Washington Times Propagates False Headline: ‘Senate Rejects Iraq Pullout’
Washington Times Propagates False Headline: ‘Senate Rejects Iraq Pullout’
In today’s paper, the Washington Times blatantly mischaracterizes yesterday’s Senate vote that failed to end the conservative filibuster over the Levin/Reed Iraq redeployment bill. In a front-page blaring headline, the Times reports: ‘Senate Rejects Iraq Pullout‘:
The headline is false and misleading for a couple of reasons.
– First, the vote taken by the Senate yesterday was not a “rejection” of the Iraq redeployment bill because the bill was not a vote on redeployment. Instead, it was a vote to end the conservative filibuster. Having failed to receive the necessary 60 votes, the Senate was unable to move to a final vote on whether or not to pass the Iraq redeployment legislation.
– Second, a majority of the Senate voted in favor of proceeding with the Levin/Reed bill. The final tally was 52-47. That’s hardly a rejection of an “Iraq pullout.”
Only the Washington Times would be brazen enough to say a majority of the Senate voting to proceed with a bill to change course in Iraq was actually the “Senate rejecting Iraq pullout.”
Atrios, Media Matters, and David Kurtz have caught other media distortions of the Senate’s action.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
These people NEED to show that Congress is less popular than the President. That is a keystone of their strategy.
July 19th, 2007 at 10:32 amIt is called cloture
July 19th, 2007 at 10:32 amThe Washington Times? The paper owned by rightwing cult leader Sun Myung Moon? Intentionally inaccurate?
I am shocked, shocked!
July 19th, 2007 at 10:36 amand you’re surprised because….?
July 19th, 2007 at 10:36 amDoes anyone else almost feel like giving up at this point?
It seems like the media is so willingly and so far disassociated from reality that they refuse to paint anything as being either good for Dems or Bad for Reps. Iit’s always ‘Good News For Repubilcans’ or ‘Dems are screwing up again!’
Attempts to bring this to light, both from normal people and even people in congress give rise to an almost petulant insistence of doing the SAME EXACT FREAKIN’ THING. The fact that they’re painting the obstructions on the Dems yet again, when the Reps are the ones filibustering (Reid only called them on their bluff, rather than let them force an arbitrary 60 vote call just because), it makes me wonder, ‘is this it?’
Is this what we have now? A media that not only seems to refuse to recognize reality, they willfully twist it without shame and acknowledgement that they’re running with the absolute antithesis of the reality of the situations they report on?
It’s so galling, so mindbending, so damn depressing that it makes me feel like there’s no way we’re ever going to change this or the godawful direction our country has gone….
July 19th, 2007 at 10:38 ami noticed this headline yesterday at google news,
and it stayed there for most of the day:
Senate Republicans Block Iraq Troop Withdrawal Plan
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aoxxUiHYm5sA&refer=home
July 19th, 2007 at 10:39 amWhat a damn joke…just a glance at the other “headlines” on that newspaper (”Terror Leader Exposes Network” and “‘Slumber Party’ Draws Yawns”) is enough to convict the Washington Post as a neocon mouthpiece, even if it wasn’t known that it is owned and operated by the Unification Church.
July 19th, 2007 at 10:43 amThe final tally was 52-47.
____________________
And given that Reid had to vote against cloture in order to maintain future procedural control, it is actually 53 - 46 and the number in favor of ending the war will grow. So, Mr. Reid, keep this amendment around and present it OFTEN.
July 19th, 2007 at 10:44 amoh, come on. The headline is essentially correct.
The same thing came up when Democrats were in the minority. Every time they refused to filibuster, it had the same effect as approving the bill, or the nomination. So we’re stuck with the judges and justices. We’re stuck with the Military Commissions Act. We’re stuck with the war. We’re stuck with the debt.
July 19th, 2007 at 10:45 amCan there any longer be any question that conservative media outlets like Fox and the WashTimes are OPINION outlets, NOT “news” outlets?
July 19th, 2007 at 10:49 amI see the Washington Times is predicting “Cloudy” today… Better but your sunscreen on!
July 19th, 2007 at 10:50 amWow, the Moonie Times is going to have a hard time explaining things come September.
Oh, wait. Their readers can’t remember that long.
July 19th, 2007 at 10:51 am.
The Washington Times is a rightwing rag. What did we expect? Now, if it was the Washington POST…
July 19th, 2007 at 10:53 amthis is actually a good headline coming from the crazy moonie fishwrap.
the bi-line pins the republicans as the reason why america doesn’t have a timeline. it makes republicans own the war, and shows they continue to obstruct progress by rubberstamping the presidents failed unplanned agenda.
July 19th, 2007 at 10:54 amWhat would be so wrong with “Filibuster worked”?
July 19th, 2007 at 10:55 amOK, this is splitting hairs.. The headline is essentially correct.
July 19th, 2007 at 10:59 am“Dems force Republicans to show
obstructionists ways to U.S.A”
howz that for a headline. PLEASE?????
July 19th, 2007 at 11:03 amlazy false reporting for people that don’t mind being missinformed. That reminds me. CT, did you renew your subscription to the Wash. Times yet? I know you keep forgetting.
July 19th, 2007 at 11:03 amMainstream Media Momentous Myth!
-Film@11:00
July 19th, 2007 at 11:04 amOnly TP would call a loss a win. They needed 60 votes but didn’t get them, thus our Senetors want more time to discuss the horrific consequences of surrendering in Iraq.
July 19th, 2007 at 11:05 amOnly TP would call a loss a win. -Comment by Roger_Roger
Only you would side with Moonies.
BTW, how was your weekend with Daryll? Did you get those issues worked out, or is he staying with Haggard for awhile?
July 19th, 2007 at 11:06 amThe Washington Times . . . Enquirer . . . Star . . . same thing.
July 19th, 2007 at 11:11 amRogerX2
No, the obstructionist Republicans don’t want more time to discuss getting out of Iraq. They just want to continue their delusional fantasies (which change with the weather) about “spreading freedom”, “spreading democracy”, et al ad nauseum. The vote against cloture was a vote to avoid voting on whether or not we should end the occupation of Iraq.
This was, to use language you seem to enjoy, a “battle” in the larger “war” of ending that occupation. Democrats didn’t “win” the “battle” but they did advance on the “battlefield”. The War Against the Occupation will be won. We will not surrender.
July 19th, 2007 at 11:11 amWashington Times?
July 19th, 2007 at 11:13 amNever heard of it before.
Who owns it?
Just read previous posts, thanks Arthur C. #3
July 19th, 2007 at 11:14 am52-47 is actually 60. Next it will be 70. They just keep pushing the envelope. No wonder the rest of the world sees the USA as a spoiled child.
July 19th, 2007 at 11:15 amKryptic @ #5,
Yes, I know exactly how you feel. But we must not give up. Scroll down the main page of the site and look at the pictures of the individuals who would desperately love for us to give up. We face a difficult struggle; these people have enormous power, but they are wrong and must be opposed.
If we give up, we who can see, we are lost. Every step helps.
Don’t let Karl Rove steal your spirit.
July 19th, 2007 at 11:16 amHow about THIS false headline setting up the next False Flag Attack patsy?
Proof Bin Laden Tape Is 5-Year-Old, Re-Released Footage
Why did IntelCenter, the middleman between “Al-Qaeda” and the media, a group that has government and Pentagon ties, re-release old footage and why did the media report it as new when it had already aired twice before?
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ articles/ july2007/ 180707oldfootage.htm
Bin Laden does not exist.
July 19th, 2007 at 11:17 am#
Washington Times?
Never heard of it before.
Who owns it?
Comment by Raven — July 19, 2007 @ 11:13 am
Reverend Moon
July 19th, 2007 at 11:18 ammichael, michael, michael
No one is saying “52-47 is actually 60″. Just trying to set the record straight about the procedural content of what actually happened and predicting what is likely to happen with continued efforts by Democrats to end the occupation.
Try to build a better strawman next time.
July 19th, 2007 at 11:19 amUh, how about a REAL HONEST view.
The vote was a topical procedural vote on the filibuster related to the UNDERLYING redeployment bill.
Thus the redeployment was what really was at issue.
And redeployment is the same as continuing the war.
So there was NO SINGLE ASPECT of ending the war in this charade of Harry Reid’s.
Instead of playing Pin The Blame on the Republicans, how about examining the complicity of the Democrats, who are stalling and deflecting when it comes to ending the Iraq War?
If you’re going to “think progress” then at least you should focus on the “progress” part, even if you skip the “think” part.
Sheesh.
July 19th, 2007 at 11:20 amFor a lot more accurate view on what just happened with the Harry Reid Circus, go here:
http://runnyguts.blogspot.com/ 2007/ 07/ harry-reids-got-dog-who-has-pony.html
and
http://runnyguts.blogspot.com/ 2007/ 07/ more-lies-about-harry-reid-circus.html
July 19th, 2007 at 11:22 am“Please allow me to introduce myself, I’m a man of wealth and taste…”
(Jaegger-Richards)
Oaky, as of the date and time on this post, here’s the latest bets on the Mystery Senator Larry Flynt will be outting, hopefully today…
Kay Hutchinson - Candyce
John McCain - Candyce
Ted “The Internets” Stevens - RUCerious ($50)
Trett Lott - TRoS
Lindsay Graham - veritas
Orrin Hatch - veritas & kefa461
Liddy Dole - Lora
Joe Lie-berman - Lora
James Imhofe - Lora
Tom Coburn - Zooey
Bill Sali - Zooey
Arlen Specter - Zooey
Feingold - Zooey
Pat Roberts - Raven
Brownback - gummitch
DeMint - Mr.President’sleftnut
Domenici - TerrytheTurtle
Frist - TerrytheTurtle
Santorum - gpattyg
So, I jsut scrolled back thru the thread where this madness started and collected all the names I found. After careful consultation w/ the judges, we have decided that 1) people are allowed to more than one pick, 2) more than one person can pick the same Senator, and 3) we will allow the choosing of ex-Senators such as Frist and Santorum, seeing as they’re good guesses and it’s so much fun to pick on ‘em.
If someone got skipped, I apologize. Just cut and paste your pick onto this list and repost.
As far as I can tell, Flynt hasn’t gone public yet, so there’s still time to get yer bet in. Other than RUCerious, who put $50 on his choice (Ted “The Tubes” Stevens… good one, BTW), we were all too cheap to put up any real money. We also don’t have any T-shirts to give away (unlike those millionaires over at Crooks and Liars), so the winner, if we have one, will earn permanent bragging rights at TP!
We will be watching for the time Flynt’s list goes public, so any “winning bets” placed after that time will be disqualified (and someone will try!).
Oh, and due to the enormous amount of money placed on one of our side bets (Are Mr P and Ringo secret lovers?), betting is closed on that one. All the money went to “Yes, they are!!” - every last dime, so there was actually no money to divvy up on that one. Go figure.
And there you have it! Any last bets, you better get them in!
(The things I do for you guys… scrolling back thru that thread, having to read all those inane comments over AGAIN, half of them posted by ME… geez…)
July 19th, 2007 at 11:25 amHere’s a note for you from midtown Manhattan, where I work: there’s quite a scene here in midtown: cops in gas masks doing traffic control at intersections while tourists and us working schlubs walk the streets and soak in the asbestos-laden air.
It’s what happens when you spend a trillion or so on a war—your infrastructure rots and then does some of Osama’s work for him.
July 19th, 2007 at 11:28 am@ 2. Never give up. Never surrender. :P
July 19th, 2007 at 11:30 amThe Republic of Stupidity
I’m sorry that I can’t join your pool about which Senator will next be outed for being on the DC Madam’s list. I can’t think who it MIGHT be because I keep thinking who I’d LIKE it to be and too many names come to mind (Graham, Hatch, Santorum, Imhofe, Frist lead that list).
July 19th, 2007 at 11:35 amNever give up. Never surrender. :P
Comment by Spudd
Which is dangerously close to the title of Tom Delay’s new book, if I’m not mistaken.
July 19th, 2007 at 11:35 amI am seriously losing respect for both the New York Times and Washington Post as this war goes on. People like Judy Miller are the reason we are in this mess in the first place and the complicit Post is now running distorted headlines to prolong this fiasco?? ARRRGHHH
Making matters worse, Chris Matthews just called Judy Miller “A HERO” and said he feels “Sympathetic” to her AND Lewis Libby. Just look at the video. Unbelievable
VIDEO
July 19th, 2007 at 11:42 amhttp://beta.redlasso.com/ Community/ ClipPlayer.aspx?i=d3fcd1d0-b947-4665-b140-3a4d4e3e72de
Oaky, as of the date and time on this post, here’s the latest bets on the Mystery Senator Larry Flynt will be outting, hopefully today…
Kay Hutchinson - Candyce
John McCain - Candyce
Ted “The Internets†Stevens - RUCerious ($50)
Trett Lott - TRoS
Lindsay Graham - veritas
Orrin Hatch - veritas & kefa461
Liddy Dole - Lora
Joe Lie-berman - Lora
James Imhofe - Lora
Tom Coburn - Zooey
Bill Sali - Zooey
Arlen Specter - Zooey
Feingold - Zooey
Pat Roberts - Raven
Brownback - gummitch
DeMint - Mr.President’sleftnut
Domenici - TerrytheTurtle
Frist - TerrytheTurtle
Santorum - gpattyg
Coburn (R-OK) - SGT Higgins
Coleman (R-MN) - SGT Higgins
Graham (R-SC) - SGT Higgins
So, I jsut scrolled back thru the thread where this madness started and collected all the names I found. After careful consultation w/ the judges, we have decided that 1) people are allowed to more than one pick, 2) more than one person can pick the same Senator, and 3) we will allow the choosing of ex-Senators such as Frist and Santorum, seeing as they’re good guesses and it’s so much fun to pick on ‘em.
OK, pasted my picks…..I’m a shoo-in to win.
July 19th, 2007 at 11:42 amIf you’re going to “think progress†then at least you should focus on the “progress†part, even if you skip the “think†part.
Sheesh.
Comment by Sean O’Neil
There, there, there, Li’l Sammy. I know it’s hard when the 4th Reich comes back to Earth even faster than it rose. KKKarl Rove’s “Permanent Repube Majority”? Gone in a puff of smoke. Yeah, the Dems could do better, but this fiasco in Iraq is a Bru$chco/GOP Production, period. Own it, son.
July 19th, 2007 at 11:43 amTIMES MOONS NATION,
July 19th, 2007 at 11:44 amFLASHES ITS BIG ASS
OK, pasted my picks…..I’m a shoo-in to win.
Comment by SGT Higgins
Bragging already, I see :-D! Good choices all, BTW, but in this political climate, it’d be hard to miss, huh? I eagerly await the unveiling of Mr. Flynt’s list, so we can crown our winner!
July 19th, 2007 at 11:45 amI’m sorry that I can’t join your pool about which Senator will next be outed for being on the DC Madam’s list. I can’t think who it MIGHT be because I keep thinking who I’d LIKE it to be and too many names come to mind (Graham, Hatch, Santorum, Imhofe, Frist lead that list).
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC)
Oh, don’t let that stop ya, PLC. I don’t think I’ve once suggested that this is an exercise in restraint or good taste! Point that finger! Throw that stone!
July 19th, 2007 at 11:47 amI have an open question for all the current posting trolls here who call us leaving Iraq ’surrendering’:
- How do you win a civil war when you are not in either side of the conflict?
- How is an illegal invasion and illegal occupation considered a war?
- Why do you support illegal activities like this that goes against our Constitution and the Rule of Law?
- When will you join your local NG or enlist to fight for YOUR cause?
and last but not least;
Have you scraped your Bush/Cheney04 bumper sticker off yet and where will you move when we have adult supervision back in the WH and Congress?
I will await your answers, cause you all know who you are, but doubt anyone will be able to respond.
July 19th, 2007 at 11:49 amDo we have door prizes for the winner?
Perhaps a takeout lunch to watch Young & Garrett slap each other?
My pick: Talentless / (R-edneck) / MO
I know, he’s gone, but I think he loved that evening sugar.
July 19th, 2007 at 11:49 amThere, there, there, Li’l Sammy. I know it’s hard when the 4th Reich comes back to Earth even faster than it rose. KKKarl Rove’s “Permanent Repube Majority� Gone in a puff of smoke. Yeah, the Dems could do better, but this fiasco in Iraq is a Bru$chco/GOP Production, period. Own it, son.
++++++++++++++
Your smallminded partisan shilling has led you astray. I’m not arguing on the GOP’s behalf. They are evil criminals.
But the Democrats COULD NOT DO BETTER. They are IN CHARGE right now. And they are giving Mr Bush what he wants.
You are a silly, deluded little peckerwood. Enjoy your little pocket of surreality here at “think progress”.
I and others know that you are “think horrible status quo, revel in it” is your real operational mantra.
Protect those criminal Democrats. Do it now! They are your heroes!
Fools.
July 19th, 2007 at 11:50 amPS if you think Iraq is a Bush/Cheney thing,
Ask yourself how the Congress voted to give $$$ and authorization to use military force.
AHEM.
There were MANY Democrats in the Congress at the time.
“Think Progress” = “Be Deluded”
July 19th, 2007 at 11:52 amComment by Zimzone
Talent it is, Zimzone. Another good pick. And yes, due to overwhelming demand, we are allowing Senators no longer in office on the list.
Door prizes? Somebody pinch me. He asked about door prizes! Why yes, we DO have door prizes here at the Republic!
July 19th, 2007 at 11:52 amI have a clue; His/Her ‘thing” was fristing.
July 19th, 2007 at 11:52 amWhy not come to my blog and read about reality, instead of surreality?
Might actually learn something.
Might be uncomfortable for you if you tend to fellate Democrats, though.
http://runnyguts.blogspot.com
July 19th, 2007 at 11:53 amThere were MANY Democrats in the Congress at the time.
“Think Progress†= “Be Deludedâ€
Comment by Sean O’Neil
Sma O’Neil = “Hypocritical Horse’s Ass”
July 19th, 2007 at 11:53 amThe Republic of Stupidity
Oh, it’s not about restraint or good taste, not at all. Why, I’d love to see all my favorites to make the list. I’m truly uncertain about predicting. But, I guess choosing the most moralistic Senator would be a way to go, given the history of hypocrisy. OK, here goes:
Oaky, as of the date and time on this post, here’s the latest bets on the Mystery Senator Larry Flynt will be outting, hopefully today…
Kay Hutchinson - Candyce
John McCain - Candyce
Ted “The Internets†Stevens - RUCerious ($50)
Trett Lott - TRoS
Lindsay Graham - veritas
Orrin Hatch - veritas & kefa461 & PLC
Liddy Dole - Lora
Joe Lie-berman - Lora
James Imhofe - Lora
Tom Coburn - Zooey
Bill Sali - Zooey
Arlen Specter - Zooey
Feingold - Zooey
Pat Roberts - Raven
Brownback - gummitch
DeMint - Mr.President’sleftnut
Domenici - TerrytheTurtle
Frist - TerrytheTurtle
Santorum - gpattyg
Coburn (R-OK) - SGT Higgins
Coleman (R-MN) - SGT Higgins
Graham (R-SC) - SGT Higgins
So, I jsut scrolled back thru the thread where this madness started and collected all the names I found. After careful consultation w/ the judges, we have decided that 1) people are allowed to more than one pick, 2) more than one person can pick the same Senator, and 3) we will allow the choosing of ex-Senators such as Frist and Santorum, seeing as they’re good guesses and it’s so much fun to pick on ‘em.
July 19th, 2007 at 11:54 amThose scallywags at the WAPO! Sorry. That scallywag Fred Hiatt has done it again! What a coup! Taking an out-of-focus snapshot of the real debate and decision in the U.S. Senate so as to obscure his party’s scurrilous behavior with respect to Bush’s illegal aggression in Iraq (I refuse to call it a war). You really have to hand it to Bush’s BFF, Freddie. He’s a pro. As in prostitute. As in “one who sells out one’s own subscribers and fellow citizens by promoting fascist policies and practices at the highest levels.†Wish us all luck. We’re gonna need it.
July 19th, 2007 at 11:55 amMight be uncomfortable for you if you tend to fellate Democrats, though.
http://runnyguts.blogspot.com
Comment by Sean O’Neil
You were the one “clearing” your throat above. Busy “fellating” GOOpers? Work for the DC madam? Professional “fluffer”??
July 19th, 2007 at 11:55 amSo that’s your reply to anyone who questions whether the Democrats are sincere?
Call them a GOP troll?
Get a grip, fool.
What have the Democrats done that was admirable? Can you name one single thing?
July 19th, 2007 at 11:58 amSay, Republic of Stupidity.
Would you like to have a debate, instead of playing “ROS is the purveyor of childish taunts”?
I’d enjoy discussing this with you in a real adult fashion, if you can manage to avoid your sexual innuendoes and accusations of GOP trolling.
It’s easy to accuse someone of being a “troll” when you don’t know them, isn’t it?
But it would be hard for you to argue LOGICALLY and WITH FACTS that I support the GOP if you bothered to read my blog’s essays.
I don’t suppose you can be bothered with logic or facts though. They might get in the way of your childish taunts.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:00 pmBy the way, Republic of Stupidity.
Where are YOUR essays with YOUR logic joined to REAL FACTS that are relevant to your argument/position?
Do you have any to share?
Or are you just a comment thread pot-shotter who hasn’t any arguments other than his/her “handle” of “Republic of Stupidity,” which probably is shorthand for “Republic of Republicans” or some similar silly false binary argument.
Share some mature reasoned rhetoric, ROS. I’d like to read it.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:04 pmIf you’re going to “think progress†then at least you should focus on the “progress†part, even if you skip the “think†part.
Your smallminded partisan shilling has led you astray.
Might be uncomfortable for you if you tend to fellate Democrats, though.
CommentS by Sean O’Neil
But it would be hard for you to argue LOGICALLY and WITH FACTS that I support the GOP if you bothered to read my blog’s essays.
I don’t suppose you can be bothered with logic or facts though. They might get in the way of your childish taunts.
HEY, A**WIPE, WHEN YOU COME THRU THE DOOR INSULTING PEOPLE, IT’S HARD TO FEEL SORRY FOR YOU IF YOU DON’T LIKE WHAT YOU GET.
CHILDISH COMMENTS? SEXUAL INNUENDOES? GIVE ME A BREAK.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:10 pm#57 Sean -
If you were to look back on the history of the past posts by trolls here, you might have a better understanding of how some people are sensitized to a lot of their blather.
We do appreciate legitimate debate that is intelligent, reasonable and on topic; all of which is misseing in many of their rants.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:11 pmall of which is misseing in many of their rants.
Comment by upside00
And which is certainly missing in Seans’ rants.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:13 pmRepublic of Stupidity,
You are a childish ass. You think your approach helps America? You think pointing all the blame at the GOP solves something?
Tell me what your approach does for America, ROS.
Tell me ONE SIMPLE THING that your approach does that is beneficial. Other than making you feel momentarily clever with your put-down barrages, that is.
I would encourage you to drop the childish taunts and confront those who dare to question your motives. Otherwise, you’re just playing hide-the-ball, like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Russ Feingold, John Conyers, Henry Waxman.
You might want to aim a little higher. Say, around Cynthia McKinney, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, Paul Wellstone.
Get there, I might actually start treating your posts with some respect, the type of respect reserved for mature discussion of mature perspective.
For now, your continued pot-shotting at GOP and at those you think are fans of the GOP is nothing but divisive and destructive.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:15 pmIf you’ve spent any time reading through the posts, here, Sean, you already know that there is no room of TP for discussion or debate. This is a party for like minded liberal BushHaters who are devoid of any pretense of tolerance for any opposing point of view.
What’s more, when truth and facts get in the way, they merely scream louder, become more profane, and call the opposition worse and worse names as if that makes their point of view easier to defend.
Imagine a room full of screeching Rosie O’Donnells and Hillary Clintons being spoon fed their talking points from George Soros.
When I picture such a scene, it really makes me grin, and the day becomes better and brighter still!
July 19th, 2007 at 12:18 pmAnd which is certainly missing in Seans’ rants.
If that’s your view, how about some proof? Come to my blog, dissect my rants.
I welcome it.
Which is more than I can say for you and your behavior here.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:19 pmO. Bigfoot,
I understand what you’re saying. 2 years ago when I first started tracking the anti-Bush sentiments around the blogosphere, I found quite a few blogs where no discussion of Democrats was allowed, unless it was fawning praise for nothing. At each place I asked about the Democrats’ role in Mr Bush’s adventures, their complicity, their failure to object or otherwise stand against Mr Bush.
At each such place I was first treated to accusations of “GOOPER TROLL” like Republic of Stupidity’s posts here, and then after that, I was kicked out for reasons never explained.
This happened at the following blogs –
Daily Kos
Crooks and Liars
Glenn Greenwald - Unclaimed Territory
The Huffington Post
AlterNet
TruthOut
and, probably looming on the horizon,
ThinkProgress.
Of course these “liberal” and “openminded” blogs can’t have any discussion that might stray from the Party Line of full culpability for the GOP. Such discussions might weaken the grip that the DNC and DLC have on the mindless automatons who blindly follow the Dems and equally blindly blame everything on the GOP.
Reality must hurt something awful, if these various self-styled “liberals” cannot be openminded about what they pretend are their big issues and the facts surrounding those issues.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:26 pmhttp://bp2.blogger.com/ _4cVR7ti8ODo/ RphpE55VVeI/ AAAAAAAAAF4/ RV9LhBCXcEE/ s400/ Cindy-Quits-Ds.jpg
July 19th, 2007 at 12:31 pmHey! Pig! can you define “surrender”?
July 19th, 2007 at 12:33 pmFor now, your continued pot-shotting at GOP and at those you think are fans of the GOP is nothing but divisive and destructive.
Comment by Sean O’Neil
Again, you come thru the door insulting people (fellating Democrats??? Your secret dream?) and then get all whiny when people don’t like it.
LOSER!!! NEXT!
July 19th, 2007 at 12:34 pmIncredible our English language is. “Sean” rhymes with “yawn”, “pawn”, and “gone”.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:37 pmI have to wonder why so many of the “About Us” person descriptions for ThnkProgress are focused on DLC Democrats and general yuppie perspectives.
Is there any chance that ThinkProgress simply believes that the Iraq fiasco is “mismanaged,” and that we should be there but should be “fighting to win,” because we need to install “western Democracy” to ensure “world peace”?
I wonder if such naive views are what drives the staff of ThinkProgress. Surely they’re not about investing power in the average American. The average American didn’t work for yuppie-clone DLC Congressmen.
Bob Graham = Republican in Dem clothing.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:37 pmBefore the Moonies owned the Washington Times, they reported a story of a child-prostitution ring servicing the Reagan and Bush 41 admins…
Some things NEVER CHANGE….
http://www.thelawparty.org/FranklinCoverup/franklin.htm
July 19th, 2007 at 12:38 pmWow! Patriotic Liberal Christian, can you come up with an adult, mature comment?
Do you have any views on my various essays?
Or are you just a weak-willed copycat of Republic of Stupidity.
see the childish taunts multiply!
July 19th, 2007 at 12:38 pmKay Hutchinson - Candyce
John McCain - Candyce
Ted “The Internets†Stevens - RUCerious ($50)
Trett Lott - TRoS
Lindsay Graham - veritas
Orrin Hatch - veritas & kefa461
Liddy Dole - Lora
Joe Lie-berman - Lora
James Imhofe - Lora
Tom Coburn - Zooey
Bill Sali - Zooey
Arlen Specter - Zooey
Feingold - Zooey
Pat Roberts - Raven
Brownback - gummitch
DeMint - Mr.President’sleftnut
Domenici - TerrytheTurtle
Frist - TerrytheTurtle
Santorum - gpattyg
McConnell
July 19th, 2007 at 12:39 pmAgain, you come thru the door insulting people (fellating Democrats??? Your secret dream?) and then get all whiny when people don’t like it.
Nope. I didn’t start with insults. I responded with a mild joking insult to YOUR initial insult.
Here is my first post, ROS — Post No. 31 at 11:21 AM. Not a single sexual potshot in there, just open questions.
Now that you’ve shown your ability to lie and spin on par with Mr Rove, Mr Podesta, Mr Carville and Ms Matalin, I’d like to hear you explain what you are advancing by keeping your side of the discussion mired in childish gutter talk.
Come on, Republic of Putdowns. Bring your best logic and rhetoric to the table.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:40 pmHey Yawn,
DeLay called. He needs some money. Help him out, please.
Their’s a good boy.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:41 pmYou do understand the difference between a majority and a working majority, don’t you?
The Democrats control 1/2 of 1/3 of the Federal government.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:45 pm#69 Sean -
Not sure where you are on this issue from this post, but would enjoy hearing how you stand on Iraq, before the invasion, after, and now with the occupation and the current CIC’s handling of the situation?
July 19th, 2007 at 12:46 pmWow! Patriotic Liberal Christian, can you come up with an adult, mature comment?
July 19th, 2007 at 12:47 pm[Sure, when I’m talking to mature adults.]
Do you have any views on my various essays?
[No]
Or are you just a weak-willed copycat of Republic of Stupidity.
[No]
see the childish taunts multiply!
[Yes, I did see how many additional childish taunts and names you posted
as they were rather hard to miss.]
Comment by Sean O’Neil
Hey Bigfoot, you stinking neocon pig:
If your post is true (or even honest), how in the hell are you posting here? As an experiment, go to LGF or some other intellectually dishonest site, and try to post an anti-Republican or pro-Democratic statement there. You’ll be banned immediately. So much for your comment, you filthy, treasonous pig.
You are only here because we don’t practice censorship.
BTW: Try honesty, it’s good.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:52 pmYou do understand the difference between a majority and a working majority, don’t you?
The Democrats control 1/2 of 1/3 of the Federal government.
And what are they doing with their ability to stop Mr Bush?
You obviously think it’s all about sheer numbers.
How did Mike Gravel stop the draft?
There are enough Democrats in the Congress to stop the war. But they do not stop it, do they?
You DLC Dems are reprehensible. You want war, and you blame your own war desires and war profiteering on the evil Repubs.
You are liars. You are charlatans.
But hey, at least you can issue put-downs to those who expose the truth of your ill-considered views!
July 19th, 2007 at 12:54 pmPLC, ROS —
It’s an easy existence when exposure of your negatives can be “rationalized” away with accusations of GOOP TROLL.
Thanks for doing nothing to improve America.
Thanks for protecting the status quo.
Signed,
DLC, DNC and GOP patricians who profit mightily of Mr Bush’s Administration.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:56 pmGod, O’Neil - you are dense. And angry.
It’s not about numbers - it’s about Rules of Proceedure and votes (specifically, the number of votes). maybe russ Feingold can stop the war by himself, just by insisting it be stopped on the floor of the Senate (your answer: because he really doesn’t want it stopped!). Please name someone here who secretly desires war. One name will do. So, how did Mike Gravel stop the draft?
You’re starting to sound oinky. Are you a pig?
July 19th, 2007 at 1:03 pmI’m going to go out on a limb here and say Sean is another attempt by Jake to stir things up….
But, if you’re not, Sean, perhaps losing the ‘tude may help you alot.
Your blog is a harsh rant against Democrats, filled with angry red text, hostile words, profanity, and bile. It’s hard to read without sparking a desire to stop a third of the way through, and it’s filled with claims that I don’t feel like backing up right now. It seems the kinda tripe that any one of a number of trolls here would put forth in an attempt to derail conversation.
We don’t trust you. And your full of profanity and insult lines make us trust you less. You owe this board an apology, much like the rest of the trolls do. And until you do so, I know for a fact that I’m going to treat you like a troll and I suspect the rest of the blog will.
July 19th, 2007 at 1:09 pmupside00,
I have written a lot of thoughts about Iraq at my blog. I’ll give you a brief snapshot here.
1) Iraq is well worse off now than before Mr Bush became POTUS.
2) The architecture of the destruction of Iraq was drafted by PNAC members before the PNAC came into being. Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Libby, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Kristol — these fellows have wanted to invade the Middle East and steal the oil (after “destabilization”) for over 15 years.
3) However, we can’t excuse the Dems. They have supported Mr Bush’s every move related to Iraq. None of them has tried to stop Mr Bush. NONE OF THEM. They each have the power to make efforts to stop Mr Bush. Every one of the 535 members of the US Congress has the ability to issue floor speeches, to introduce legislation, to hold press conferences, to filibuster against Mr Bush’s requests for funding and further military use authorization.
4) The few Democrats who have made tiny tiny hints of struggle against Mr Bush are marginalized — Cynthia McKinney was the victim of a vote-rigging scam in GA that got her out of office. Russ Feingold gave a few anti-war statements in 2003 and 2004 but now he is essentially a Bush yes-man. The only one who persists in weakly challenging Mr Bush is Dennis Kucinich. His impeachment papers re Mr Cheney are a great start, but they don’t seem to have many followers among the Congressional Democrats. Why is that, if Republic of Stupidity is so adamant that I’m wrong about the Democrats?
5) The United States of America’s foreign policy in the Middle East was a long-brewing factor in what has resulted from Mr Bush’s war — a lot of destabilization because of civil and religious factionalization. Groups are essentially balkanized and this was a goal of the CIA starting after the 1973-74 “oil crisis” and the following one in 1979.
I am by no means excusing the GOP or supporting them. What I am saying is that at this point in American history, it is easy to simply blame Mr Bush and the GOP. The truth, however, is that the Democrats have helped Mr Bush achieve his nefarious goals.
July 19th, 2007 at 1:09 pmJeremy,
If you’re not angry right now at the state of affairs in America, you’re either a zombie, or you like what is happening.
Take from that what you will.
July 19th, 2007 at 1:11 pmI vote for John Kyl being the man on Larry Flynt’s list. (wishful thinking)
July 19th, 2007 at 1:13 pmMarcus Aurelius,
Sorry, but you recited a lot of mumbojumbo to protect the Congressmen who refuse to act.
I’m afraid that nothing you said countered my view. If you have something RELEVANT to offer, not a smokescreen about “procedure,” then please state it.
I grew up in politics, Marcus. My mother served in the White House, the State Department, in the offices of several Congressmen, and in the Dept of Education. I have travelled with Presidents to their vacation spots. I know members of the old guard in the White House Press Corps.
You can rely on “procedure” if you like, but the truth is that “procedure” is a crutch, an excuse for inaction.
Prove me wrong, if you can.
July 19th, 2007 at 1:13 pmAlso to Jeremy,
I don’t know how you can claim I’m someone besides Sean O’Neil. Unlike you and many others here, I hold myself out in the open, I use my real name. I don’t hide behind a handle in order to better hide from those against whom I issue childish taunts and potshots.
Unlike PLC and ROS.
And apparently, unlike you.
Why don’t you stick to facts, and avoid allegation? Is that impossible for you, or is it something you’re unfamliar with? What exactly is the reason that you persist in using defamation instead of debate on facts?
July 19th, 2007 at 1:17 pmThere are enough Democrats in the Congress to stop the war.
Comment by Sean O’Neil
________________________
OK, I’ll give you a shot at a reasonable debate. Tell me, how can the Democrats, alone, in Congress stop the war?
July 19th, 2007 at 1:19 pmPLC -
Mike Gravel already laid out a roadmap.
Here’s another course of action, described at my blog.
http://runnyguts.blogspot.com/ 2007/ 03/ rep-ron-paul-good-thoughts-but-you-need.html
What I want to know is, why are you and others so eager to believe that the Congress cannot stop Mr Bush?
Don’t you read your Constitution?
War Powers are EXCLUSIVELY in the domain of the Congress.
EXCLUSIVELY.
There’s your answer, PLC.
July 19th, 2007 at 1:22 pmSean says on Think Progress at July 19, 2007 @ 1:17pm:
What exactly is the reason that you persist in using defamation instead of debate on facts?
Sean says on ‘Runny Guts’, his blog, on July 19, 2007 @ 7:49am:
Go ahead and believe Harry Reid when he says that he and the Congressional Democrats are against the war, and are being hindered by the Republican obstructionists. Go ahead. But don’t come whining to me, you stupid [expletive deleted, means intercourse] (emphasis mine), when you finally learn the truth.
I say:
Do you need any more? If you want me to debate you, then first, you apologize for the attitude. Until then, I treat you like a troll. Got me?
July 19th, 2007 at 1:24 pm#83 Sean -
I agree with each of your statements here. In fact, I feel the lack of leadership of the current Democratic majority is so weak that until the 08 elections, nothing will change.
And if anyone here thinks that Rove and Cheney have lost their grip on most of the sitting Republicans, they are sadly mistaken. The fear of all leading politicians is to be labeled “against the troops” or “defeatist” and this is well orchestrated and constantly reinforced.
July 19th, 2007 at 1:25 pmYou don’t even have to take my word for it.
Read The Federalist Papers and The Anti-Federalist on war powers and the role of the Congress. They discuss the history and intent. It’s pretty clear that the Congress holds the purse strings and the power to declare war, both of which are the critical features to the POTUS conducting a war.
Without War Powers and without $$$ approved by the Congress, the POTUS would have to fund a war out of his own pocket. I think Mr Bush has enough money to do that, but I think he’s much happier letting us foot the bill.
And it would appear that the Congress feels likewise, with the exceptions of Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich.
July 19th, 2007 at 1:26 pmJeremy, what is wrong with the RELEVANT text you quoted?
Since when are curse words illegitimate? They’re in the dictionary, Jeremy.
If you can’t read past a curse word, you’re not in my audience because you’re biased against every form of rhetoric besides your own. Please don’t hold that position while calling yourself a “liberal” or “openminded,” Jeremy, because you’re anything but those two identities.
If you can’t handle curse words, I suggest you join Mr Falwell’s group, the Moral Majority. I think they have room for hypocritical pseudo-moralists in their ranks, and in fact that seems to be all they have in their ranks. You might not fit perfectly, but your stance on curse words sure does fit hand-in-glove with their view.
July 19th, 2007 at 1:29 pm#62: If you’ve spent any time reading through the posts, here, Sean, you already know that there is no room of TP for discussion or debate.
Why, is one of you trolls going to learn how to debate? That’d be a nice change.
You’re just pissed because the wingnuts regularly get p’wned here, because they lack facts, debate skills, and anything other than the most juvenile rhetorical skills.
July 19th, 2007 at 1:33 pmHow bizarre that this entire discussion is based on the distortions of a fascist newspaper.
July 19th, 2007 at 1:33 pmupside00: I have to say I agree with you as well. There’s too many people in the congress who are afraid of the GOP and afraid of being labled as anti-troop. I’m hoping that there is an uptick of support of the Democrats in congress for staging this filibuster on public TV and making the Republicans get up and say their talking points. I’m hoping that Reid tables any war funding for now, and waits to see what the polls say. Maybe a view of our support, both in phonecalls of appreciation to him and to the Republicans who stood on our side and the Democrats who didn’t may be enough for Reid to get the idea that it’s OK to stand against the Republicans. While Sean is right in the finding that the Congress has the power to defund Bush’s war, he needs to keep in mind that the GOP still has a very powerful spin machine. We need to express our support, even for the procedural gimmicks. Every journey worth taking takes time and effort to get there…
Now, I’d be willing to debate Sean on that point. However, I want an opponent who won’t scream insults at me, and it would be nice to at least have an opponent who has a chance of being affected by logically offered counter-arguments. However, I have much better things to do with my time then deal with a jerk who only desires to hurl insults if I disagree with him and never actually talks at me like he respects me. After all, if he doesn’t respect me, I don’t respect him, and the only reason I might debate with him is to laugh at him and show him to be the arrogant fool he is, comparing him to the likes of Jake, Mr. P, CT, Daryll, Roger_Roger, and so on.
If he gets this, I may decide to talk to him like a mature adult, if he can do the same to me. Otherwise, I’m not in the mood to ‘play’ with him. The rest of the trolls have already taken all my desire for that for the moment.
July 19th, 2007 at 1:37 pmSean O’Neil
Instead of directing me to your website, why not just tell me exactly what Democrats in Congress can do to stop the war? You’ve already called me “childish”, so indulge me and give it to me simply and straightforward as you would a child. Don’t just say “war powers”, tell me specifically the observeable, measurable actions that the Democrats alone can do?
July 19th, 2007 at 1:38 pmInstead of directing me to your website, why not just tell me exactly what Democrats in Congress can do to stop the war?
PLC, directing you to my website points you to my written explanation. You asked for an explanation.
If you are unwilling to discuss the facts with me, either here or at my blog, then just say so. Don’t hide behind a ploy that tries to make me look evasive. That’s a Karl Rove gig, blaming YOUR OWN tactic on the other guy. Not going to work with me, PLC. Apparently you mistake me for someone more gullible and less clever and less intelligent than I.
July 19th, 2007 at 1:41 pmYou’re just pissed because the wingnuts regularly get p’wned here, because they lack facts, debate skills, and anything other than the most juvenile rhetorical skills.
That’s a strong comeback except for the gratuitious partisan slap. My experience in e-forums in the political blogosphere is that whenever you’re at a highly partisan, highly ideological blog, you don’t see any facts, debate, or anything resembli8ng logic. You just see people saying stuff like
you got pwn3d
July 19th, 2007 at 1:43 pmJeremy and Sean,
I am not responding to any of the earlier posts from either of you but I do find it a breath of fresh air to actually have ANY kind of discussion or debate instead of all the sniping here now.
When I first came to TP, there was alot more of good discourse but a lot of the ‘trolls’ have turned it into an adolescent shit-throwing experience that adds nothing to anything except derailing us from the topic.
July 19th, 2007 at 1:47 pmI’d like to know why my response to upside00 got censored and non-posted.
You guys say you don’t censor? Sorry, I just found out otherwise.
July 19th, 2007 at 1:48 pmupside00,
I think you probably know that e-forums have sniper patrols of people who try to spot “dissident” voices and jump on them as “trolls.” This exists in GOP and DNC oriented places alike.
Where it tends not to exist is places like my blog, or Winter Patriot, or Chris Floyd. Places where we have transcended partisan bickering and are dealing with the problems facing the nation.
I’m not here to offer specific courses of action for folks like PLC to potshot and/or dissect. I can offer statements that say, the Congress has exclusive war powers — and that alone should explain how the Congress can stop Mr Bush’s war. It is self-evident. To say otherwise is to be evasive, to protect those in Congress who refuse to block Mr Bush.
July 19th, 2007 at 1:51 pmSean O’Neil
I’m not going to your website, in great part because you seem to be doing a hard sell for it here at TP and I don’t know whether or not my “hit” might be used as evidence for support of something I don’t agree with. You have spent more TP posting space finding fault than you would have simply stating your case. You came here. So, be clever, and convince me, here.
July 19th, 2007 at 1:51 pmPLC: That sounds fair, actually. Sean obviously knows what his points are. Why can’t he simply paraphrase what is two screenfuls worth of text containing irrelevant swear words and hostility to his writing outline? I mean, that’s a basic writing skill in any college composition course. He does have a writing outline, right? I mean, even if you fill the text with swear-word after swear-word, it’s still got an academic basis if there’s an outline consisting of all of his main points summarized into topic sentences at the beginning of each paragraph that starts a new point? If he doesn’t have that, then there’s no way in hell I’d be bothered to read through that trip for non-existent points.
Very trollish, IMO. Write an article filled with glaring red text, angry rhetoric, insults to his reader, and swear words out the wazoo, and then get all offensive when people say, “I’m not reading that junk, summarize it or go home.” Makes it easy to claim he’s won the debate when no one will debate with him because his ‘points’ are invective filled pieces of trash that grate on the eyes of any moderate reader. Much easier to accuse them of being…what was it? Karl Rovian? Hypocritical pseudo-moralists? While he’s claiming to be ‘intelligent’ and not ‘gullible’, I’m thinking he’s arrogant and a jerkoff. Not someone worth debating, just someone worth ridiculing.
So, O’Neil. If you’re so intelligent, then summarize your points in outline form and lose the swearwords and insults. Otherwise, we’ll keep ridiculing you.
July 19th, 2007 at 1:52 pmI can say that I understand how some ideologically partisan “liberals” are very angry right now. They see the same Bush corruption I see.
What I don’t understand is how they so blindly ignore the corruption that exists in the Democratic Party.
The Democratic Party could have fought the 2000 election theft and the 2004 vote rigging. It could have voted against Mr Bush’s war desires and the funding of that war. It could have stopped or reversed the Patriot Act and the John Warner Defense Budget Reauthorization Act.
Yet the Democrats did none of these things.
How then can they be blindly excused?
July 19th, 2007 at 1:54 pmActually, my posts get eaten from time to time. The filters are here, and I’ve personally never claimed they don’t censor.
Words like J-w (middle dash is an e) trigger it, plus many swear words (I may have lost one to f-ck, middle dash is a u when I copied and pasted from Sean’s blog) and I wouldn’t be surprised, things that make the censor think 9-1 C-nspiracy (first dash is a 1, second dash is an o).
But hey, TP makes those rules, not the commenters.
July 19th, 2007 at 1:57 pm“hard sell”?
Jeezus. My site is not commercial. What the F is your problem, PLC? How can you lie and distort through implication in that manner?
You say ouy’re a Christian? Are you serious? Christians following the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth do not use distortion. That is a ploy of the Pharisees.
I am who I say I am.
You hide behind an anoymous handle.
If I were reading my blog or your comments here as an outsider (neither as you, nor as me), I know which one of us looks more honest and reliable, and which looks dishonest.
I think any intelligent, objective reader sees the same.
Your choice of action will determine how people read your posts.
Have at it, Sir.
July 19th, 2007 at 1:57 pmSean O’Neil
“I’m not here to offer specific courses of action for folks like PLC to potshot and/or dissect.”
I dropped my insults and admit that I jumped on you as if you are a common troll who is only here to derail and bash Democrats/progressives. I am trying to be open to information you might have. Sure, I might question and challenge, what you might call “dissecting”, which is just debating. So, why are you here if not to be specific?
July 19th, 2007 at 1:57 pmAlso to PLC, as I said a moment ago to upside00 –
July 19th, 2007 at 1:59 pmIs this how you treat people who question the Democrats, PLC?
With immediate suspicion of troll-dom?
Don’t call yourself a Christian, sir. Please do not. You are behaving as a Pharisee. Even if that is just an adopted on-line persona, it is not Christian.
July 19th, 2007 at 2:00 pmI vote for John Kyl being the man on Larry Flynt’s list. (wishful thinking)
Comment by ForTruth
Kyl - ForThruth
Gotcha… you’re on the list. I can feel the anticipation building as we near the big news!
July 19th, 2007 at 2:00 pmI can’t but feel if one were dumb enough to go to “Sean O’Neil’s” website, the first thing you would be greeted w/ is a nice, big picture of Sean in his Speedos, displaying his rather large “manliness” for all to see.
July 19th, 2007 at 2:02 pmSean O’Neil
I did not say your website WAS commercial, only that I had no assurance of how my going to it might be used. And, yes, you have been trying hard to “sell” it.
Again, you came HERE, to TP. You’ve used a lot of keyboard action to say no more than “war powers” and to insult.
July 19th, 2007 at 2:03 pmI am trying to be open to information you might have.
Actually, if you were trying to be open, you would go read my blog’s posts that I suggested for you.
Instead, you come back with an accusation that my motive for directing you there was COMMERCIAL.
That is not being open.
As to your claim to be “progressive,” I will say that you need to be moving forward, not protecting the status quo, if you want to progress. Assisting Mr Bush’s agenda is not progress in my book, but maybe it is in yours.
If so, we objective readers know what that says about your claim to being a “progressive.”
July 19th, 2007 at 2:05 pmSean O’Neil
God does not demand that I trust without reservation, only that I love without hesitation. Again, you are insulting me rather than informing me.
July 19th, 2007 at 2:06 pmSniper patrol is ineffective. Replace sniper. Republic of Stupidity is too juvenile. Intelligent readers will find him insulting and stupid, ironically.
July 19th, 2007 at 2:07 pmPLC,
You’re comical. You have not once directly responded to my statements, instead you have chosen EVERY TIME to paraphrase them in a lie, and then criticize or denigrate the fabricated view.
We call that “straw man” argument in logic and rhetoric. I will let you keep using it, because it simply exposes your intent and goals here, which is to be Sniper No. 2.
Sniper No. 2 is equally ineffective, only he comes from the pseudo-moralist faux-Christian perspective. Most intelligent objective readers will be insulted by him equally as much as they are by Sniper No. 1.
Good work, TP.
July 19th, 2007 at 2:09 pmSean O’Neil
Again, why are you pushing your website. I don’t need to justify why I don’t want to go there. You came to THIS website and said you had information. So, share it, here.
Again, you insult my level of “progressive”. You’ve already insulted my level of Christianity. All that’s left is my patriotism and you’ve insulted my whole screen name.
July 19th, 2007 at 2:09 pmStraw Man!
Destroy that Straw Man!
July 19th, 2007 at 2:12 pmDamn, I was starting to have my doubts about Sean being Jake for a moment there, but he’s going back to Jake’s playbook.
Constructing a Strawman: Creating a false point from the opposition, in order to attack that point and not the opposition’s real point. A logical fallacy. PLC never once said that your blog was commercial, Sean. He said you were doing a hard sell, which you are doing right now. Hard Sell does not equal Commercial. Another pair of terms I’ve seen used for what you’re doing is ‘Blog Whoring’ and ‘Plugging Blog’.
Ad Hominem Attack: Attacking the poster directly instead of his argument. Another logical fallacy. Calling us Rovian operatives, ’stupid f-cks’, etc. A way not to have to actually have your point destroyed, in your mind.
Drop the logical fallacies if you want to debate. Clean up your language. Act like a mature adult, not like a petulant teenager, or a troll, and you may get more a receptive audience.
July 19th, 2007 at 2:13 pmPost 102 says it all.
Not pushing my website, PLC. Not pushing it at all. Trying to save you some time. Not even sure how I could possibly do anything negative with your visit to my site. It’s on Blogger. See the URL?
You don’t want to go there, fine by me. It’s just another comment on your claim to being progressive or open.
July 19th, 2007 at 2:15 pmFunny, he brings that up while I’m composing my message. Well, now that we’re at slinging logical fallacy accusations at each other, I think I’m done.
July 19th, 2007 at 2:15 pmJeremy, you have to point to a precise logical fallacy in order to make your accusation stick.
Come on, Jeremy. You’re acting like an amateur. Either man up and debate like an adult, or be dismissed by those who visit these threads.
Your choice.
July 19th, 2007 at 2:16 pmOh, yeah, I’ll own up to going to his site. Couldn’t stand reading it…oh well. Part of writing is presenting your argument so others’ll read it. That’s the whole point of English Composition I in most colleges. I wonder if Sean has passed that class yet.
July 19th, 2007 at 2:17 pmMy education and experience were fully detailed in the response to upside00 that got censored.
Presumably that’s to enable further denigration by false implication.
And you maintain that I am the one employing logical fallacy. That’s rich. And I notice you haven’t pointed to any logical fallacy in my writings! Doubly rich!
July 19th, 2007 at 2:23 pmSean O’Neil
“Save me time” ROTFL! You’ve wasted a lot of my time. And if you had simply made your points here, where you came, MANY of us here could have the benefit of your wisdom and insight and you could have saved us ALL a lot of time.
I can only conclude, with my limited logical and reasoning ability, that you are trying awfully hard to direct people to your website and/or you are simply trying to derail this thread and/or you are setting up a way to bash progressives. Thus, “troll” I label thee. I KNOW I’m done.
July 19th, 2007 at 2:24 pmEnding on a strong note! Mighty fine work, PLC. Roger that, Cmdr Jesus!
July 19th, 2007 at 2:26 pmSean O’Neil
Actually, I think I’ll end as you began:
Uh, how about a REAL HONEST view.
Sean O’Neil came to the TP website.
Sean O’Neil offered that he knew a way for the Democrats in Congress to stop the war.
Sean O’Neil refused over many interactions to state specifics, referring only to his own website.
So there was NO SINGLE ASPECT of ending the war in this charade of Sean O’Neil’s.
Instead of playing Spin The Blame onto the progressives, how about offering well thought out and articulated options which are alluded to instead of stalling and deflecting?
If you’re going to “state expertise†then at least you should focus on the “state†part, even if you skip the “expertise†part.
Sheesh.
July 19th, 2007 at 2:37 pmFace it, folks…
You are NO LONGER “debating” or conversing with “trolls”.
These people are “psyops”.
In an earlier story, Rupert Murdoch was revealed today to be the
“24th Member of Blair’s Cabinet”:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/19/murdoch-blair/
July 19th, 2007 at 3:00 pmsome guy wrote a blog entry saying that there are no good democratic candidates for prez!!?? Obama, Clinton, Edwards? C’mon! http://www.mypetpeeves.com/plog/index.php/archives/2514 please help me out folks!
July 19th, 2007 at 4:01 pmBut, but, the Democrats have the majority!
July 19th, 2007 at 4:45 pm“some guy wrote a blog entry saying that there are no good democratic candidates for prez!!?? Obama, Clinton, Edwards? C’mon!
Comment by where left is right — July 19, 2007″
Ha, ha, ha, ha! Obama? What has the muslim done? Clinton? What has she done? Edwards? Ha, ha, ha, ha!
July 19th, 2007 at 4:47 pmquoting Moon:
http://www.unification.net/2000/20000122.html
In 1982, in accordance with the will of God, I founded The Washington Times here in Washington, D.C. Ever since then, this newspaper has led American public opinion as a conservative news medium showing the path that America must follow.
July 19th, 2007 at 9:15 pmFunny, Moon’s followers know exactly how his manipulation of our political system has talken place - how the con has worked - but the American public is not allowed in on the ruse.
quoting Moon:
So please take spiritual dominion in your states. You can proclaim spiritually to the government leaders, “I am the