Instapundit attacks journalists’ patriotism.
By on Oct 18th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Instapundit attacks journalists’ patriotism.
Responding to an op-ed by Wall Street Journal deputy editor Daniel Henniger today about media coverage of Iraq, Glenn “Instapundit” Reynolds lobbed an ad hominem attack on the patriotism of America’s “political and journalistic classes,” saying they “lack sufficient patriotism“:
The problem is that our political and journalistic classes lack sufficient patriotism to promote self-discipline, or perhaps sufficient self-discipline to allow them to act patriotically.
Since 2003, 160 media workers have been killed in Iraq, including two Americans and 48 who were working for international news organizations.
(HT: Andrew Sullivan)
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
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
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
“The problem is that our political and journalistic classes lack sufficient patriotism to promote self-discipline, or perhaps sufficient self-discipline to allow them to act patriotically.”
or maybe they’re not drinking so much kool-aid anymore
October 18th, 2007 at 8:20 pmWhen you can’t back up your hate with facts, it’s time to trot out the “I’m more patriotic than you” rhetoric. In fact, let’s count the time until it takes Michael or O Really or the rest of the trolls to start slabbering on about how TP readers are going to hell because we’re capable of independent thought…
3… 2….
October 18th, 2007 at 8:23 pmglenn’s nice and safe where he is. a real “patriot”.
October 18th, 2007 at 8:24 pmBy all means…be a “Good German!”
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.html
Creeping Fascism
The voices of the past, on Recognizing the Unrecognizable…
The Reichstag Burns
Adolf Hitler, the new Chancellor of Germany, had no intention of abiding by the rules of democracy. He intended only to use those rules to legally establish himself as dictator as quickly as possible then begin the Nazi revolution.
Even before he was sworn in, he was at work to accomplish that goal by demanding new elections. While Hindenburg waited impatiently in another room, Hitler argued with conservative leader Hugenberg, who vehemently opposed the idea. Hitler’s plan was to establish a majority of elected Nazis in the Reichstag which would become a rubber stamp, passing whatever laws he desired while making it all perfectly legal.
Hitler’s storm troopers were about to reach new heights of power of their own and begin a reign of terror.
President Hindenburg had fallen under Hitler’s spell and was signing just about anything put in front of him. He signed an emergency decree that put the German state of Prussia into the hands of Hitler confidant, Vice Chancellor Papen. Göring as Minister of the Interior for Prussia took control of the police. Prussia was Germany’s biggest and most important state and included the capital of Berlin.
Göring immediately replaced hundreds of police officials loyal to the republic with Nazi officials loyal to Hitler. He also ordered the police not to interfere with the SA and SS under any circumstances. This meant that anybody being harassed, beaten, or even murdered by Nazis, had nobody to turn to for help.
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/burns.htm
October 18th, 2007 at 8:28 pmSOCIAL ENGINEERING:
While social engineering can be carried out by any organization – whether large or small, public or private – the most comprehensive (and often the most effective) campaigns of social engineering are those initiated by powerful central governments.
Extremely intensive social engineering campaigns occurred in countries with authoritarian governments. In the 1920s, the revolutionary government of the Soviet Union embarked on a campaign to fundamentally alter the behavior and ideals of Soviet citizens, to replace the old social frameworks of Tsarist Russia with a new Soviet culture, to create the New Soviet man. The Soviets used newspapers, books, film, mass relocations, and even architectural design tactics to serve as “social condenser” and change personal values and private relationships. Similar examples are the Chinese “Great Leap Forward” and “Cultural Revolution” program and the Khmer Rouge’s plan of deurbanization of Cambodia.
Non-authoritarian regimes tend to rely on more sustained social engineering campaigns that create more gradual, but ultimately as far-reaching, change. Examples include the “War on Drugs” in the United States, the increasing reach of intellectual property rights and copyright, and the promotion of elections as a political tool. The campaign for promoting elections, which is by far the most successful of the three examples, has been in place for over two centuries.
Social theorists of the Frankfurt School in Weimar Germany like Theodor Adorno had also observed the new phenomenon of mass culture and commented on its new manipulative power, when the rise of the Nazis drove them out of the country around 1930 (many of them became connected with the Institute for Social Research in the United States). The Nazis themselves were no strangers to the idea of influencing political attitudes and re-defining personal relationships. The Nazi propaganda machine under Joseph Goebbels was a synchronized, sophisticated and effective tool for creating public opinion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_engineering_%28political_science%29
A number of techniques which are based on social psychological research are used to generate propaganda. Many of these same techniques can be found under logical fallacies, since propagandists use arguments that, while sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid. A few examples are: Flag-waving, Glittering generalities, Intentional vagueness, Oversimplification, Rationalization, Red herring, Slogans, Stereotyping, Testimonial, Unstated assumption.
In the West, the term propaganda now overlaps with distinct terms like indoctrination (ideological views established by repetition rather than verification) and mass suggestion (broader strategic methods).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
As the 1983 American Heritage Dictionary noted, fascism is: “A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism.” (The US dictionary definition has gotten somewhat squishier since then, as all the larger dictionary companies have been bought up by multinational corporations.)
Mussolini was quite straightforward about all this. In a 1923 pamphlet titled “The Doctrine of Fascism” he wrote, “If classical liberalism spells individualism, Fascism spells government.” But not a government of, by, and for We The People – instead, it would be a government of, by, and for the most powerful corporate interests in the nation.
“You can’t tell any more the difference between what’s propaganda and what’s news.”
FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein
15 August, 2006
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/16/national/main1900602.shtm
October 18th, 2007 at 8:29 pmMedia ownership study ordered destroyed
Sept 14, 2006
‘Every last piece’ destroyed
Adam Candeub, now a law professor at Michigan State University, said senior managers at the agency ordered that “every last piece” of the report be destroyed. “The whole project was just stopped – end of discussion,” he said. Candeub was a lawyer in the FCC’s Media Bureau at the time the report was written and communicated frequently with its authors, he said.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14836500/
October 18th, 2007 at 8:30 pmAnother member of the Fighting 101st Keyboardists.
October 18th, 2007 at 8:31 pmYou have to keep reminding yourself this is not fantasy: that truly dangerous men, such as Perle and Rumsfeld and Cheney, have power. The thread running through their ruminations is the importance of the media: “the prioritized task of bringing on board journalists of repute to accept our position”.
“Our position” is code for lying. Certainly, as a journalist, I have never known official lying to be more pervasive than today. We may laugh at the vacuities in Tony Blair’s “Iraq dossier” and Jack Straw’s inept lie that Iraq has developed a nuclear bomb (which his minions rushed to “explain”). But the more insidious lies, justifying an unprovoked attack on Iraq and linking it to would-be terrorists who are said to lurk in every Tube station, are routinely channeled as news. They are not news; they are black propaganda.
http://www.newstatesman.com/200212160005
“Television is altering the meaning of “being informed” by creating a species of information that might properly be called disinformation… Disinformation does not mean false information. It means misleading information – misplaced, irrelevant, fragmented or superficial information – information that creates the illusion of knowing something, but which in fact leads one away from knowing.”
Neil Postman
October 18th, 2007 at 8:31 pmSENATOR GRAHAM CALLS FOR ACTION AGAINST AMERICANS WHO DISAGREE WITH BUSH
NAT PARRY, CONSORTIUM NEWS – Sen. Lindsey Graham suggested to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales a new target for the administration’s domestic operations — Fifth Columnists, supposedly disloyal Americans who sympathize and collaborate with the enemy. “The administration has not only the right, but the duty, in my opinion, to pursue Fifth Column movements,” Graham, R-S.C., told Gonzales during Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Feb. 6.
“I stand by this President’s ability, inherent to being Commander in Chief, to find out about Fifth Column movements, and I don’t think you need a warrant to do that,” Graham added, volunteering to work with the administration to draft guidelines for how best to neutralize this alleged threat. “Senator,” a smiling Gonzales responded, “the President already said we’d be happy to listen to your ideas.”
http://uncapitalist.com/blog/?itemid=1329
October 18th, 2007 at 8:32 pmIt’s code. “Sufficient Patriotism” means shutting down your thought processes whenever a flag is waved in your face.
He surely lacked it during the Clinton years.
October 18th, 2007 at 8:34 pm“Most people prefer to believe that their leaders are just and fair, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which he lives is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one’s self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all.â€
Michael Rivera
October 18th, 2007 at 8:34 pmLooks like Plunger is going for the TP spam record…
October 18th, 2007 at 8:35 pmReynolds attempts to conflate issues when he says media coverage lacks “sufficient patriotism to promote self-discipline” that are totally disconnected. I don’t argue the point that media coverage has shown a lack of self-dicipline but it is laughable to suggest that it is somehow grounded in lack of patriotism.
Somehow I don’t think we are on the same page concerning where the lack of self-discipline resides. I’m sure that he is fingering the NYT for publishing the actual news story on the secret prisons run by the CIA. The self-discipline I see lacking resides in what has been coined as stenographic journalism — running with the rightwing talking points without any effort at independent verification. Even here I don’t charge lack of patriotism; rather it represents old fashioned lazyness or politically motivated “reporting”.
October 18th, 2007 at 8:37 pmThis is the same old canard they always play: you are not patriotic if you don’t …
October 18th, 2007 at 8:39 pm1. agree with me
2. wear a flag pin
3. agree with Bush
4. repeat talking points
5. march in lockstep
6. think for yourself
7. stop asking questions
I stopped trying to actually read plunger’s disjointed thinly-veiled hate rantings quite a while ago. It seems his MO is to just copy-paste random tin-foil crack-pot theories until some of it sticks to the wall. I wonder how long it’ll take him to come up with his OWN ideas to post about.
October 18th, 2007 at 8:46 pmReal journalists love America and hate the government. In fact, so do most Americans.
October 18th, 2007 at 8:48 pmThe rest love big privacy-hating Republican governments and hate Americans.
I stopped trying to actually read plunger’s disjointed thinly-veiled hate rantings quite a while ago. It seems his MO is to just copy-paste random tin-foil crack-pot theories until some of it sticks to the wall. I wonder how long it’ll take him to come up with his OWN ideas to post about.
Comment by Race Condition — October 18, 2007 @ 8:46 pm
You seem to have read them enough to issue me a not-so-veiled death threat on the Leahy thread based on a complete lie.
October 18th, 2007 at 8:48 pmRepublican have absolutely ruined the meaning of the words “Freedom” and “Patriotism”, and I hate them for it.
October 18th, 2007 at 8:49 pmplunger has the critical thinking capacity of my dumbest cat. That’s okay. He can keep copy-pasting for his country, I’ll keep hitting page down.
October 18th, 2007 at 8:51 pm#
Plunger’s anti-semitic Wall of Text crits you for 10,000 points of damage.
You die.
Comment by Race Condition — October 18, 2007 @ 8:20 pm
Was this is death threat?
October 18th, 2007 at 8:53 pmOnly in your pea-sized brain.
October 18th, 2007 at 8:54 pmYou gotta admit, though — Reynolds shows a lot of courage in trotting out the “lack of sufficient patriotism” charge when it’s obviously a crock of sh!t.
October 18th, 2007 at 8:55 pmI dont really understand Greenwald, and won’t effort to other than to say that he needs to differentiate the freedom operation from the war on terror when he makes such hermaneutic statements about self-discipline and equating that to sufficient patriotism and vice versa.
Otherwise, whatever point hes trying, vainly, to make comes out looking just as it has on his site and here, Gobbledegook.
It was like reading a blank sheet of paper.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:01 pmLike I said, Xisithrus, when all else fails and you can’t even form a coherent thought to express your rage with someone forming an independent thought:
Attack their “patriotism”.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:02 pmAttack their “patriotismâ€. Comment by Race Condition
I think you have me confused with another moniker RC.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:06 pmplunger, it doesn’t matter whether what you post is true or not. When it’s so obviously cut and paste and complete long diatribes – it just makes you look abusive, and insane! It doesn’t bring people to your side, even people that MIGHT agree with your posts find it annoying and disruptive!
I disagree with this statement. I find what plunger posts very enlightening.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:06 pmI dont really understand Greenwald, and won’t effort to other than to say that he needs to differentiate the freedom operation from the war on terror when he makes such hermaneutic statements about self-discipline and equating that to sufficient patriotism and vice versa.
Otherwise, whatever point hes trying, vainly, to make comes out looking just as it has on his site and here, Gobbledegook.
It was like reading a blank sheet of paper.
Comment by Xisithrus — October 18, 2007 @ 9:01 pm
Small correction: it’s Glenn Reynolds, not Glenn Greenwald.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:08 pmSorry, I meant Glenn Reynolds, not Glenn Greenwald. My bad.
Either way I did not attack anyones patriotism as Reynolds has. I was pointing out Reynolds for not separating the war on terror from the freedom operation in Iraq and the ensuing civil war.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:10 pmSo, journalists don’t live up to Beck’s definition of ‘patriotism’? In my definition of patriotism, truly patriotic Americans would thrash Beck’s ass every time he goes out in public. That’s real patriotism, ’cause I said so.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:10 pmNo, Xisithrus, you said yourself it was “gobbledy-gook”. Ad hominem gobbledy-gook at that. I don’t care if you’re a rightie or leftie, we both agree that this guy makes no sense. AND sounds like a moron for trying to speak in the first place.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:10 pmComment by impeachcheneythenbush — October 18, 2007 @ 9:06 pm
Well, with some wikipedia, some Google, and a tin-foil hat you can enlighten yourself without the spam and save us all the scrolling.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:11 pmCan I get an amen for thrashing Beck’s ass?
October 18th, 2007 at 9:19 pmRace Condition, you’re the guy spamming up the place. If you don’t like to read long posts like ace’s you could just move along and keep your yap shut. Many readers ARE interested.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:20 pmNo, Xisithrus, you said yourself it was “gobbledy-gookâ€
Goobledegook has nothing to do with patriotism, if I was going to attack his patriotism, I would have. I am saying that Reynolds point is unclear.
He says shut up and get on board and then you dont have to shut up and get on board and that people should know how to lose. This is a typical pundit talking point I have heard all too often. Its the medias fault that wars are lost because the media wont put on a cheerladers outfit. Its an indefensible position.
I could say wars are lost because pundits because pundits wont go sign up for war.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:20 pmOf course sending a pundit to war, because I’m sufficiently patriotic that way, wouldnt make us win vietnam, nor will it make the Iraqi civil war go away now would it?
And still, Reynolds need to stop conflating the GWOT with the OIF.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:23 pmHere’s where plunger’s copy and paste comes from.
http://www.zmag.org/ content/ showarticle.cfm?ItemID=2744
Sorry plunger, but just posting huge amounts (pages and pages) of text that you’ve copied and pasted from elsewhere without proper citation is in fact plagiarism and against the terms of this website.
Either cite your resources, use your own words, or don’t post! Your plagiarism makes you look foolish!
Comment by republicans hate facts — October 18, 2007 @ 9:21 pm
The foregoing is unsubstantiated, and false.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:24 pmXisithrus, and I was saying that since his point is unclear and his position is indefensible, all he has left is ad-hominem attacks regarding patriotism. I think we’re agreeing, just not communicating it well.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:25 pmComment by plunger — October 18, 2007 @ 9:24 pm
Unsubstantiated unless you go read the link, which is what you copied here word-for-word.
For the one and a half of you who are “interested”, you can very obviously find this all out on your own.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:27 pm“If you don’t like to read long posts like ace’s you could just move along and keep your yap shut. Many readers ARE interested.”
Comment by Shayne
He posts too much off-topic stuff, and posts his stuff in succession, making the thread to cumbersome to enjoy. He should wait until there is some relevance to the thread at hand.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:28 pmAnd for the record, and to debunk another Reynolds pundit point, I am not for losing the GWOT, and I am for seeing Iraq become a sovereign nation.
What I disagree about is destabilizing the middle east by going into Iraq before securing Afghanistan. We now have Turkish incursions into Kurdistan that had nothing to do with 911.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:29 pmCorporate owned press are retarded, but they do know the difference between butt kissing and patriotism.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:31 pmComment by plunger — October 18, 2007 @ 9:24 pm
Unsubstantiated unless you go read the link, which is what you copied here word-for-word.
For the one and a half of you who are “interestedâ€, you can very obviously find this all out on your own.
Comment by Race Condition — October 18, 2007 @ 9:27 pm
Everything posted on this thread by me includes a link for attribution. I don’t have any idea whether or not some of it may also be posted on the link you provided. What’s your point? I posted links to attribute the words to the source that I GOT THEM FROM.
Are you attacking me for some reason that has to do with your Zionist agenda? You accused me of plagerism here (a false accusation), and threatened my life on the prior thread. What is your agenda?
October 18th, 2007 at 9:32 pmI think we’re agreeing, just not communicating it well.
Comment by Race Condition
I concur, I read it that YOU thought I was attacking Reynolds patriotism. I apologise to you, and I agree that Reynolds should not be making ad-hominem attacks. I find the instapundit site insta-hominem
October 18th, 2007 at 9:32 pmComment by plunger — October 18, 2007 @ 9:32 pm
If links to off-topic “Zionist” discussion are so important, one would think then that there would be no need for you to copy/paste them in their entirety on a board dedicated to discuss the thoughts that the READERS come up with. I have no idea what you think, or if you think at all, because all you do is Google, Wikipedia, cut-n-paste, and then call anyone who gets annoyed with you a “zionist” with an “agenda”.
If these links are gonna change my life by reading them, then just post the URLs and let me spend half my day reading it on my own time.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:37 pmIf these links are gonna change my life by reading them, then just post the URLs and let me spend half my day reading it on my own time.
Comment by Race Condition — October 18, 2007 @ 9:37 pm
I’ve flagged your comments as abusive. I’ve also flagged the off-topic posts that Plunger has posted (sorry, fella, stay on topic, please.). But some of his posts are relevant, and quite on-topic. Yours, on the other hand, seem to serve only one purpose: to attack Plunger.
In other words, you look like a paid attack dog, here for no other reason than to undermine whatever another, specific poster is linking to. It’s almost like you don’t want Plunger to post anything of relevance. Doesn’t that seem rather odd behavior, sir (or ma’am)? If it doesn’t to you, here’s some third-party advise: You, far more than Plunger, seem to have a specific, particularly slimy agenda you are required to meet.
Are some of his posts likely conspiracy theory? Yes. But he cites everything, provides links, and so forth, so at least we can judge for ourselves. That is far more than you can say. Every time you attack, you get flagged. Every time Plunger posts something off-topic, he gets flagged.
So really, post something relevant, or bugger off.
On-topic, like Race Condition, Glenn Reynolds conducts endless ad hominem attacks. This proves they are both debating from a weak position. Otherwise, they’d not have to rely so heavily on personal, ad hominem attacks.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:05 pmI am absolutely baffled by the “they want to lose” remarks. The Fox poll is, well, Fox.
The most striking thing about “Wallace’s” post is the utter hypocrisy. The psychology is just too remarkable – is instapundit populated with Sheeple that require someone to tell them what to think? Other than the Fox-fabricated poll, I have NEVER seen any evidence of “liberals” wanting the US to lose the war in Iraq. Yeah, most of us are honest enough to admit we are losing and winning ain’t likely an available option, but no one has said they “want” us to lose the war. That’s just ludicrous and (of course) insulting.
And that’s the entire focus on instapundit. “Liberals want us to lose.” How ridiculous – and pathetic. With nothing valid to criticize – it’d be irrational – they just make stuff up.
I do have to say that Sanchez sure has lousy timing. I wish one of these COs would speak up while there’s a chance to make a difference instead of waiting and coming across like sour grapes. “Day late and a dollar short” comes to mind. I don’t agree with the argument that it’s not a commanding officer’s job to question – that does come frighteningly close to a coup – but he could have grabbed a member of the oversight committee and had a talk. He could have done something other than wait until right before his book comes out to criticize Bush’s Iraq policy. It looks bad and it makes a person question his motives. After all, Bush taught him how to throw someone under the bus. I don’t imagine Sanchez’ career has done much since he left Iraq disgraced. This book is probably his retirement ticket; yeah, he gets a military pension, but that’s beans. Pitching Bush under the bus tires is very good PR for his book. Yeah, that’s a nasty allegation. My defense is that the Neocons turned me into a suspicious cynic suffering from paranoia! LOL
October 18th, 2007 at 10:06 pmComment by Moderation — October 18, 2007 @ 10:05 pm
While I admit I have been made somewhat cranky by the Walls of Text with not even plunger’s opinion on the subject matter anywhere (not that I guess it needs it, it’s plenty wordy on its own), I wonder if there’s not a blog he can create of his own to re-post such things. I’m not saying he can’t like it, agree with it, or even link it here, I’m merely suggesting that he not re-post it in its entirety. Additionally, I see very few posts from plungers that aren’t pure copy-paste jobs, and I come to TP for the discussion, not the articles. (This ain’t Playboy. ;)
While you’re also free to enjoy the Walls of Text, I find it somewhat childish that you would “report abuse” for “ad hominem” attacks that I have not made. Ordinarily I wouldn’t feel the need to defend myself to the likes of you, however, I really enjoy most of the posters and the debates here and don’t want to be banned. (Hi mods!)
So, thanks for your thoughts, and the “reporting”, I guess, and hopefully I’ll see more of plunger’s thoughts and opinions and a little less of his reading list in the future.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:15 pmplunger has the critical thinking capacity of my dumbest cat. That’s okay. He can keep copy-pasting for his country, I’ll keep hitting page down.
Comment by Race Condition — October 18, 2007 @ 8:51 pm
Only in your pea-sized brain.
Comment by Race Condition — October 18, 2007 @ 8:54 pm
…this guy makes no sense. AND sounds like a moron for trying to speak in the first place.
Comment by Race Condition — October 18, 2007 @ 9:10 pm
————————————————————————————
So, thanks for your thoughts, and the “reportingâ€, I guess, and hopefully I’ll see more of plunger’s thoughts and opinions and a little less of his reading list in the future.
Comment by Race Condition — October 18, 2007 @ 10:15 pm
That is just on this thread. As I said, I also flagged a bunch of Plunger’s posts. I’ve flagged some of BARTLEBEE’S crazier posts, and plenty of others in the (obviously recent) past as well, for going strictly to the ad hominems.
I would much rather hear Plunger’s own writing on these subjects as well, rather than the cut-and-paste. I know the cut-and-paste is easier. But it is intellectually lazy of him (or her?), even with complete citations and links. Even if he wrote his OWN take on these various subjects and pasted THOSE, it would be preferable. That, however, does not mean all of his links and posts are tin-foil stuff. Remember, most tin-foil crap is based on some sort of truth, some sort of evidence, even if misinterpreted.
If they are completely on-topic, I leave his posts alone. Otherwise, hoist the flags, lads!
Plunger: Please, please try to use the information you have on hand to formulate your own posts, your OWN links and correlations, not someone else’s. I know you are posting on a bunch of sites, but surely you could boilerplate some of your OWN writings on these subjects, eh?
October 18th, 2007 at 10:51 pmDoes this guy know the difference between “Patriotism” and “Nationalism”?
October 18th, 2007 at 11:43 pmKeep in mind this “Instaputz” is actually a college professor. Think of all the minds he’s poisoning on a daily basis. You know if the right wingers disagreed with him, they’d sic Stalkin’ Malkin’s goons on him and try to get him thrown out of his job.
October 18th, 2007 at 11:49 pmNow I realize that most of you 11%ers will agree with Stark because you are just as crazy, but those kind of statements are both reckless and un-patriotic.
Comment by TCDon — October 18, 2007 @ 10:36 pm
We are the 70%ers, TCDumb, and you are the unpatriotic one. Those kinds of statements are something you don’t deal in: Truth. Prove that he’s wrong, and you may have a small point, even though he’s well within his 1st Amendment rights. Why do you hate the Constitution so?
October 18th, 2007 at 11:50 pmDonnie Boy thinks Starks accurate comments are reckless while W talking about WWIII is what, responsible? Could you be any more of a tool?
October 18th, 2007 at 11:55 pmAnd Race Condition, I don’t see your name at the top of this blog either. Why don’t you let the moderators who run it make the decisions and you either stay or go. As was mentioned, plunger often contributes something and all you’re doing is complaining.
October 18th, 2007 at 11:56 pmI love how the trolls like TCD demonstrate their utter cluelessness when they try to tag progressives as “11%ers”.
Let me give you a heads-up, there, TCD: YOU are a “24%er” because you are among the 24% who give Bush a thumbs-up. By extension, an “11%er” wuould have to be someone who approves of the job Congress is doing. Are ya with me so far? Good.
I don’t know of anyone on these boards who approves of the job Congress is doing. I don’t know of too many who even approve of the job the Democratic lkeadership is doing. So who exactly are these “11%ers” you talk about? Because it makes you sound kind of stupid.
October 19th, 2007 at 12:17 amActing “patriotically” is easy when all you have to do is write and self-publish tired, old tripe in support of your Dear (mis)Leader no matter what he does, or how incompetent he is, 8hrs a day, 5 days a week.
All from the comfort of your own home.
That’s what patriotism means to the right-wingers: Doing everything for your country unless it involves actual, real action, and maybe even (gasp!) sacrifice.
October 19th, 2007 at 12:30 amhey guys.. I think I found the trailer park where bigfoot and micheal live..
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/17/trailer.sexoffender/index.html
95 of 200 residents of Florida trailer park are convicted sex offenders
Sex offender named Michael says trailer park is “paradise”
October 19th, 2007 at 12:57 amThe problem with Michael Henniger is he is too patriotic for someone who has never served a day in combat. This guy isn’t a journalist, he isn’t a true editor, he’s a waterboy for the Republican party and any stupid idea this administration comes up with.
The next thing you know, he’ll be saying we need to invade Iran. I got some advice for you pinhead. Sit down in your fat office chair and SHUT UP! The journalist didn’t start this stupid war, Bush did, and it’s fools like you that keep it going. If you had half a brain, you’d realize that nothing good has come from this war and nothing good ever will.
October 19th, 2007 at 7:34 amHead of Reconstruction Teams in Iraq Reports Little Progress Throughout Country
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/world/middleeast/19reconstruct.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
October 19th, 2007 at 7:39 amYou fell right into the trap and proved my point. Congratulations.
Comment by TCDon — October 19, 2007 @ 8:51 am
Not really. You still support Bush, in spite of his treason and incompetence. You are a 24%er. You fell into your own “trap”, proving that you’re just another rightwing tool. Congratulations.
October 19th, 2007 at 10:14 amInsta-pudding pop seems to be practicing ‘class’ warfare when he states that ‘political and journalistic classes lack sufficient patriotism’. I thought class warfare was almost the worst thing that a person could do, according to the ‘lbertarians’ and the ‘conservatives’.
October 19th, 2007 at 11:17 amThe consolidation of American media poses an enormous threat to free speech and the broad dessimation of the rich array of opinions and ideas that are so critical to free political discourse.
As reported by numerous sources (this from Siriusbuzz.com):
“According to a New York Times article, the FCC may be embarking on a path that would relax current media ownership rules. Stephen Labaton, the New York Times columnist, FCC Chairman Martin wants to repeal rules that broaden restrictions on companies owning a newspaper and radio/television stations in the same city.
According to agency officials, the proposal has support within the FCC, but may be split along part lines with 3 members of the commission in favor, and two against. Media Ownership rules have been a topic for the FCC for some time, and have included many open forums at various cities around the country. The Labaton piece is a very good read, but does not cross the bridge to the proposed Sirius and XM merger.”
This proposed legislation is being fast-tracked.
You’ve got to care to act, and to act quickly if you care.
Call your Congressional delegation today.
October 21st, 2007 at 3:56 amIf you don’t care that all of your news may be originating from the Murdock machine, sit back, order another latte, scan the Wall Street Journal while listening to O’Reilly on Fox. Be brave as the new world order bites your reality.
October 21st, 2007 at 4:00 am