying against Bush and the American military for years. And here you are complaining about Pelosi getting the criticism she deserves.

Truly comical. In reality, your post is a perfect example of typical Republican hypocrisy. You take every chance to whine and complain about criticism of Bush. The Republicans have been defending Bush for years from criticism that is supposedly unjustified. And here you are still whining and complaining about Pelosi being defended from unjustified criticism.

Lee, Your attempt i... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Lee,
Your attempt is so transparently desperate. You cannot defend the dishonesty of the liberal left in general and right on this forum. So you have to resort to the low-class tactics, commonly used by liberals to divert attention. Why do you want to know my gender?
Your posts are contentless and nothing but a repeat of the typical liberal spins/lies. If you can refute my facts and logic, then go ahead. Otherwise, please provide more entertainment for us if you like. We need people like you to remind us of the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the left.

Brian, YOu are such... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Brian,
YOu are such a cry baby! Poor Pelosi. Thanks again for displaying the typical hypocrisy from the left. I am using your own standard from your own post below: the problems we have been having in Iraq is due to the incessant attack against Bush/American military from the liberal left. Or you simply don't want to take any responsibilitiy? The funny thing is you don't even know how funny and whiny your post is. Keep more posts like that coming. I know you, as a liberal, wouldn't have any problems with dishonest and hypocritical liberal like Pelosi. You guys are willing to promote and defend a know liar like Wilson. So what is the big deal with more dishonesty from Pelosi, right?


----------------------------------------
You know, if the American Congress isn't successful this year, the fault will lie not with the Democratic majority, but with the right-wing blogs. They, infected with PDS, attack Pelosi's every move non-stop. Like it or not, she is Speaker of the House, and she deserves our respect. If you disagree with her, you should keep it to yourselves. If only the blogs would stop criticizing her, she would be able to bring our Congress to a successful term. Public attacks like this serve only to let the terrorists know that the country is divided and doesn't have the will to support our leaders.

Posted by: Brian at February 4, 2007 11:50 PM

PR nightmares for the democ... (Below threshold)
Jill:

PR nightmares for the democrats this week. And now Pelosi is playing the gender card and looking whiny in the process.

Hey dims, it ain't as easy as it looks eh? And what goes around comes around.

In other words, the end of what turned out to be a very beautiful week - for the GOP that is.

Whiny hypocrisy from the li... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Whiny hypocrisy from the liberal left is in full display: they incessantly attacked Bush and the US (Clinton, Carter, Jordan, Durbin, Murtha, Pelosi ... ) all these years. And now they are whining about a little criticism Pelosi gets. What a joke! These liberals expect that they can do whatever they want without any accountability. That 's why I find it so amusing when liberals talk about honesty, morality, accountability. If they are lying/spinning, then I can understand it. Some liberals just don't even know that they are lying/spinning!

Bad PR? The number one issu... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

Bad PR? The number one issue in America is Iraq.
In the past week we lost 11 of our brave on one day.
We "accidentally" bombed and killed some Kurds..
We were told by Bremer about 365 tons of $100 bills that were flown into Iraq and passed out with no accountability..

For people to believe America gives 2 cents about a candidate's bloggers(heck how many in America even know what a blogger is)....or that How the 3rd ranking member of our cabinet has had to change how they fly since 9/11? More than the nightmare of Iraq is living in another world..

We will see...next week, after every member is allowed to speak, the House will pass a non-binding resolution opposing the "surge".

The majority(cause you know how we American's love polls)of Americans will give their support to this. Of Course some Republican's in the Senate(especially those facing re-election)will change their mind and pass the same...

Bad PR for the Dems this week? Just wait till next week...oh yeah..I wish cable, including FOX would cover in-depth those killed in Iraq this week instead of What's her name...


Nogo, Thanks for re... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Nogo,
Thanks for reminding us again that the Dems want the US to lose and the terrorists to win in Iraq. The liberals provided aid/comfort to the communists in the cold war and now to the terrorists, as Brian has pointed it out with his own logic. You can be proud of your liberal left. But to us, it is a shameful and despicable record.

BTW, forgot to add that the... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

BTW, forgot to add that the liberals are also proud of known liars among their midst like Wilson. They promoted, enabled, and participated in this campaign of lies.

LoveAmeriKa Enemagrunt... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

LoveAmeriKa Enemagrunt

You eat from Scrapcraps' filled "Depends" bags. The stench from your daily diet oozes out of every one of your posts.

Communist agent Puke,... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Communist agent Puke,
Thanks for proving my point about the intellectual sewage of the liberal left. When you cannot refute the facts and logic. Then resort to insults and name calling. Your posts are contentless. Thanks for proving me correct again.
Liberals cannot be honest when confronted with the facts.

So Edwards(D) bows to the M... (Below threshold)

So Edwards(D) bows to the Man-hating FemiNazi Christian despising Socialists.

I guess he's convinced they are a big enough demographic he couldn't win the (D)emocrat party nomination without them?

LoveAmerica Immigrant,<br /... (Below threshold)
Brian:

LoveAmerica Immigrant,
YOu are such a cry baby! Evil Pelosi. Thanks again for displaying the typical hypocrisy from the right. I am using your own standard from your own previous posts: the problems we have been having in America is due to the incessant attack against Democrats/Congress from the right. Or you simply don't want to take any responsibilitiy? The funny thing is you don't even know how funny and whiny your post is. Keep more posts like that coming. I know you, as a Republican, wouldn't have any problems with dishonest and hypocritical neo-con like Bush. You guys are willing to promote and defend a know liar like Cheney. So what is the big deal with more dishonesty from Bush, right?

Love America: "Lee, Why ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Love America: "Lee, Why do you want to know my gender?"

You get to know people's politics pretty well after several months of interaction on a web site like this, and I like to form a mental image of the individual, as if I was sitting a cross from you at a table discussing issues.

Often you can pick up clues in the language they use or their stated political views as to someone's age/maturity, their education, socio-economic group, the type of work they might do etc. Then, eventually, they'll say something like "I was talking to my 20 year old daughter about this", or "I asked one of my professors" and more clues are added that confirm or change my image of that person.

When folks like you use gender-neutral "handles" it's more difficult, and I was just asking your gender so I could form a better image of who you are, and why you have the views you have, that's all. I think asking personal questions like "where do you live and how old are you, what type of work do you do" etc. is a bit stalker'ish -- I wouldn't go there, or feel comfortable answering those questions myself.

So I thought a simple question like "male of female?" would a bit of "who you are" that you might be willing to share.

Brian, YOu are such ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Brian,
YOu are such a cry baby! Evil Bush. Thanks again for displaying the typical hypocrisy from the left. I am using your own standard from your own previous posts: the problems we have been having in America is due to the incessant attack against Democrats/Congress from the right. Or you simply don't want to take any responsibilitiy? The funny thing is you don't even know how funny and whiny your post is. Keep more posts like that coming. I know you, as a Republican, wouldn't have any problems with dishonest and hypocritical neo-con like Bush. You guys are willing to promote and defend a know liar like Clinton. So what is the big deal with more dishonesty from Reid, right?

Lee, I don't need ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Lee,
I don't need to know your gender and your age. Some old people can have the mental capability of a teenager and vice versa. Tell us why you have the views you have.

typing too fast,Bria... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

typing too fast,
Brian
I know you, as a liberal, wouldn't have any problems with dishonest and hypocritical liberals like Jefferson. The Reps got rid of Foley. The dems elected Jefferson. The liberals called for Hastert 's resignation. The liberals like Pelosi incessantly attacked Bush with known liars like Wilson. Bush showed class in defending Pelosi 's legitimate request for a military jet.

One more Brian, Bus... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

One more Brian,
Bush Sr. showed class and respect as a former pres by not going around the world criticizing Clinton's foreign policy. The liberals like Clinton, Kerry, and Carter showed how low class they are by going around the world slandering their own country and Bush.

Lee, I have the vie... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Lee,
I have the view I have because of real life experience. I have learned through life that you have to look at the actions, not the words, over a long period of time to know who people really are. We all know how a used car salesman can con us into buying a lemon. I have learned first hand the consequences of liberal policies. I have looked at the actions of liberal left for a long time in America and elsewhere. That 's how I formed my view.

MAN YOU GUYS ARE HILARIO... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

MAN YOU GUYS ARE HILARIOUS. EXactly what is it that make you say such things?

"and defend a know liar like Cheney"

What's his alledged lie?

I can't help but laugh at the desperation the democrats have show the last 6 years in their attempts to bring President Bush down remotely close to the level of pond scum where BJ Clinton resides. How many Clinton Partners are in prison , missing or dead and the vast number of scams they pulled and illegal contributions they accepted is unprecedented.

The Bush administration is so Corrupt free , all you have is your failed and failing Plamegate to dream about.

Brian, Why didn't Pelosi step down when she was fined $20,000.00 for Illegal Campaigm Funding. She has actually admitted guilt to and Tom Delay will never be convicted of, yet he stepped down?


Democrats = criminal opperators

Republicans = honor and class

Sorry , some thing just are what they are.

LissaKay wrote:... (Below threshold)
BC:

LissaKay wrote:

However, I will ask the burning question ... how is it a "smear" to quote word-for-word what Marcotte posted on her site? "Hot, white, sticky Holy Ghost" ?? Name ONE quote by Malkin that even comes close to that. ONE.

Amanda Marcotte is a Catholic and feels very strongly about her Church's position on various matters, especially abortion. That "quote" is so far out of context that it's meaningless by itself. I managed to locate the original blog posting where it appeared -- a very long 2 part piece. This is part 1 and this is part 2. Go read and judge for yourself after seeing things in their proper context.

As far as Malkin goes, pop over to YouTube and do a search on "Malkin on Hardball" to catch Ms. Malkin casting really nasty, utterly bogus aspersions on Kerry. And for followup, you can just go to her website and do a search on any of her favorite targets like Kerry and Cindy Sheehan and see what insulting bile she coughs up regularly.

I asked for direct quotes. ... (Below threshold)

I asked for direct quotes. Surely, if Malkin is so much worse in the things she has said, you can find some example that you can copy and paste here.

For the record, I do not disagree with Marcotte on much of the objections to some of the things the Catholic Church does and its doctrines. I am right there with her on the history of misogyny and disempowerment of women by the Church. However, I have the class to keep from using such graphic and vulgar phrases. I also can differentiate between the Church and people who are Catholic.

Now get on to some surfing and find some quotes from Malkin that are anywhere near as crude and vulgar. Be off with you and don't come back empty handed!

It is glaringly obvious tha... (Below threshold)
Mason Jahr:

It is glaringly obvious that Marcotte is a Hillary Clinton plant. John, your campaign is irretrievably subverted. Time to fold the tent and go home.

Bush showed class in def... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Bush showed class in defending Pelosi 's legitimate request for a military jet.

LOL! He defended her against people like you!

I can't help but laugh a... (Below threshold)
Brian:

I can't help but laugh at the desperation the democrats have show the last 6 years in their attempts to bring President Bush down remotely close to the level of pond scum where BJ Clinton resides

Actually, Bush has sunk far below Clinton all on his own, without the help of Democrats.

But BC they are true!!!... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

But BC they are true!!!

p'p' we have you pegged right on yhe money then.

Bush showed class in defend... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Bush showed class in defending Pelosi 's legitimate request for a military jet.

LOL! He defended her against people like you!
------------------------------------------------
He showed how low class and dishonest people like you and Pelosi are.

Actually, Bush has sunk far... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Actually, Bush has sunk far below Clinton all on his own, without the help of Democrats.
------------------------------------------------
If I remember correctly a Dem who was willing to fight communism sunk as low if not lower. Churchill lost his election after WWII. This is how low the modern day liberals have become. They don't want Churchill or Truman in their party. They want dishonest and low class people like Clinton and Pelosi to lead their party.

LissaKay wrote: <i... (Below threshold)
BC:

LissaKay wrote:

I asked for direct quotes. Surely, if Malkin is so much worse in the things she has said, you can find some example that you can copy and paste here.

I didn't want to risk inserting too many links and having the post being flagged for review. But since you insist, here are a couple:

1) A transcript of the YouTube/Hardball thing.

Pertinent excerpt:

MALKIN: "Well, yes. Why don't people ask him more specific questions about the shrapnel in his leg. They are legitimate questions about whether or not it was a self-inflicted wound."

Let's make it very clear what Malkin is saying: let's ask a decorated soldier from the Vietnam war running for President if he purposely inflicted the wounds on himself on the basis of zero actual evidence, just because of rumors being spread by lying-ass, malicious, agenda-driven morons with less than zero credibility. Maybe it's my upbringing, but this sort of stuff strikes me as being far, FAR worse than just being loose with expletives when writing passionately about some key political or philosophical topic.

2) Making fun of John Murtha, another decorated Vietnam vet
I think this pretty much sums up Malkin's overall level of discourse:


PS to jhow66

This is some of what the Martians were selling back in 1972.

Explain how asking question... (Below threshold)
LissaKay:

Explain how asking questions ... legitimate questions ... is on a par with "Hot, white, sticky Holy Ghost"

John Kerry is in dire need of having some VERY pointed questions asked of him, BTW.

You have a royally screwed up sense of equivalence, sugar. Mockery in the form of Photoshopping public figures that make outrageous statements that smack of treason is still not on a par with the crap that Marcotte shoveled. Maybe if the P'shop was of Pelosi giving Murtha BJ, yes ... but not one of Murtha wearing a tin foil hat and shooting a cartoon gun. Many find Murtha himself to be the epitome of vulgar.

Nice try though ... A 'C' for your effort.

Speaking of BJs ... I find it hi-larious that an outspoken, man-hating woman-power feminist such as Marcotte would so easily fall in lock-step on order from ... a MAN! A RICH MAN! I wonder if she's also running to fetch him a beer at his beck and call, and maybe rubbing his shoulders after she fixes him a sandwich too.

1) A transcript of the ... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

1) A transcript of the YouTube/Hardball thing.

Pertinent excerpt:

MALKIN: "Well, yes. Why don't people ask him more specific questions about the shrapnel in his leg. They are legitimate questions about whether or not it was a self-inflicted wound."

Let's make it very clear what Malkin is saying: let's ask a decorated soldier from the Vietnam war running for President if he purposely inflicted the wounds on himself on the basis of zero actual evidence>/b>

Wow, shocker that BC is lying here.

What Malkin and other critics are saying about Kerry injuries is that they were self-inflicted. Not INTENTIONALLY self-inflicted (a grenade accidentally thrown into a rice bag is the one I've heard the most), but self-inflicted nonetheless. It's the difference between stubbing your toe on a door and kicking the door with your toe as hard as possible.

So, I'm not stunned you lied so blatantly here.

And, again, it's a criticism of a single politician. If we wished to go with Amanda's comments on Bush --- rest assured, they'd be worse. We went with her comments on Catholics and the Duke lacrosse players who have been horribly and criminally shafted.

2) Making fun of John Murtha, another decorated Vietnam vet

Yes, making fun of a politician is as bad as condemning large swaths of people for believing differently.

Again, hate speech is anything opposing a liberal. It's NEVER hate speech if a liberal does it.

I think this pretty much sums up Malkin's overall level of discourse:

Do you REALLY wish to compare that to Amanda's posting? I'd ask if you're that delusional, but I wasted minutes reading the cite you linked earlier, so I'm positive you're that delusional.
-=Mike

BC...Let's make... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

BC...

Let's make it very clear what Malkin is saying: let's ask a decorated soldier from the Vietnam war running for President if he purposely inflicted the wounds on himself on the basis of zero actual evidence, just because of rumors being spread by lying-ass, malicious, agenda-driven morons with less than zero credibility. Maybe it's my upbringing, but this sort of stuff strikes me as being far, FAR worse than just being loose with expletives when writing passionately about some key political or philosophical topic.

BC, if your point is that it is rude to ask a decorated Vietnam veteran any questions about his service, it is probably not a good idea to refer to the decorated, Vietnam veterans (including at least one recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor) who prompted the questions as "lying-ass, malicious, agenda-driven morons with less than zero credibility"

It makes it appear that you only respect the service of Vietnam veterans who agree with your POV. All Vietnam veterans - who don't agree with your POV - are "lying-ass, malicious, agenda-driven morons with less than zero credibility".

BC...Let's make... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

BC...

Let's make it very clear what Malkin is saying: let's ask a decorated soldier from the Vietnam war running for President if he purposely inflicted the wounds on himself on the basis of zero actual evidence, just because of rumors being spread by lying-ass, malicious, agenda-driven morons with less than zero credibility. Maybe it's my upbringing, but this sort of stuff strikes me as being far, FAR worse than just being loose with expletives when writing passionately about some key political or philosophical topic.

BC, if your point is that it is rude to ask a decorated Vietnam veteran any questions about his service, it is probably not a good idea to refer to the decorated, Vietnam veterans (including at least one recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor) who prompted the questions as "lying-ass, malicious, agenda-driven morons with less than zero credibility"

It makes it appear that you only respect the service of Vietnam veterans who agree with your POV. All Vietnam veterans - who don't agree with your POV - are "lying-ass, malicious, agenda-driven morons with less than zero credibility".

Sorry for the double post .... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

Sorry for the double post ....

According to my computer, the server for Wizbang was "unavailable".

I have to say that anyone w... (Below threshold)
BC:

I have to say that anyone who thinks Malkin's nasty little insert of utterly bogus, deliberately malicious rumors about Kerry's war service is somehow more innocent and legitimate than Amanda Marcotte using a few creative expletives about something she's passionate about is absolutely nuts and has a serious morality problem.

What you guys aren't getting is that there are no real questions about Kerry's service, none -- they're all just BS rumors spread by Kerry haters since his antiwar activist days. Malkin bringing them up on national TV was a deliberate attempt to keep a vicious smear alive. If there was *any* credible evidence against Kerry, it would have come out during Nixon's term and the Pentagon would have some sort of official report. Did this ever happen? No. Why? Because there was never anything there to report. Believe it or not, just because you and your little circle of friends living in whatever bizarro world firmly believe that there are plenty of legitimate witnesses and evidence against Kerry doesn't actually mean it's so. It's just like the moon landing wasn't staged.

And the same with Murtha -- he was swiftboated mercilessly and without any legitimate justification by vile, right wing morons like Malkin just because she and the others didn't like what he had to say, even though he has turned out to be far FAR more honest and accurate than anyone on the Republican or right-wing side on all things Iraq-related.

And there is certainly no equivalence to bashing Bush because virtually every week brings more and more evidence that all the worst suspicions about the Iraq war and the machinations leading up to the invasion are indeed true. (Although the evidence was always there if anyone bothered to look and use a teeny bit of logic.)

Calling a horse a jackass is a smear; calling a jackass a jackass is merely being descriptive. Once you understand this, the world should start making better sense to you.

-BC

Wow. I am simply .. gobsmac... (Below threshold)
LissaKay:

Wow. I am simply .. gobsmacked.

How in the hell can you make it through a simple day, without wandering out into traffic or catching yourself on fire when you are so totally and completely disconnected from reality, morality, logic and reason?

I find it amazing that you remember to breathe.

I have to say that anyon... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

I have to say that anyone who thinks Malkin's nasty little insert of utterly bogus, deliberately malicious rumors about Kerry's war service is somehow more innocent and legitimate than Amanda Marcotte using a few creative expletives about something she's passionate about is absolutely nuts and has a serious morality problem.

I am fairly sure that you are in a poor position to question other's morality. She asked if the injuries were self-inflicted --- NOT INTENTIONALLY SO (which you seem to not quite grasp).

Also, Malkin, again, DOES NOT WORK FOR A CAMPAIGN. Amanda DOES. SHE is the issue since SHE is employed by A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE.

Do you really not get it?

What you guys aren't getting is that there are no real questions about Kerry's service, none -- they're all just BS rumors spread by Kerry haters since his antiwar activist days.

You mean he WAS in Cambodia on Christmas Day 1968, listening to President Nixon say he wasn't there?

You mean he really DID throw his MEDALS (not ribbons, medals) over the gate?

You mean his injuries were NOT at all minor?

Is that your insinuation?

Malkin bringing them up on national TV was a deliberate attempt to keep a vicious smear alive. If there was *any* credible evidence against Kerry, it would have come out during Nixon's term and the Pentagon would have some sort of official report.

You are ignoring the credible evidence now. You would have ignored it then and said "Well, Nixon makes stuff up".

And the same with Murtha -- he was swiftboated mercilessly and without any legitimate justification by vile, right wing morons like Malkin just because she and the others didn't like what he had to say, even though he has turned out to be far FAR more honest and accurate than anyone on the Republican or right-wing side on all things Iraq-related.

What did they say about him?

That he was tied up in BCCI? His whole "unindicted co-conspirator" thing is a bit of a problem.

Did you like the way he threatened Pentagon funding this week? Cute, huh?

And there is certainly no equivalence to bashing Bush because virtually every week brings more and more evidence that all the worst suspicions about the Iraq war and the machinations leading up to the invasion are indeed true. (Although the evidence was always there if anyone bothered to look and use a teeny bit of logic.)

Yes, Bush twisted intel back in 1998. And he twisted intel from the UN. France. Russia. Hell, every intel agency on the planet.

He has that kind of power.

Calling a horse a jackass is a smear; calling a jackass a jackass is merely being descriptive. Once you understand this, the world should start making better sense to you.

We know. It's not bad if YOU do it. We have gotten that message repeatedly now.
-=Mike

LissaKay wrote: ... (Below threshold)
BC:

LissaKay wrote:

Wow. I am simply .. gobsmacked.

Well, that could explain a few things...

How in the hell can you make it through a simple day, without wandering out into traffic or catching yourself on fire when you are so totally and completely disconnected from reality, morality, logic and reason?

Feel free to dispute anything I say with whatever source you want to use. I double dawg dare you to find anything that isn't some delusional, factless bit of nonsense that wouldn't be trivially easy to smoke out as utter BS.

I find it amazing that you remember to breathe.

I'm finding it amazing that you know how to turn on a computer -- or did one of your kids do it for you and then typed in the URL and then clicked on "Add your comment" for you to type?

But as much as I like bashing annoying rightwingers, I've been trying to stick with cites and factual stuff. When or if you can come up with something along those lines, just call your kid back over....

In the meantime, amuse yourself with a little light reading.

BC, by any chance to do you... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

BC, by any chance to do you even know where Vietnam is located on a map?

After reading your comments, it is pretty apparent that you have no other knowledge about the topic.

If you did, you wouldn't be as foolish as to claim that Malkin is the author of all things "anti-Kerry". Given how many people still alive remember Kerry during his days of anti-war activities, it makes you look especially silly to make such claims.

As to the Pentagon and their report ... you really should investigate that a little more before using it as a point of arguement. ;-)

I honestly don't know if yo... (Below threshold)
BC:

I honestly don't know if you guys are as clueless as you sound or if you are just being the Devil's Advocate (in more ways than one..) As far as
Kerry's war service goes, just remember that he requested Vietnam duty when it was a meatgrinder there, and then read this, this, and this.
As far Malkin and Kerry goes, Malkin's comments on Hardball was just used as an example to show how dumb and absolutely hypocritical it is for the likes of her to criticize someone like Amanda Marcotte.  It's like an eel calling a duck slimy.

Friggin Google recently royally screwed up Google Groups, so I'm just slumming here. I thought Usenet had some highly confused people, but damn....

BC, do you READ the links t... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

BC, do you READ the links that you provide?

LOL!

If you did read the WHOLE link - and had any real world knowledge of the Vietnam War - you wouldn't be making such a hypocrite of yourself.

.... because of rumors being spread by lying-ass, malicious, agenda-driven morons with less than zero credibility.

That is how YOUdescribed decorated Vietnam vets - including one who had received the Congressional Medal of Honor. That's how YOUdescribe ANY VET who does not toe your party line POV on Kerry.

I LIVED through the period and am not going to let your revisionist version of history go unchallenged. If Kerry has to have you whitewash his record for him, he didn't have much of a record.

OhioVoter wrote ... (Below threshold)
BC:

OhioVoter wrote

BC, do you READ the links that you provide?

Hmm...let's see now: a link to an official military record showing Kerry requesting duty in Vietnam -- check; a link to a Snopes report debunking charges that Kerry didn't earn his medals -- double check; a link to a report by an Vietnam vet, now newspaper editor, who was actually there with Kerry in Vietnam and can vouch for his valor; and finally a link to some background info on former Nixon toadie and all around liar, John O'Neill -- checkaroni.

LOL!

If you did read the WHOLE link - and had any real world knowledge of the Vietnam War - you wouldn't be making such a hypocrite of yourself.

Ya think?

".... because of rumors being spread by lying-ass, malicious, agenda-driven morons with less than zero credibility."

That is how YOUdescribed decorated Vietnam vets - including one who had received the Congressional Medal of Honor. That's how YOUdescribe ANY VET who does not toe your party line POV on Kerry.

Who are you talking about, Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady? He wasn't one of the Swiftboaters smearing Kerry -- he's just one of the Vietnam vets still pissed about Kerry's early antiwar activities and the charges of atrocities that Kerry talked about at that time and which originated with the Winter Soldier meeting. Brady's entitled to his opinion, but he's way, way off base here -- it's been shown over and over again that Kerry heard right about the atrocities committed by American forces in Vietnam. Another Congressional Medal of Honor Vietnam vet, Bob Kerrey, not so long ago admitted to participating in a massacre, very much like that described to John Kerry during the Winter Soldier meeting. Kerry was right -- there's nothing at all that Brady offers up that refutes any of it, and even bringing up Jane Fonda doesn't change that.

I LIVED through the period and am not going to let your revisionist version of history go unchallenged. If Kerry has to have you whitewash his record for him, he didn't have much of a record.

Oh, so you were there with Kerry and saw him self-inflict himself with wounds? Please....

Anyway, Google Groups seems to be useable again so I'm out of here -- I'll be sure not to let the door hit me on the way out...

Take care all. I'm feeling that you guys are more gullible than mean, but still... Try to be a wee bit more skeptical when reading a "news" item or report only appearing in the usual right wing sources and remember that Google can be your friend (except for maybe when it involves Usenet.)

it's been shown over and... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

it's been shown over and over again that Kerry heard right about the atrocities committed by American forces in Vietnam.

It's also been shown, over and over, that the "witnesses" for the Winter Soldier hearings, overwhelmingly, NEVER WERE IN VIETNAM.
-=Mike
...Have fun with Google groups. Echo chambers are fun...

Hmm...let's see now: a l... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

Hmm...let's see now: a link to an official military record showing Kerry requesting duty in Vietnam -- check;

.... after his last request to get OUT OF MILITARY service was turned down.

a link to a Snopes report debunking charges that Kerry didn't earn his medals -- double check;

.... last updated WELL BEFORE you claim the Malkin fabricated the attacks.

... so, if 5 people who were there say the guy is a jerk, one guy saying he wasn't makes the other 5 "liars"?

and finally a link to some background info on former Nixon toadie and all around liar, John O'Neill -- checkaroni.

... So you have no problem with calling decorated Vietnam vets liars - when it serves YOUR purpose.

What a hypocrite!

Who are you talking about, Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady?

You have got to be kidding! You brand ALL the (except Kerry and those who support him) decorated Vietnam veterans "liars" and you don't EVEN KNOW WHO THEY ARE? No, I was not referring to Major General Patrick Brady.

Brady's entitled to his opinion, but he's way, way off base here -- it's been shown over and over again that Kerry heard right about the atrocities committed by American forces in Vietnam.

You may be setting new standards for stupid here.

"It's been shown over and over again ..."?????

In attempting to "prove" these atrocities occurred, EVEN KERRY couldn't find soldiers who actually served in Vietnam to testify to them.

Kerry himself was in Vietnam only 4 months and in combat even less time so he can't speak to what other soldiers did.

Meanwhile thousands of men and women who are our neighbors and relatives tell a very different story, but, according to YOU, every single one of them is a liar and guilty of war crimes. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM ...

Again, what a hypocrite you are.

Oh, so you were there with Kerry and saw him self-inflict himself with wounds? Please....

Actually, had you read the reports, you would know that no one could verify Kerry's "injures". LOL!

In the course of your comments here, you have made a number of assertions about Kerry and his activities during the period that are simply untrue. You have swallowed hook, line and sinker stories that DID NOT HAPPEN then the way that you claim now that they happened.

I know that it is terribly inconvenient to your thought processes that there are those of us who remember Kerry and what he did WHEN HE DID THEM, but it is a fact.

So, you, of all people, telling us to be "skeptical" ... that's hysterical.

Yes, by all means, run away. To paraphrase the saying, "If it's too "hot" for you here, by all means 'get out'".

You may actually have to learn something here.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy