Instapundit’s Moral Vacuum
By on Aug 19th, 2005 at 6:29 pm
Instapundit’s Moral Vacuum
Glenn Reynolds – the guy who runs Instapundit, the most popular conservative blog – has responded to your emails demanding he correct the record about Jamie Gorelick’s 1995 memo.
Essentially, Glenn’s position is that he is under no obligation to tell his readers the truth because he didn’t write the post. (It was written by a woman named Ann Althouse, who was filing in for him.)
Glenn also argues that, as it relates to Gorelick, he’s “dropping the ball in the ‘continual smear’ department.â€
I guess he has forgotten about the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 posts he’s written attacking Jamie Gorelick.
But, as Glenn notes, all these posts are more than a year old, so they don’t count. Instamorals.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Bush Legacy
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
DADT
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Franken
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
International Relations
Iran
Iraq
Justice
Krauthammer
Kyl
LGBT
Limbaugh
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Rove
Sanford
Sotomayor
Steele
Supreme Court
Terrorism
ThinkProgress
Tiller
Torture
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Me first? wow! Uh.. I think..
I don't care. They (repubs) are what they are.
August 19th, 2005 at 6:42 pmGlenn "Instaspamit" Reynolds Wrap Chapeau
Heh. Indeed.
August 19th, 2005 at 6:44 pmRetract? They never retract -- isn't that like admitting you've been wrong?
August 19th, 2005 at 6:45 pmNo - deny, then lie, then accuse someone else. Looks like he has followed the routine.
It's gotta be BillClinton's fault.
August 19th, 2005 at 6:48 pmGlenn merely pointed out that someone else wrote a post while he was on vacation. The post was clearly signed by Ann Althouse - she wasn't ghost-writing for him.
I think many people are just unimpressed by the moral high-ground you take on telling "the truth" when you can't even direct an email campaign against the right person.
August 19th, 2005 at 6:52 pmAnn doesn't post on Instapundit before. The misinformation was posted on Instapundit, it needs to be corrected on Instapundit.
I assume everyone agrees with me on the substance of the memo - that it had no impact on the Able Danger info - and that's why we keep getting sidetracked.
August 19th, 2005 at 7:01 pmWe don't care what you think Matt. Really.
August 19th, 2005 at 7:01 pmOn 8/19 the local big-city right-ring-rag had two articles about seiral killers. The first was an article about the so called "BTK Killer," Dennis Rader. After the man was sentenced to a miminum of 175 years for his heinous crimes he still retained enough integrity to admit his crimes and apologize for his crimes to the families of his victims. The second article was an Op-Ed piece by Ann Coulter, a well known DUHbya sycophant and right-wing nut. Coulter has decreed that Cindy Sheehan, the mother of one of the victims of the other serial killer, is the root cause of her son's death and accused her of being everything but Sadam's mistress. Yes, I am comparing Dennis Rader and DUHbya Bush. Both are serial killers in that they took the lives of innocent people by unlawful acts. Rader admitted his crimes. DUHbya will not. Rader apologized to the victims' families. DUHbya will not. In my mind Rader is a lot better man, however bad he may be, than DUHbya will ever be. A man takes responsibility for his actions. A man does not hide from his accusers. A man does not lie for personal gain. A man does not belittle a grieving woman anytime and especially not in public. A man fights his own battles and defends his own honor. I am prepared to defend my position by providing facts that are clearly in evidence. I would welcome any honest debate of the facts. Please do not resort to Bushism and attempt to defend you position by calling me names or resorting to foul language as you merely strengthen my position and DUHbya's guilt. To quote and old friend "Just the facts, Maam."
August 19th, 2005 at 7:11 pmJudd,
I think the entire Able Danger topic as "issue of the week" is about to blow over anyway. Check out Mickey Kaus on Slate (www.kausfiles.com). It is quite possible now that the "Mohamed Atta" referred to in the Able Danger reports was a completely different person, and that Able Danger may not have identified any of the 9/11 attackers.
So partisan finger-pointing on who held back Able Danger, while entertaining for some, really holds no interest for many people. It would be different of the project was likely to have prevented 9/11. But if that is not the case, then who cares - there are much more important things to talk about.
Your points about Gorelick may be entirely valid, and perhaps the IDB report quoted by Ann Althouse while posting on Instapundit is inaccurate. I don't feel I have near enough information to truly judge Gorelick's impact on the project.
But don't pretend that directing an email campaign against the wrong author is appropriate. It is perfectly acceptable to request that Reynolds support or retract a point made by a different author on a sight that he normally runs. Perhaps you could have emailed him bringing it to his attention and asking that he go on the record with an opinion. But that isn't what you did. And don't pretend that is what you did.
MisterB,
Thank you for your contribution to intelligent political discourse.
-Matthew
August 19th, 2005 at 7:19 pmGood luck finding a serious Republican to debate on the facts, Clyde. I assure you, there is no such animal.
We are talking about people that view talking points as fact. Ann Coulter is their hero. Its hopeless.
August 19th, 2005 at 7:22 pmWhy do Repugnicans think I would want discourse with them? They are the enemy.
August 19th, 2005 at 7:35 pmDenounce the Bush crime syndicate. Help to restore justice and liberty and then we'll talk.
Glenn would correct those posts, except he can't afford to take time away from this article he's writing about how blogs' self-correcting nature makes them MUCH more reliable than the stupid liberal MSM.
August 19th, 2005 at 7:39 pmMatthew, your pathetic little instrument is broken, so now you repudiate it? Nice going buddy. You may not care, but Poddy and Annie have been lying all week, and Glenn was certainly stalking Gorelick during the 9-11 hearings, so they get what's coming.
Funny how you rightist scum only show up to ask that the partisan finger-pointing stop when your masters are caught lying red-handed.
August 19th, 2005 at 7:42 pmAble Danger is not the story of the week. It is just startin gto blossom and become another pimple on the face of George Bush.
Why is that the Bushies are now directing posts to Judd? Could it be because of the fact that they think he might be turned to the dark side?
August 19th, 2005 at 7:48 pmUm, wow - I just remembered why I don't usually click on lefty blogs. I listen to, and hear, all points of view from many center right blogs (even if I disagree with them); There is intelligent discourse happening on the right; the problem seems to be, many of you on the left don't believe it is intelligent if you disagree with it. The open-mindedness is astounding....
August 19th, 2005 at 8:14 pmWhat exactly has Glenn Reynolds said about Gorelick that is inaccurate? Quotations, please.
August 19th, 2005 at 8:17 pmYour misguided defense of Jamie Gorelick is most heartening to see. It's sure to repel normal people and perhaps even push a few more into the hands of George W. Bush.
Karl Rove told me to tell you "thanks".
In future posts, it would be fantastic if you would do your best to glorify Lynne Stewart.
Keep up the good work!
August 19th, 2005 at 8:28 pmWell, you know what they say about the spelling of the word ASSUME.
August 19th, 2005 at 8:29 pmOh, oh, I've got the goalposts, let's move 'em again! Can't have someone correctly pointing out that I'm speaking out of my ass, in Sanskrit!
I know, Instapumplette (oh, are not I clever!!!) once wore GOREtex and that kinda rhymes with Gorelick, so HE'S A HYPONOTIST, or something like that.
August 19th, 2005 at 8:30 pmChrist you people are so busy jerking yourselves off with "Republicans are the enemy, it's a smear campaign!" rhetotric that you can't even get the basic facts right.
Here are the facts:
Ann Althouse's words consist of:
"MAKES YOU WONDER WHAT ELSE THEY TOSSED OUT." Betsy Newmark on the 9/11 report, commenting on the news of omissions about Mohammed Atta. Here's the very harsh Investor's Business Daily editorial:"
This statement neither needs correction because (a) The first sentece is actually a quotation of Betsy Newmark; (b) The second is a statement of fact: here's a link.
So unless your beef is (a) that Betsy Newmark did not say those words or (b) that the link does not exist, you're demand for a correction is quite simply crap.
The rest of that post is a snippet from an Investor's Business Daily editorial. Perhaps you and the rest of the mensa toadies were too busy manufacturing a batch of phony outrage to notice that simple fact. However, as a good samaritan, I recommend that your energies would be better off demanding a correction from IBD (go figure!).
Reading. It's fundamental.
August 19th, 2005 at 8:31 pmReading is fundamental... it's comprehension the left often has problems with.
August 19th, 2005 at 8:42 pmI refer to my initial statement. #1 - I dont care.
August 19th, 2005 at 8:46 pmYou guys really have slipped a cog haven't you! You don't do a very good job of reading, either, so why--pray tell--should you be taken seriously at all?
I certainly won't make that mistake again.
And I also think the IRS needs to take a hard look at your 501(c)3 status.
August 19th, 2005 at 8:46 pm" And I also think the IRS needs to take a hard look at your 501(c)3 status. "
Fascist Pig
August 19th, 2005 at 8:50 pmMisterB, you say that you don't care, but still you leave comments.
Come on, let's see the quotations. What has Reynolds said that is inaccurate?
August 19th, 2005 at 8:53 pmI don't care what Bush worshippers have to say. Admit that Bush is a criminal and we'll talk.
Threatening to call the gestapo(IRS) on someone is really low - even for a ReThUGlican.
August 19th, 2005 at 8:58 pmA. The Gorelick-author "wall" memo may not have applied directly to the Defense Dept, but it prevented the FBI from acting on foreign intelligence. So even if Able Danage had been shared with the FBI, Gorelick's wall would have prevented them from following up.
B. Before her job as AAG, Gorelick was chief counsel at the Pentagon. Her memo clearly reflected the Clinton administrations attitude toward foreign intelligence, so it's not surprising DI played along.
C. The Althouse post simply quotes an Investors Business Daily editorial.
D. Reynold's previous posts about Gorelick point out she had an enormous conflict of interest, seeing that she was supposed to be investigating policy decisions she helped make. That's as true today as it ever was, if not more so.
E. While clicking around your site to check up on your IRS status, I found that donations to you are not tax deductable, so John's comment is off the mark. However, I respectfully decline the priviledge of donating $100 to you in return for a video about the evils of Wal-Mart.
Asshats.
August 19th, 2005 at 9:01 pmSo sorry, a Wal-Mart POSTER. That makes all the difference.
August 19th, 2005 at 9:05 pmI am disturbed by your inability to know the difference between linking and writing. Ann linked to an editorial written by Investors Business Daily. She did not write the article. If you believe there are inaccuracies in the editorial then your gripe is with IBD.
August 19th, 2005 at 9:07 pmMy dear bride just pointed out my error on my last post (#8). She says I was expecting arguments of vast logic from a group with a half-vast mentality. Was she calling names? If so I accept the responsibility and apologize.
August 19th, 2005 at 9:12 pm"Threatening to call the gestapo(IRS) on someone is really low - even for a ReThUGlican"
I'm sure it was just a coincidence that Larry Klayman, Paula Jones, Juanita Broderick, Gennifer Flowers and Billy Dale were all audited.
Asshat.
August 19th, 2005 at 9:14 pm... waiting for you to blow your wad and go away.
August 19th, 2005 at 9:15 pmI wasn't going to comment again on the inanity here, but my check from Karl just arrived via an oppressed, minority, handicapped messenger and I feel obliged to give him his money's worth.
CHIMPYMCBUSHHILTERBURTON FORCED INSTAPUNDIT TO PUT OUT LIES ABOUT THE HONORABLE (AND SOMEWHAT HOT) MS. GORELICK!!!!!! THE JOOOOOOOOOOS FORCED HIM TO DO IT!!!!!
August 19th, 2005 at 9:17 pmIn the entire history of steel frame high-rise buildings, only three have collapsed due to fire.
All three collapsed on one day - September 11, 2001
run away Bush lovers.
August 19th, 2005 at 9:23 pmWow, that is a lot of republican posts to read. Man, my eyes started to water. It seems as though we have a lot of republicans yelling at, pretty much nobody, not that many of us have responded. Talk about shadow boxing. Whewwwww.
It's like a NeoCon circle jerk up in here.
August 19th, 2005 at 9:23 pmYou all wouldn't know the truth if it bit you in the ass, kinda like it did on 9/11..... because of Clintoms incopetent "most ethical Administration in American history" What a laugh.
August 19th, 2005 at 9:25 pmDoublethink means, according to George Orwell's dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four:
the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. ... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies—all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth. (pages 176-177)
August 19th, 2005 at 9:27 pmWas 8 links not enough? I mean really, ten is not some magic number. If you want credibility, don't pad your posts.
#1 is a link to a "Think Progress" story (it's 404 BTW).
#4 and #5 are the same link.
PS: I read that memo and it appears to me that she is endorsing a policy to compartmentalize information about persons who are believed to be terrorists so any legal proceeding brought by her department won't be derailed; regardless of the cost to national security.
August 19th, 2005 at 9:32 pmIt's almost as if you have to approach republicans as though your walking through a quiet zone in a hospital so as not to disrupt their little fantasy bubble. Once you do, out comes a seemingly endless barrage of lies, distortions and insults.
August 19th, 2005 at 9:36 pmSo watch out you treasonous, liberal, America hating dummies. How dare you exercise your constitutional rights!
Are they gone yet? hehe
August 19th, 2005 at 9:42 pmJesus, I hope I don't get tainted by that shit. There is so much of it in one thread.
How is it until today, you could count the NeoCons on one hand:
Lyle, NED, FAKE, BSR, Alexxa
Now, there are 700 of those bastards. We don't need troll repelent. we need troll killer.
Bush is a lying piece of crap that can suck my lollipop.
August 19th, 2005 at 9:56 pmmister B Wrote
"Are they gone yet? hehe "
Nope.
Do you not think that Jamie Gorelick had a conflict of interest being on the 9/11 commision?
August 19th, 2005 at 9:56 pmOk - let me sum up...
"Both (Bush and BTK) are serial killers in that they took the lives of innocent people by unlawful acts."
The Iraqi war was approved by a large, bipartisan majority of Congress. By any standard of US law, it is perfectly "legal" even if you feel it misguided. Truly it is sad that you don't see the difference between innocents *wantonly* slaughtered by Saddam and those killed *despite* our best efforts. I'm not even arguing in favor of the war - I'm just incredibly saddened by the wild, over-the-top accusations.
"Why do Repugnicans think I would want discourse with them? They are the enemy."
Oh THAT will go a long way toward convincing people you folks are worth working with.
"Funny how you rightist scum only show up to ask that the partisan finger-pointing stop when your masters are caught lying red-handed."
Our "masters"? What world do you live in? Besides, no one is asking that finger pointing be stopped. Reynolds may well have screwed up by not looking far enough back in his archives but, seriously, "rightist scum"?
"In the entire history of steel frame high-rise buildings, only three have collapsed due to fire. All three collapsed on one day - September 11, 2001"
Of course, this was also the first time people flew fully-loaded passenger jets into such buildings. But *that* couldn't have anything to do with it - it must've been the Bushitler / Jewish / Neocon conspiracy that brought those buildings down.
Do you wonder why you lose elections? How 'bout because people think you are crazy and borderline violent? I know it always turns me off...
August 19th, 2005 at 9:57 pmIn the entire history of steel frame high-rise buildings, only three have collapsed due to fire.
All three collapsed on one day - September 11, 2001
Don't you think thats a little strange?
Fact is that knowing 9/11 was an inside job renders all your petty arguements moot.
By the way. Clinton is part of the "Family" now. What do you make of that?
August 19th, 2005 at 10:03 pmSpudgeBoy wrote
"How is it until today, you could count the NeoCons on one hand:
Lyle, NED, FAKE, BSR, Alexxa
Now, there are 700 of those bastards. We don’t need troll repelent. we need troll killer."
Behold the power of the Instalaunch
August 19th, 2005 at 10:05 pmAnd one other thing - it is getting *incredibly* tiresome that you guys can't disagree with someone like Instapundit without screaming "liar."
Bush (and Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Kennedy, etc.) weren't wrong when they feared WMDs, you say. No, Bush "lied" about the weapons. The normal spin of politics is unremarkable when the Dems do it, but even the merest use of a euphemism is a Hitleresque abuse of government power when a Repub does it. Don't you get tired of all the faux outrage?
And, seriously, I don't say this as a Republican. I say it as someone who would *like* to have two serious political parties functioning in America.
August 19th, 2005 at 10:09 pmIt's amazing how their eyes glaze over when confronted with the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job.
The government is bad for you. learn!
August 19th, 2005 at 10:13 pmIf Instapundit is "the most popular conservative blog" why is this column labeled "Radical Right-Wing Agenda"?
August 19th, 2005 at 10:17 pmWhere do the assponies on the left get their self-righteous ignorance from? Their parents? Public school educations?
In the entire history of steel frame high-rise buildings, how many had been impacted by airplanes travelling at close of max speed and filled gas tanks?
Pull your head out of your ass, clown.
August 19th, 2005 at 10:21 pmWhat are you thinking. The headlines looked good, but when i entered the site the only thing you get is hostility, name calling, and lies! I would think you would at least attempt a good argument.
August 19th, 2005 at 10:32 pmOHHHHHHHHH misterb has a hardon for a argument
August 19th, 2005 at 10:34 pmThe 9/11 commission and gorelick are non-issues if 9/11 was an inside job.
August 19th, 2005 at 10:37 pmMister B Wrote
"“I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.’ And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.â€
What do you suppose he meant by “Pull it�"
I think he ment pull his people out.
August 19th, 2005 at 10:38 pmJust take a critical look at humanity and our history.
Tyranny and Despotism have ALWAYS been the norm throughout history. Why would that change now? Why would you ever trust powerfull men like the Bushes or Clintons to have your best interests at heart.
I weep for Americas future. We must wake up.
August 19th, 2005 at 10:41 pmOk, I agree w mister b
August 19th, 2005 at 10:41 pm#43
The Constitution provides that the Congress shalll declare war.
DUHbya sent troops and weapons of war to Iraq without, repeat without, the proper authorization or sanction of Congress. An illegal act.
The Constitution does not allow for retroactive laws or consent.
Any act by Congress after the fact does not, repeat does not, legalize a previous illegitimate act. Ergo DUHbya's act of sending troops to Iraq was illegal. His illegal act caused the deaths of numerous American and Iraqi soldiers and citizens. He is a criminal, and by definition a serial killer. Show me FACTS to counter my argument.
August 19th, 2005 at 10:44 pmMister B wrote
"Why would you ever trust powerfull men like the Bushes or Clintons to have your best interests at heart. "
I dont trust powerful men like Bush or Clinton. Thats why I think it was a mistake to include anyone in either administration on the 9/11 commision. I just don't see why everyone here has a problem with asking questions about Able Danger.
August 19th, 2005 at 10:45 pmClyde the Ripper
The Constitution provides that the Congress shalll declare war.
What country are you living in? You better look at the facts. You are wrong.
August 19th, 2005 at 10:47 pmThey did
August 19th, 2005 at 10:48 pmWhen Silverstein was interviewed later, he was asked what he meant by "pull it." He meant fire suppression, or firefighters in the area. He didn't want to risk more firefighters when no civilians were thought to be in the building and the NYFD has already suffered such a huge loss of life.
Why don't you try stirring up the rumour that no Jews went to work that day? That seems down your alley...
August 19th, 2005 at 10:49 pmClyde the Ripper wrote
"The Constitution provides that the Congress shalll declare war.
DUHbya sent troops and weapons of war to Iraq without, repeat without, the proper authorization or sanction of Congress. An illegal act."
So were you this upset when Clinton sent planes to Bosnia, or troups to Hatti (sp)
How about When Truman sent them to Korea?
How about when Rosevelt started protecting Convoys in the atlantic before we got into WWII. How about the Flying Tigers?
How about the Hostage rescue atempt by Carter?
How about Vietnam by Kenedy and LBJ.
I agree with you that congress needs to reclaim the constitutional power to declare war, but W's actions seem about the same as every other president scince FDR
August 19th, 2005 at 10:51 pmEddie
August 19th, 2005 at 10:54 pmGet a grip. I dont have a problem with it. You do. Congress approved it. We are there and we will win if you quit your whinning.
All I will say about Able Danger is this - think outside the box. Its a ruse, a red herring, meant to distract us from the truth - that 9/11 was carried out by the Military Industrial Complex in order to (a)strip us of our liberty, (b) foment a perpetual war against terrorism. The question you really need to ask is this - cui bono? (who benefits)
1. Massive police state
August 19th, 2005 at 10:55 pm2. gargantuan military contracts.
3. unprecidented power both in america and overseas.
4. Oil and Opium trade off the charts.
I choose "none of the above." Its playing out, and i'm sure we will see the end game soon. If you dont think we should find out what really happened, I'm loosing a lot of respect for you.
August 19th, 2005 at 10:58 pmI do think we should find the truth. First things first though - arrest the traitors.
August 19th, 2005 at 11:01 pmWhat MisterB first posted about steel-framed buildings, I didn't get it. Only after reading, did I realize he meant that 9/11 was all a plot. Apparently, MisterB has no contact with the real world and how things get done. He sits in a room with a computer and imagines that the world is like what he sees in TV and the movies. He thinks a building can be wired to explode without any of a thousand people noticing. And that people in the government are all so amoral and confindent in their omnipotence to do something like that. As someone who lives in the real world, I would like to assure him that it doesn't work that way, but I am sure he doesn't receive that kind of communication on the planet on which he lives. I am glad that I don't live on his planet. I hope I never even visit there. Poor guy!
August 19th, 2005 at 11:03 pmMore SNAKES!
August 19th, 2005 at 11:03 pmI'm for finding out what happened. I think we need to stop playing Democrat/republican and start thinking survival of the republic.
August 19th, 2005 at 11:04 pmTraitors have to be tried and convicted, not because they hurt your feelings. Sorry been a teacher for too long.
August 19th, 2005 at 11:04 pmGlen InstaCrap is an idiot of epic proportions.
August 19th, 2005 at 11:05 pmTraitors have to be tried and convicted to be called that. Your mind must be working overtime. Sorry been a teacher too long.
August 19th, 2005 at 11:05 pmIs Al here, my internet is acting up again.
August 19th, 2005 at 11:07 pmGaryg - I used to think just like you do. Make fun if it makes you feel better but im telling you, Brother, go look for yourself. That building was demolished and Larry Silverstein admited it on film. Pull it means demolition.
Just look at the film of the building falling. I know its unbelieveable but we all need to face the fact that there are evil men in positions of power.
August 19th, 2005 at 11:08 pm"Traitors have to be tried and convicted to be called that" Point taken.
Arrest the suspected Traitors then.
August 19th, 2005 at 11:09 pmCandy Wrote
"Eddie
Get a grip. I dont have a problem with it. You do. Congress approved it. We are there and we will win if you quit your whinning. "
I don't belive I was talking to you. You could tell because I wrote "Clyde the Ripper wrote" and not Candy wrote.
I think we are winning and going are going to win also because I am talking to friends who are over there.
Just because I think we are wining does not mean that I think that it is a good Idea to ignore the US constitution.
The Congress did pass a measure to suport taking military action against Iraq. But this is not a declaration of war. Congress should have passed a Declaration of War.
We should follow the constitution. If it is wrong or inadequite we should change it.
August 19th, 2005 at 11:09 pmWhy hasn't Osama bin Laden been caught? With all our technology, manpower, money and expertise we cannot find one man, who is basically travelling on foot!
August 19th, 2005 at 11:18 pmObL was trained by the CIA and funded by our government during the Afghan Soviet war. You know what they say about the CIA... once a company man, always a company man.
The Bush family has been friends with the bin Laden family for many years. President Bush said not long ago that he wasn't concerned about the whereabouts of Osama when pressed about why we haven't found him yet. If Osama's relatives from Saudi Arabia can find him easily to attend his son's wedding, why weren't we informed as to where this wedding was taking place so we could take him out?
Because in my opinion, the neocons need Osama and I believe he is being paid very well... maybe with the missing $8.8 billion supposedly earmarked for Iraq?
Candy,
Section 8, Powers of Congress, of the United States authorizes Congress "To declare war.." Congress DID NOT AND HAS NOT declared a State of War against the Republic of Iraq. Retroactive acknowledgement of an illegal act does not constitute a proper declaration. In addition, the Bush Administration has termed this a "War on Terror" while the Congress, after the fact, agreed to the invasion of Iraq. The Bush war was, is, and will be illegal up to the time Congress offically declares war on the Republic of Iraq. Prove me wrong with facts not rhetoric.
August 19th, 2005 at 11:19 pmClyde -
August 19th, 2005 at 11:22 pmConstitution? We don't need no stinking Constitution!
My error: the post should read "the United States CONSTITUTION..."
August 19th, 2005 at 11:23 pmOr The Bill of Rights either!
August 19th, 2005 at 11:23 pmHey MisterB,
We could use the Constitution as the Bushies do and drive Charmin out of business!
August 19th, 2005 at 11:26 pmI second the motion! *wipe* *wipe* *flush*
August 19th, 2005 at 11:28 pmSince Bush is blind, how would he know when he is done?
August 19th, 2005 at 11:30 pmClyde the Ripper Wrote
"while the Congress, after the fact, agreed to the invasion of Iraq. "
Congress passed a resolution suporting military action against IRAQ before the invasion not after. You are right that it was not a Decloration of War. Which means that it was just like every other military action taken by this country scince WWI (cause you see we participated in WWII before we declared war)
So why all the sudden outrage about this one? Did you write angry letters about Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, Gulf war I, The no fly zones scince Gulf war I?
August 19th, 2005 at 11:31 pmCouple of comments to throw in here. First referring to an earlier comment that "Ann doesn’t post on Instapundit before. The misinformation was posted on Instapundit, it needs to be corrected on Instapundit." Actually, Ann did post on Instapundit, along with two others, shortly before the election (Oct. 2004, I believe) while Glenn could not write on Instapundit.
Secondly, I believe that many of these posts support a recent statement by James Lileks: "Some people think that any time you argue back, you are stifling dissent." Statements such as "Admit that Bush is a criminal and we’ll talk" do not do much to prove him wrong.
August 19th, 2005 at 11:32 pmI'm with Candy. If only we will all stop our seditious leftist whining, Tinkerbell will live.
August 19th, 2005 at 11:36 pmSixth Sense,
If you have reference to my posts I would like to clear the air. I don't care if anyone admits that Bush is wrong. It is my opinion that he is wrong and challenge anyone who thinks he is right to argue with me by presenting facts to support their position. There is a considerable difference between my position and your statement. Frankly I don't want to talk much to someone who agrees with me other than an occcasional "Amen, Brother" because we both end up preaching to the choir instead of the sinners. If you have reference to other than I, I fully support your position.
August 19th, 2005 at 11:43 pmI do my best to piss off the Trolls. Honestly, I normally step over the shite but heh... whatever.
What is your point, Sixth Sense? the last statement seemed a bit muddled. Argument stifles dissent or "some people" think that? Can refusing comment be seen as dissent? What if I just flipped you the bird?
Are non-verbal gestures acceptable as dissent? What are we dissenting to? I dissent to argue politics with Bush worshippers. You can dissent to that all you want.
Watch the birdie.
August 19th, 2005 at 11:46 pmDo you people have a reading comprehension problem?
Prof Reynolds said he hadn't posted re: Ms. Gorelick in the last year save for the exception that he linked to. And, lo and behold, it seems to be factually true.
Professor Reynolds likewise stated that he had not written about "Ms. Gorlick and Able Danger" within that timeframe which is why the last year comment is relevant --the previous posts to which you link were not about Ms. Gorelick *AND* Able Danger. And, lo and behold, it seems to be factually true.
If you can't get the basic facts correct, you are going to have some problems debating the actual content of Prof Reynolds' posts.
Lastly, while I'm not too good at telepathy, I believe any reasonable reading of Prof Reynolds' comment re: "dropping the ball in the ‘continual smear’ department" was irony. As you have so amply demonstrated here, any critisism of Ms. Gorelick would have been denounced as a "smear" anyway, inconvenient facts notwithstanding.
But I suspect many here already know that and are willfully equating irony with immorality. This is the same rhetorical technique that converts "mistakes" to "lies" --but only when it's the other guy.
So. Any retractions in order?
August 19th, 2005 at 11:49 pm"We don’t care what you think Matt. Really."
God bless you, this is why we love you guys. Please continue to cloister yourselves in your enclaves and listen only to your echo chamber. Don't pay any attention to anyone you disagree with. This approach is undoubtedly the source of all the stunning electoral success the Democrat party has enjoyed in the last decade or so. Keep up the good work.
August 19th, 2005 at 11:55 pm"So. Any retractions in order?"
You first.
August 19th, 2005 at 11:57 pmDo you people have a reading comprehension problem?
Prof Reynolds said he hadn’t posted re: Ms. Gorelick in the last year save for the exception that he linked to. And, lo and behold, it seems to be factually true.
Well, duh! That's all the vacuous punstaidiot ever does, He points to other vacuous idiot's droolings.
Heh! Indeedy!
August 19th, 2005 at 11:57 pm#87
Statements that require one to:
“Admit that Bush is (not) a criminal and we’ll talk†do not do much to prove him (right) wrong.
If you are Sixth Sense, what happened to the other five?
August 19th, 2005 at 11:58 pmWatch! I can do what Instaspammer does!
The mediocre punditocracy of the right.
http://mithras.blogs.com/blog/2005/08/the_most_stupen.html
http://yglesias.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/8/19/161613/989
http://highclearing.com/index.php/archives/2005/08/17/4544#comments
Heh. Indeedy!
August 20th, 2005 at 12:01 amhelpfulconservative - Not!
Just giving you guys a taste of your own medicine.
If you were ever right about anything, we should never let you know it. The pomposity it added to your shriveled brains would surely kill you.
August 20th, 2005 at 12:02 amClyde the Ripper, the quotation in question was not one of yours. It was a comment from MisterB.
Speaking of which, the point was that "some people" believe that you must be stupid or evil if you bring a counterpoint to their point, since you didn't get it the first time. It follows, therefore, that it's not worth discussing with you because you are stupid or evil. I did suggest that your previous comment that one must admit Bush is a criminal before you would talk to them would qualify. If you wish to object, please do so. Otherwise, I'll just "watch the birdie", aka watch you prove Lileks' point.
August 20th, 2005 at 12:03 amFor the record, Cynthia, I do not require a certain viewpoint in order to hold a discussion of politics. I just ask that someone who disagrees with me listen to and consider my arguements rather than just listen for what they must refute, and I will give them the same courtesy. And nothing happened to my other senses.
August 20th, 2005 at 12:07 amJeebus! You'd think Instapud had camped outside of Carter's or Clinton's El Rancho waiting for an explanation and apology for Jimmy and Bill causing everything from polio to bubonic plague to 9/11.
August 20th, 2005 at 12:09 am"the point was that “some people†believe that you must be stupid or evil"
No one here believes any such thing. They are conviced beyond a shadow of a doubt, to a moral certainty. Kind of like the IDiots with Intelligent Decline, but this time science is on our side.
August 20th, 2005 at 12:12 amThat is better. I understood that. Thanks for clarifying.
Bush is evil; therefore, any position taken up in his defense is misguided and inherently flawed. I think that was my point. Also, 9/11 was an inside job, perpetrated by Bush and Co; therefore, all arguments that do not take that into consideration are flawed as well.
What did you want to talk about?
August 20th, 2005 at 12:12 amWell, I would like to talk about those two points, but it appears that you are set in your opinions. As stubborn as I am, I know a wall when I see one.
And, Nostradammit, if you looked into it with an open mind, you might be surprised at what you find. But, again, I see another wall if I tried to discuss "Intelligent Decline".
August 20th, 2005 at 12:18 amAnd, Nostradammit, if you looked into it with an open mind, you might be surprised at what you find.
Bingo! Wingo! Wingnut!
August 20th, 2005 at 12:26 amI fear you are getting the tail end of my bad day, Sixth Sense. You seem to be a good fellow and intelligent too.
After the onslaught of "wingnuts" we've had here today, my only defense has been to mirror the ugliness. Perhaps I've only hurt myself in the process.
Wall or no wall, something is going to give in our country. I know you can appreciate that. I pray that justice and liberty ultimately prevail. I hope we can agree on that.
August 20th, 2005 at 12:26 amMisterB, I guess I can accept that. I did walk into this conversation late, after all. And yes, we can agree that justice and liberty ultimately prevail. For now, let's just leave those terms undefined and call it a night.
August 20th, 2005 at 12:30 amBut, again, I see another wall if I tried to discuss “Intelligent Declineâ€.
Wingo! Bingo! Wingnut!
I think I like that better. And I'm not even an atheist. Save it for the university in a philosophy and comparative religions course. If you want to teach that trash to kids at that age in a public school, you are a dangerous wingnut. American Taliban. We got nothing to talk about.
August 20th, 2005 at 12:30 amNostradamit wrote
"I have a simple litmus test, (this ain’t congress and you haven’t been nominated for the SCOTUS). I don’t take anyone seriously who opposes the ACLU in any minor fashion. I myself do not agree with every stance they take, but understand why they musttake them."
I mised the ACLU reference where was that?
August 20th, 2005 at 12:34 amIt's my litmus test. Think about it.
August 20th, 2005 at 12:34 amSixth Sense,
I have never required that anyone agree with me in order to hold a conversation, debate, or argument. In fact, it has always been my position that if two people have no difference of opinion then one of them is unnecessary. The only request I have made, and I invite you to prove differently, is that I would like any debate to be limited to the facts with no name calling or foul language. Please copy, paste, and repost any of my posts that violate this position and I will apologize profusely.
August 20th, 2005 at 12:40 amNostradamit wrote
"It’s my litmus test. Think about it. "
So that was a general comment, not in reference to anything else in the thread?
I am OK with that.
August 20th, 2005 at 12:40 amNostradammit, I haven't said anything about teaching it in any school, just that you should look it up with an open mind. I will point out that if you teach kids that evolution is a fact until they are 18, then get around to telling them that there are other schools of thought about the origin of life and how it developed through history, it's hard for them to consider all the evidence with an open mind when they have been told all their lives that one school of thought is correct.
August 20th, 2005 at 12:41 amSo that was a general comment, not in reference to anything else in the thread?
It was in reference to something this thread. It's all referential. Are you the Topic police?
Sixth Sense,
I don't care how reasonable a wing nut sounds. You are a wing nut.
August 20th, 2005 at 12:44 am#111
I second the motion!
Have at it folks!
August 20th, 2005 at 12:46 amI have never required that anyone agree with me in order to hold a conversation, debate, or argument. In fact, it has always been my position that if two people have no difference of opinion then one of them is unnecessary.
How many murders do you think have been caused by no difference of opinion?
August 20th, 2005 at 12:53 amCynthia, I have no argument with your statement, and was not trying to call you out before. I was merely responding to your rewording of part of my post. Please carry on in the spirit of your excellent post.
August 20th, 2005 at 12:53 amFor the record, Cynthia, I do not require a certain viewpoint in order to hold a discussion of politics. I just ask that someone who disagrees with me listen to and consider my arguements rather than just listen for what they must refute, and I will give them the same courtesy.
Really. What's the point. If you had some new take on things, we could read it in your book. All this stuff has been "debated" for the last 2000 years. Even Francis Fukuyama declared that we have reached the "End of History". And even he didn't support George W. Bush. This is all just political bullshit. You probably don't even know who Fukuyama was.
August 20th, 2005 at 1:01 amThat should read "[Fuku] didn't support George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq."
August 20th, 2005 at 1:16 amOK, you got me, I don't know who Fukuyama was; in fact, never heard of the guy. I guess that disqualifies me as a debate opponent. However, I still invite you to do some open and honest research on this topic. But hey, what do I know, I'm just some stupid wingnut, right? (post is mostly sarcastic, if you couldn't tell)
August 20th, 2005 at 1:17 amOK, you got me, I don’t know who Fukuyama was; in fact, never heard of the guy.
Perhaps you should do some "open and honest research" of your own.
I guess that disqualifies me as a debate opponent.
What disqualifies you as a debate opponent is your own ignorance of who you really are and what you really espouse. You are not a conservative. You just think you are. And you have no idea what a liberal is.
However, I still invite you to do some open and honest research on this topic.
What topic?
But hey, what do I know, I’m just some stupid wingnut, right?
Would you prefer radical, right wing extremist?
(Post is completeley serious, whether you are aware of it or not).
August 20th, 2005 at 2:07 amGo read #20 again. It sums up the issue nicely.
"Essentially, Glenn’s position is that he is under no obligation to tell his readers the truth because he didn’t write the post."
Glenn is under no obligations because it is a blog and it is a hobby. Apart from that, Instapundit stated no untruths. They link and we decide. It is the reader's role to judge the linked material and investigate further to determine the truth. It is not Instapundit's job to investigate for you. Instapundit provides awareness of the issue at hand, and by providing the links they allow the reader to accept or reject any associated commentary. And nobody loses any sleep over it because it is just opinion; Instapundit is not making declarations of fact.
The substance of the 10 year old memo is irrelevant.
Jamie Gorelick is in no danger of losing her life or livelihood or anything else of value if Glen does not issue a correction.
It just does not matter.
August 20th, 2005 at 2:10 amSo you agree, #123, that Reynolds is just a clueless moron. That was easy! Thank you!
August 20th, 2005 at 2:19 amEvery once in a while I get this urge to try and understand the liberal mindset... then I see a post by MisterB and realize it would be futile.
August 20th, 2005 at 3:13 amEvery once in a while I get this urge to try and understand the liberal mindset… then I see a post by MisterB and realize it would be futile.
Mr.B is a disillusioned conservative/independent you ignoramus! We have quite a few of them here who have kicked the Kool-aid and lived. But that's a priceless observation on your part.
August 20th, 2005 at 3:18 amThis may not be the right place to put this, but...
I am going to start a campaign to make it a 3 term maximum for presidents. My campaign slogan will be "4 more years!" or "12 years of Bush!", not sure which.
Everybody with me? Bush may not be great, but at least he's not a democrat!
August 20th, 2005 at 4:31 amThis may not be the right place to put this, but…
How astute of you! If you just remove your head from your ass, you will know where to put that suggestion and you may ram it home with your head because we know that's where'd your prefer to keep that superflous appendage.
August 20th, 2005 at 4:53 amLOL! You people better watch who you're calling morons. Neither Glen Reynolds nor Ann Althouse are Rebublican or even conservative.
Since 911, when the liberal lunatic fringe went mainstream, Reynolds & Althouse have been liberal independents.
You know, those people the Democrats have to woo if they have a prayer of ever regaining Congress or the White House.
August 20th, 2005 at 9:10 amNostradammit wrote
"So you agree, #123, that Reynolds is just a clueless moron. That was easy! Thank you! "
um, you wrote post #123.
August 20th, 2005 at 9:11 amUm, I wrote post #124, Eddie. More coffee for you.
August 20th, 2005 at 9:41 amComment by naes — August 20, 2005 @ 9:10 am
Heh-hehenh-hehenh-Hehenh...
He said "liberal" and I think he meant libertarian, Neavis.
Heh-hehenh-hehenh-Hehenh...
Jeebus these people are not only morons. They are ultra-maroons.
August 20th, 2005 at 9:44 amSince 911, when the liberal lunatic fringe went mainstream, Reynolds & Althouse have been liberal independents.
You know, those people the Democrats have to woo if they have a prayer of ever regaining Congress or the White House.
Butthead!
August 20th, 2005 at 9:47 amThe far right in this country are actually fascist. Their followers are dittoheads. If they really had a clue what conservatism was they'd be shocked by how much Bush isn't one.
August 20th, 2005 at 9:59 amWhen you accuse someone of running smear campaign and then go back to posts more than a year old to justify your accusations you are CYA. Looks like you are just instigating electronic harassment.
BTW - How do people like MisterB think they can bring anything good into the world? His comments ooze with hate and nothing good comes from hate.
August 20th, 2005 at 10:34 amI'm really a nice guy. I just want you to go away. You don't care about facts.
August 20th, 2005 at 10:45 amI could bury you in irrefutable evidence but it would make no difference.
You base your arguments on articles of faith and there can be no rational discussion with zealots.
BTW - How do people like MisterB think they can bring anything good into the world? His comments ooze with hate and nothing good comes from hate.
Become a progressive liberal. People will love you, except for the lunatic fringe on the right to which you belong.
August 20th, 2005 at 11:27 am9/11 was an inside job?
Say, that's the mating call of the Wingus Nuttus, isn't it?
August 20th, 2005 at 11:36 amIntellegent Design - mating call of the complete moron.
Bush-Linked Company Handled Security for the WTC, Dulles and United. Just one more in an incredible list of coincidences but, what do you care? Like I said, I could literly bury you in evidence and you'd still kiss Bush's ass.
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm
August 20th, 2005 at 11:48 am"9/11 was an inside job?
Say, that’s the mating call of the Wingus Nuttus, isn’t it? "
and yet al queda was trained by the cia to fight their wars... Interesting how soon people forget that when dismissing others as wingnuts. I personally doubt 9-11 was planned by us, but I think one would have to be a wingnut to not believe that some folks knew about it and took advantage of the situation... Does that make it an inside job is not the proper question, it´s does that ´fact´ even matter that should be getting asked...
August 20th, 2005 at 12:02 pmNostraDammit wrote
"Um, I wrote post #124, Eddie. More coffee for you. "
Here is Comment 123
OK, you got me, I don’t know who Fukuyama was; in fact, never heard of the guy.
Perhaps you should do some “open and honest research†of your own.
I guess that disqualifies me as a debate opponent.
What disqualifies you as a debate opponent is your own ignorance of who you really are and what you really espouse. You are not a conservative. You just think you are. And you have no idea what a liberal is.
However, I still invite you to do some open and honest research on this topic.
What topic?
But hey, what do I know, I’m just some stupid wingnut, right?
Would you prefer radical, right wing extremist?
(Post is completeley serious, whether you are aware of it or not).
Comment by Nostradammit — August 20, 2005 @ 2:07 am
Less Coffee for you.
August 20th, 2005 at 12:14 pmMister B wrote
"I’m really a nice guy. I just want you to go away. You don’t care about facts.
I could bury you in irrefutable evidence but it would make no difference.
You base your arguments on articles of faith and there can be no rational discussion with zealots. "
wow this post would be really accurate if it was aimed at Mr B instead of from Mr B
Go ahead Mr B bury us with irrefutable evidence.
August 20th, 2005 at 12:18 pmIt seems your think PROCESS needs some work...
August 20th, 2005 at 12:23 pmThere can be no rational discussion with zealots. †Sorry Eddie. I don't want to play with you.
August 20th, 2005 at 12:30 pmMr B wrote
"There can be no rational discussion with zealots. †Sorry Eddie. I don’t want to play with you. "
Ok, Have fun
August 20th, 2005 at 12:34 pmI love the rationalization.
Just love it.
Carry on people.
August 20th, 2005 at 12:52 pmWhy do Repugnicans think I would want discourse with them? They are the enemy.
Um, you have nothing to discuss as your posts indicate.
August 20th, 2005 at 1:05 pmYou are an intellectual coward and a moron.
I guess he has forgotten about the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 posts he’s written attacking Jamie Gorelick
Please define the "attack" in them?
Please.
Given that he in most cases didn't write the content of the post you define as "attack" how is he attacking her? Further, what about these "attacks" is factually false?
Its hilarious to see you ignorant moonbats "in action."
August 20th, 2005 at 1:26 pmMindlessly sending emails and repeating things that aren't true.
Go thump your bible somewhere else, you cheese eating shitbag.
August 20th, 2005 at 1:38 pmHa!
August 20th, 2005 at 2:14 pmNotice the "factual" reply.
Another ignorant, yet self-styled "intelligent" moron.
Whatever, loser.
I would sooner try and educate a turnip, Sir. Kindly piss off.
August 20th, 2005 at 2:25 pmMisterB,
what's your purpose on this site?
August 20th, 2005 at 3:10 pmwhat’s your purpose of that question?
August 20th, 2005 at 3:14 pmI want to know if you have a function here other than stringing together insulting adjectives and nutty 9-11 conspiracy theories. Seems like a waste of a life.
August 20th, 2005 at 3:17 pmWhat do you care?
August 20th, 2005 at 3:25 pmyou must care or you wouldn't spend your days on this thread (about 30 comments in 21 hours), about 90% of which consists of you vulgarly insisting you don't want to talk to content, then doing so anyway with vulgar metaphors. And nothing that even brushes reality. I don't know what's worse. someone dopey enough to think Bush planned 9-11, or someone mean-spirited enough to want it to be true.
August 20th, 2005 at 3:30 pmoops, meant "don't want to talk to Republicans"
August 20th, 2005 at 3:32 pmMeh...
August 20th, 2005 at 3:38 pmMr. B, conservative Republicans are not extremists. There are many real conservatives at this site, and ex-Republicans who woke up before Nov.2004. Don't confuse the extremists who hijacked the cause of conservatism and the GOP with anything other than what they are. They are not conservatives. By definition, no conservative is a radical extremist. Bush is no conservative. He is the face of the GOP today, but that would be the party Hitler would have used to come to power here.
August 20th, 2005 at 4:43 pmDear Glenn,
I am disturbed by your continual smears of the most honorable Bubba-luvvin' lawyer chick to serve on the 9-11 Commission. If you disagree with my hallucinations regarding your blog posts, then please voice that at your discretion, but engaging in personal smears campaigns at the behest of Chuckles the Clown and Joe Stalin really do a disservice to your readers. I never said that yo ... SNAKES! SNAKES! Please issue a correction in your next blog.
Yours sincer ... SNAKES! SNAKES!,
Judd
August 20th, 2005 at 5:27 pmNostradammit,
I am one of those Republican Conservatives who ran like hell when the Bushies started rattling their cages. I will probably go back if the true Republicans regain power after Hilary has served her two terms. Long live Hilary! Any port in a storm has become any politicial other than a Bushie.
August 20th, 2005 at 6:29 pmBecome a progressive liberal. People will love you, except for the lunatic fringe on the right to which you belong.
Comment by Nostradammit
I suppose that is why progressive liberals control all branches of the Government, people just love them.
Mr.B - Do you also belive that Clinton was a drug dealer and had dozens murdered as "documented" by the Clinton Chronicles? That tape is also filled chock full of irrefutable evidence.
August 20th, 2005 at 6:29 pmClyde,
you are cursed or blessed by the gods because you have the gift of seeing things all too clearly. I actually don't buy into the left/right paradigm, it is a useless designation. But how many folks here, besides some of the guys who run the site, perhaps, have ever heard of integral politics, or even understand it?
Bobo, you are either a parody troll or the genuine article. That's what's so scary. It's no longer possible to tell the difference.
August 20th, 2005 at 6:59 pmHere Clyde,
This is a slight bit better than the crap political quiz Tony took to decide he was a "Libertarian".
There's abundant evidence for the need of it. The old one-dimensional categories of 'right' and 'left' , established for the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly of 1789, are overly simplistic for today's complex political landscape. For example, who are the 'conservatives' in today's Russia? Are they the unreconstructed Stalinists, or the reformers who have adopted the right-wing views of conservatives like Margaret Thatcher ?
http://www.politicalcompass.org/
Take the test and look through the site, you will learn lots of new things.
Wikipedia has a comprensive entry on political tests.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_compass
August 20th, 2005 at 7:05 pmAnd if you want to take a stab at integral politics, (this is what Clinton and others are getting into now)...
http://noosphere.cc/integralpolitics.html
August 20th, 2005 at 7:10 pmI kind'a hate to waste this here but since it is Saturday night and so far down I can probably get away with using it again next week. I just discovered irrefutable proof that the Theory Of Evolution previals over the theories of Inteligent design or a Supreme Being. In researching my family tree I found that my maternal Great Grand Father, William Henry Prewitt, married, on May 8, 1866, Barbara Jane Bush, the daughter of Philip Winn Bush of Clark County, Kentucky. The said Bush is reportedly (and I refuse to verify to retain the option of creditable deniability) a twig off the tree that EVOLVED into the current Bush family of note, and not the Bean Baker Bush. How, you ask, does this irrefutably prove your point. Quite simply, I respond: No intelligent designer would be so stupid and no Supreme Being so cruel as to link my family with DUHbya. It had to be a mutated gene! QED
August 20th, 2005 at 8:05 pmEureka! I saw a bush in my family tree also. *shudder*
August 20th, 2005 at 8:20 pmIs it worth pointing out that, unless Bush is not human (which some have, hopefully not seriously, alleged), "evolution" has not taken place?
Nostradammit, you could summarize Fukuyama's point for me so that we could discuss it. However, you seem disinclined to hold a serious conversation and would rather hurl talking points/insults across the comment board.
August 20th, 2005 at 9:26 pmSixth Sense,
To clarify your last by taking the positive approach instead of the negative we get "If Bush is human, "evolution" has taken place." If this is what you mean we have several points to discuss: (1) If he is human and did evolve, from what non-human specie did he evolve? (2)What constructive evidence can you, or him, produce to support the position that the "evolution" that produced DUHbya was of a positive nature, i. e. he is an improvement over his previous generations? (3) How do justify your position that DUHbya has "evolved" from some lesser or greater creature than a human with his own declaration that he was the product of some unidentified "Intelligent Designer? And (4) If that is the case why is his mother not claiming the second Immaculate Conception?
August 20th, 2005 at 9:52 pmTo quote Charlie Brown, "Good grief!!!!!"
What I meant (and what I would guess 99% of people reading my post would understand) was that Bush is not the product of evolution from his great-however-many-times-grandparent that Nostradammit is related to. Bush's relative was human, and so is Bush. Therefore, evolution did not take place.
So, now that I have untwisted your twisting of my previous statement, do you have any serious questions?
August 20th, 2005 at 10:07 pmAll of the above!
August 20th, 2005 at 10:10 pmFine, here it goes then, and try to keep up...
1) My point is that no evolution took place, so the question is moot.
2) Again, a moot question. Also, answering would require a deep, personal knowledge of his family, which I do not posess.
3) I do not claim that he evolved from a greater or lesser creature than a human, therefore there is no position to justify.
4) Warning: we are wandering into theological territory. Should you not wish to enter, please stop reading now. Anyways, what Bush is talking about is that while he was naturally conceived, he was also given all of his personal traits, skills, gifts, etc., by an "Intelligent Designer"; we assume he is talking about the Christian God. He is saying that God bestowed upon him all of his abilities and talents, not that he is the result of the second Immaculate Conception. By extension, God does this for all of us, but that is another discussion far off the original subject.
August 20th, 2005 at 10:27 pmWhat I want to know, MisterB, is how Bush can be so devious as to rig the WTC with explosives (and get away with it!), but then not be able to plant WMD after we invaded Iraq to justify the invasion.
Something's not right there. Course, if you lived on planet earth, you would have figured this out already.
August 21st, 2005 at 12:03 amSome people on the left are convinced of our government's complicity in 9/11. So what? Some people on the right are convinced there are still WMDs to be found in Iraq and Saddam and OBL swapped spit in the shower. It's a push. Fukuyama's thesis I referred to was that we have reached the end of history... "in which he argues that the progression of human history as a struggle between ideologies is largely at an end, with the world settling on liberal democracy after the end of the Cold War."
I agree, Fuku has reached the end of his history, and so have the rest of the neocons. No great loss. Let me ask you something. Did "intelligent design" occur before, after or during the "Big Bang"? Or is it an ongoing sort of tinkering?
August 21st, 2005 at 12:23 amWell, it's nice to know SOMEONE on this site is willing to disavow that nutcase.
Although I can't answer your question about ID since I happen to think evolution's pretty much a slam-dunk case. Diseases develop immunities to medicines because of evolution happening at a incredibly fast pace. Funny thing is, our ability to defeat those diseases improved radically when we used evolution theory to model this adaptation. Coincidence? I think not.
August 21st, 2005 at 12:33 amOh, and Ryan Waxx (a play on Ryan Neat, perhaps) or FBA... It wouldn't be the first time such a thing was considered by this, or any other government:
From the National Security Archive:
a set of proposals on Cuba by the Joint Chiefs of Staff codenamed OPERATION NORTHWOODS. This document, titled “Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba†was provided by the JCS to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13, 1962, as the key component of Northwoods. Written in response to a request from the Chief of the Cuba Project, Col. Edward Lansdale, the Top Secret memorandum describes U.S. plans to covertly engineer various pretexts that would justify a U.S. invasion of Cuba. These proposals - part of a secret anti-Castro program known as Operation Mongoose - included staging the assassinations of Cubans living in the United States, developing a fake “Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington,†including “sink[ing] a boatload of Cuban refugees (real or simulated),†faking a Cuban airforce attack on a civilian jetliner, and concocting a “Remember the Maine†incident by blowing up a U.S. ship in Cuban waters and then blaming the incident on Cuban sabotage. Bamford himself writes that Operation Northwoods “may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government.â€
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
August 21st, 2005 at 12:34 amH. L. Mencken
Well, it’s nice to know SOMEONE on this site is willing to disavow that nutcase.
I don't. He may be right about some form of complicity, if even just turning a blind eye. I prefer the incompetence and stupidity theory, but Able Danger, which is an obvious fraud, may have "dropped" when it did to distract from this:
http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/
I have no way of knowing if this is true either. I am extremely skeptical, but keep an open mind until such time as I see enough to decide one way or another, still keeping an open mind if new information presents.
Was Atta on a SunCruz ship with Abramoff? Who knows? Interesting coincidence if he was.
Shaffer is back-pedaling so fast he's going to collide with W and Lance Armstrong. I always pegged Weldon as a crackpot.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_08/006946.php
August 21st, 2005 at 12:43 amI assume that your question is sarcastic, but I'll answer anyway. I believe that the answer is both during and after. The "Designer" both started the Big Bang and designed the first organisms. After that, I believe the theory is that life was allowed to develop on its own. Intelligent Design is more a theory on how life began rather than how life developed.
August 21st, 2005 at 12:45 amAnd the guy you love to hate....
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0409.sirota.html
August 21st, 2005 at 12:47 amSo you are a creationist. Is God omnipotent?
August 21st, 2005 at 12:48 amThe “Designer†both started the Big Bang and designed the first organisms.
That's creationism. Deistic creationism like the founders, but creationism none the less. You guys are back-pedaling as fast as Able Danger. Some might call it retreat.
August 21st, 2005 at 12:51 amCrooked Timber notes:
Gosh, I remember this from my small collection of BCCI books, but had never realised it was the same John Kerry. This really ought to count in peoples’ minds a lot more than any tales of heroics in Vietnam. The fact that George W Bush borrowed money from BCCI in 1987 but John Kerry launched the investigation in 1988 that eventually brought them down really says about all you need to know about the character of the two men. BCCI was a really quite extraordinarily bad organisation and Kerry’s investigation opened the eyes of the whole world to the extent that it was possible to get away with corruption in high-quality financial centres. It was about this time, by the way, that the liberal media of the USA were smearing Gary Webb as a “crackpot conspiracy theorist†for reporting, accurately, on the fact that politically well-connected Nicaraguans were being allowed to get off easily on cocaine smuggling charges. The Washington Monthly story is well worth a read.
Link comes via Atrios, btw, who obviously needs the vast publicity that a CT link can generate.
http://www.parascope.com/mx/articles/garywebb/garyWebbSpeaks.htm
The "crackpot" label is sometimes justified, and sometimes used in an attempt to smear and discredit the man with the truth.
August 21st, 2005 at 1:00 amOf course, anything associated with David Sirota is suspect to you guys... so:
FAS Note: This December 1992 document is the penultimate draft of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee report on the BCCI Affair. After it was released by the Committee, Sen. Hank Brown, reportedly acting at the behest of Henry Kissinger, pressed for the deletion of a few passages, particularly in Chapter 20 on "BCCI and Kissinger Associates." As a result, the final hardcopy version of the report, as published by the Government Printing Office, differs slightly from the Committee's softcopy version presented below.--Steven Aftergood
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1992_rpt/bcci/
Mull all that over and get back to me...
August 21st, 2005 at 1:06 amNo, Creationism asserts that the origin of the world is told in the creation story in Genesis. Intelligent Design states that some other higher power had to start life on Earth. The "higher power" can be anything from God to aliens. Whatever the case may be, the point is that living organisms reach an irreducible complexity, meaning that there's a point where life could not have developed randomly and therefore must have been designed by a higher power.
August 21st, 2005 at 1:24 amNow you are splitting hairs. When the founders used the term "creator" (they never used the term God in that sense in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution) they meant creator. Creation myths are found in virtually every culture, and that's what they are, myths, so let's not bullshit each other here. You are a creationist. You are just denying loyalty and allegiance to the Chistian myth in the Bible.
August 21st, 2005 at 1:40 amYou know what? You're right, I am. But that doesn't change the debate here. Intelligent Design and Creationism are not the same thing. Intelligent Design is open to any creator, while Creationism is limited only to the creation story in Genesis. If you open your eyes, you'll see the difference.
August 21st, 2005 at 1:48 amCreationism is limited only to the creation story in Genesis
Even these guys don't agree with you.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html
That's why I don't like to engage in debate with "your kind". You don't even know what you believe. I don't believe anything. I know what I know, and I don't mind not knowing much. I'd rip you a new one anyway.
August 21st, 2005 at 2:35 amIntellegent design is to science what Kool aid was to the Jim Jones crowd.
I wish the ID crowd also believed that comets were UFOs comming to "beam" them up.
August 21st, 2005 at 9:27 amHave you ID believers ever heard of peer review?
Morons
August 21st, 2005 at 9:34 amGod just spoke to me and said he doesn't exist. Now what the hell should I believe?
"we could plan a murder, or start a religion..."
The Lizard King, Angels and Sailors
August 21st, 2005 at 11:56 ambefuddled wrote
"God just spoke to me and said he doesn’t exist. Now what the hell should I believe?"
Did he disapear in a puff of logic, or did it set up some kind of weird causal loop?
August 21st, 2005 at 1:48 pmGod just spoke to me and said he doesn’t exist. Now what the hell should I believe?
Most people who hear voices get meds from the medic and this advice from the cynic:
Don't believe anything you read or hear and only half of what you see.
August 21st, 2005 at 3:28 pmIt seems my whimsical post, #166, of yesterday concerning the source of DUHbya's charms, rattled a few cages, busted a few patents, loosened a few UFOs, and evoked Satan himself (puns intended). The thread seems to have evolved (again intended) into the battle of the four theories--Creationism, Inteligent Design, Evolution, and the Big Bang. Personally, I have no promlem accepting any one in terms of the others or any other theory you may wish to add. The fact remains that they are all theories and each has its own unique problem or question of creditability when it comes to proving one over the others. The mathematicians jump over that hurdle with the statement: "It is intuitively obvious that..." while any of the theories here must be accepted on "Blind Faith" to accomplish that leap. The truth is that evolution did not produce the monkey; the monkey produced the thoery of evolution. An Inteligent Designer did not create DUHbya Bush; DUHbya Bush, et al, created the Inteligent Designer. The Big Bang did not cause the man-in-the-moon; the man-in-the-moon caused the Big Bang theory. God did not create George Burns; George Burns created God. In actuality each of the theories is just an attempt by man to understand and/or justifiy his inability to understand, that which is beyond the nature of man to understand. It is the nature of man to be an"est" while another man must be the opposite "est." "I am biggest, you are littlest;" "I am prettiest, you are ugliest;" "I am smartest; you are dumbest." Each "est" feels he will not be believed unless he can cite a reference to a link to an overall authority. And then we get to "My Daddy can steal more oil than your Daddy." Only when we realize that it doesn't make any difference whose Daddy is the biggest or whose diety is the holiest can we have a win/win situation. Now how's that for a sunday sermon. Just say Amen!
August 21st, 2005 at 6:14 pmWow, I've found a crowd of cynics worse than I.
To all concerned, my definitions of Creationism and Intelligent Design are based on my understanding of those terms. You will probably find others, some from a scientific viewpoint, and some with a political agenda. Either way, you will probably find different definitions.
I will agree in part with what Clyde the Ripper says. The debate over origin of life is no longer faith vs. science, or even science vs. science; it's faith vs. faith. Rattle that in your heads for awhile and get back to me.
August 22nd, 2005 at 10:05 amDemanding Glenn Reynolds to 'correct the record' is ridiculous. This website has offered no evidence contrary to the claims found in Reynold's site. None of Reynolds' claims are 'smears', regardless of their truth. The claims of this website are on the public record so long as this site is up, as are Reynolds' claims. There has been extensive cross linking between both sites. Clearly, there is a debate here on matters concerning Gorelick, and both sides are available for anyone to view. In observing the reaction to this debate on both sides, it's apparent that the side represented by this website is guilty of doing exactly what it wrongly accuses the other side of doing.
All of which further indicates that this comment will not be allowed to remain on this page for long, which is why I bothered in the first place. Prove me wrong.
August 30th, 2005 at 6:08 pmWow, Clyde... I have no agenda, but just disagreeing with an IDist will get you that accusation. This is not a canned response, I assure you. ID is NOT a theory in the same context as Evolution. Evolutions 'problems' are NOT even close to the same category of problems with ID/Creationism (for one, Evolutionary theory doesn't exist SOLELY by making false claims of failure in another theory). Evolution has it's own errors that layman and creationist have no clue about, because they are scientific problems that you must understand science before even beginning to speak authoritatively on the problems within. ID’s problems are easy to see, even by the layman, IF he understands science. ID is not science, and as I said before, it’s basis is SOLEY on lying about evolutionary theory. Nothing, I repeat NOTHING IDists have said for problems within evolutionary theory are true, or ‘all of the story’. But layman who drink up ID propaganda do not know how to test this. They don’t know how to find out. ID is NOT science, and when layman (usually fundamentalist Christian layman) say the theories are equal, have no idea what science is. They demonstrate that instantly when they think ID is a ‘theory’. It isn’t. It’s a hypothesis as best, unable to be tested to graduate to a theory. The word “theory’ is often used improperly by layman everyday, when it’s true origin and current usage in the body of science means a very robust, tested process was needed to get to a ‘theory’. Theories are not whimsical ‘ideas’ like IDist like to make them seem to their willing adoring audiences. Laymen do not understand this, and until they do, they will continue to think that Evolutionary theory and ID ideology are in some ridiculous way, equal.
Joe
September 26th, 2005 at 1:51 am0204
March 18th, 2008 at 7:58 pmann bancroft nude
Man i love reading your blog, interesting posts !
March 19th, 2008 at 7:33 amBusiness Plans For Dummies
Your blog makes very interesting reading. I'm sure others will think so too I look forward to reading their comments.
March 23rd, 2008 at 8:24 pmAuto Loan
Browse a car loan to have a chance to come across an old fashion Lincoln tomorrow using a special office.
March 29th, 2008 at 3:25 pmNude Pamela Anderson Nude Nude Boy
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 3rd, 2008 at 1:55 pmKentucky Web Site Design
Extremely interesting post. A little bit different from my point of view but neverless an interesting opinion.
April 4th, 2008 at 7:37 pmKds Bbs Pics Underage Porn Kid Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 5th, 2008 at 6:22 amTeen Petite Teens Teen Titans Hentai
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 11th, 2008 at 8:05 amJessie
Did you get this off MSN?
April 11th, 2008 at 12:06 pmYoung Girls Young Girl Models Young Puffy Nipple
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 11th, 2008 at 10:26 pmDistance Learning Teachers Having Sex With Students Very Hot School Girls
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 12th, 2008 at 2:57 pmKds Bbs Pics Russian Child Models Ls Girls
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 13th, 2008 at 7:16 amPreteen Preteen Lolitas Innocent Preteens
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 13th, 2008 at 8:20 am