154 Responses to “Anita Dunn…White House Advisor…Chairman Mao Fan…Fox News Hater…”

  1. 151

    American Voter

    @Mark wrote — Because england lost
    —-

    Are you altering the 19th century quote you offered? I did not see a footnote with the puissant thought.

  2. 152

    openid.aol.com/runnswim

    @Mike:

    But again, here we are getting DISTRACTED (to use Obama’s favorite word) which is exactly what you and Larry are trying to do to take the focus off the Mao loving Ann Dunn.

    You are the one changing focus. My posts have squarely addressed the Ann Dunn issue; the only time I got off topic was to answer/address Aye’s issue. And I didn’t “make” anything “up.” I accurately recalled a relevant comment on F/A by a very conservative discussant who was no Mao lover, but who quoted Mao, none-the-less. I was clear in saying that I “thought” I recalled this was you (or Aye), but made it clear that this was simply from memory, which is, of course, fallible. I then took a break from my workday — solely to do the Google research, identified the correct (conservative) commentator, and posted the correction.

    Other than that, I had several posts, which squarely addressed the Ann Dunn issue. You (and Aye and Hard Right) did not address the specific points I made — instead you simply responded with dismissive (and often personal) insults. I debated seriously. You simply hurled epithets.

    – Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

  3. 153

    Mark

    Gee, Aye Chihuahua, I thought I had made myself clear. I am refuting the lies, such as the “avowed Stalinist” claim. As far as I know, it is true that he was a member of the CPUSA and that he pleaded the fifth. I have seen no evidence that the NAACP rejected Davis because of his radical views, although it is undoubtedly true that AIM lied about his involvement with the Honolulu NAACP in 1949 (see proof at http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/Kaleokualoha/gG5kN7). These, however, were not points of contention in this discussion.

    Saying “Seems to me that “Stalinist” or garden variety “Communist” is a difference without distinction” is like saying “seems to be that “Jehovah’s Witness” or garden variety “Christian” is a difference without a distinction. There are many different types of “communists” – some of which do not even believe in collectivism – just as there are many types of Christians, some of whom do not even believe in the cross. Even within the collectivist group, there are many that are not Stalinists, because they reject the totalitarian abuses of Stalinist Russia. Stalinism is only one subset of communism, just as Jehovah’s Witness is only one subset of Christianity. As outlined in post #89, some people are communists in name only.

    Frank Marshall Davis rejected collectivism. He was a capitalist. He owned two paper companies, and sold advertising specialties, in Hawaii. He joined the CPUSA because of the professional and social opportunities it presented. He joined the CPUSA during WWII, just as the United States joined the Soviet Union during WWII, not because they shared the delusion of a communist utopia. Each was a marriage of convenience. He joined because membership had its privileges, such as professional and social opportunities.

    American Voter: I believe that was a 20th century quote. If England had won, Loyalists such as Arnold would have been honored and rebels disgraced.

  4. 154

    MataHarley

    premium_subscriber

    American Voter, perhaps I’m missing something you may be picking up on. But feel free to enlighten me… genuinely.

    Mencken… source of the quote.. had great disdain for FDR. A hero of the American left and father of the “New Deal”. He oft referred to him as “the Führer”.

    Further, it was also Mencken who said: Socialism is simply the degenerate capitalism of bankrupt capitalists. Its one genuine object is to get more money for its professors.

    There’s a few other Mencken gems that indicate he was more libertarian in his beliefs philosophically. i.e. from his 1949 Chrestomathy compilation discussing the “inner nature” of government:

    All government, in its essence, is a conspiracy against the superior man; its one permanent object is to oppress him and cripple him. If it be aristocratic in organisation, then it seeks to protect the man who is superior only in law against the man who is superior in fact; if it be democratic, then it seeks to protect the man who is inferior in every way against both. One of its primary functions is to regiment men by force, to make them as much alike as possible and as dependent upon one another as possible, to search out and combat originality among them. All it can see in an original idea is potential change, and hence an invasion of its prerogatives. The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And even if he is not romantic personally he is very apt to spread discontent among those who are …

    What lies behind all this, I believe, is a deep sense of the fundamental antagonism between the government and the people it governs. It is apprehended, not as a committee of citizens chosen to carry on the communal business of the whole population, but as a separate and autonomous corporation, mainly devoted to exploiting the population for the benefit of its own members … When a private citizen is robbed a worthy man is deprived of the fruits of his industry and thrift; when the government is robbed the worst that happens is that certain rogues and loafers have less money to play with than they had before. The notion that they have earned that money is never entertained; to most sensible men it would seem ludicrous. They are simply rascals who, by accidents of law, have a somewhat dubious right to a share in the earnings of their fellow men.

    This gang is well-nigh immune to punishment. Its worst extortions, even when they are baldly for private profit, carry no certain penalties under our laws. Since the first days of the Republic, less than a dozen of its members have been impeached, and only a few obscure understrappers have ever been put into prison. The number of men sitting at Atlanta and Leavenworth for revolting against the extortions of government is always ten times as great as the number of government officials condemned for oppressing the taxpayers to their own gain … There are no longer any citizens in the world; there are only subjects. They work day in and day out for their masters; they are bound to die for their masters at call … On some bright tomorrow, a geological epoch or two hence, they will come to the end of their endurance …

    Or, as he said in the late 20s in the Notes of Democracy:

    “Under the pressure of fanaticism, and with the mob complacently applauding the show, democratic law tends more and more to be grounded upon the maxim that every citizen is, by nature, a traitor, a libertine, and a scoundrel. In order to dissuade him from his evil-doing the police power is extended until it surpasses anything ever heard of in the oriental monarchies of antiquity.”

    Laughably, the bone-head, wannabe journalist known as Lew Rockwell tried to attribute that quote to Mencken with a headline stating “H. L. Mencken on the Bush Regime” back in February 2008.

    Of course the fly in the ointment is that Mencken died in Jan 1956.. when Dubya was but 10 years old. LOL Nice try, Rockwell. But then, as we can see, math is not the forte of liberal/progressives.

    So I guess I’m missing the tie between the Mencken quote and some sort of elevation of Benedict Arnold here in your mind, unless you’re using the current liberal/progressives mischaracterization of Mencken.

    And I don’t find anything that indicates Mencken was speaking of Arnold with that quotation. So what’s the point of the question, from your viewpoint?

  5. @Mark:

    Your example of a supposed “variety” of Christians, while somewhat clever, falls short of reality. The Scriptures are clear that “Those who do not believe in the Cross cannot be disciples of Christ” (Luke 14:27). Likewise, those that deny the divinity of Christ are not Christians either.

    So, there is only one group of Christians.

    There are many different types of “communists” – some of which do not even believe in collectivism.

    ::snip::

    Even within the collectivist group, there are many that are not Stalinists, because they reject the totalitarian abuses of Stalinist Russia.

    Examples please.

  6. 156

    Mike's America


    Warning: implode() [function.implode]: Invalid arguments passed in /var/www/vhosts/floppingaces.net/httpdocs/wp-content/themes/floppingaces-2015/functions.php on line 281

    I see the Obama distraction machine remains ramped up to full power.

    Mark: I really don’t care whether your father was a Stalinist or not. That’s not the topic of this post.

    Your attempt to steer this discussion away from the point of the post is transparent.

    And of course Larry is only too happy to help in this commie coverup.

  7. 157

    Mark

    Aye Chihuahua,

    Examples? Virtually every communist critic of Stalin is an example. Let’s start with Kruschchev
    in 1956:

    “1956: Khrushchev lashes out at Stalin

    The Soviet leader, Nikita Khrushchev, has denounced Joseph Stalin as a brutal despot.
    In a sensational speech to the 20th Congress of the Communist Party Mr Khrushchev painted a graphic picture of a regime of “suspicion, fear, and terror” built up under the former dictator who died three years ago. He said he wanted to break the “Stalin cult” that has held Soviet citizens in its thrall for 30 years.” (See http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/25/newsid_2703000/2703581.stm)

    We can also add the millions of Chinese (and other) communists who embraced capitalism in lieu of collectivism in the past twenty years.

    Also: “So, there is only one group of Christians”? I believe the countless victims from Catholic-Protestant conflict during the past centuries would disagree with you. Grand Inquisitor Torquemada would have probably wanted to discuss the issue with you in greater detail!

  8. 160

    American Voter

    @Mata Harley
    I was taking the quote at face value. . .’The men the American public admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars’. . .I used an example of a famous, daring liar Benedict Arnold. That was all. . .no hidden meaning. . .another famous, daring liar? Bernie Madoff.

    Secondly, I was also looking at the era in which Mencken lived. This quote does not necessarily, reflect contemporary Americans living in the age of internet/UTube. Liars can be outed/discredited within minutes so I do not subscribe to a wholesale buy-in to Mencken’s philosophical thought for 2009 political America.

  9. 161

    MataHarley

    premium_subscriber

    ok. the most famous daring liar. That part I get. However the American public does *not* admire Benedict Arnold, and he is the slang for “traitor”. Neither is Bernie Madoff admired by the American public.

    Thereby your comment still eludes me… Know what I mean? And Mark’s response made sense that, had the British retained control of Revolutionary America, there may have been a statue of Benedict Arnold in DC.

    Still ‘fused here, guy. Mencken is pretty much Ayn Rand/libertarian, anti-big govt for his era. The New Deal era pretty much killed his appeal since he was so vocal about the govt expansion. In this respect, his Great Depression older adult life is *very* relevant (at least to my political leanings) in 2009.

    BTW, Mencken lived from the late 1800s to 1956. He wasn’t in Benedict Arnold’s era. However what I *could* take away from Mencken’s quote is the epitome of Obama… “most admired”… “daring liar”. Perhaps more current events/ prescient than you give credit for, eh?

  10. 162

    MataHarley

    premium_subscriber

    Mark #89. So sorry I didn’ address this comment sooner… if you’re still out there.

    As Obama himself said Davis “fell short” and his views were “incurable,” what evidence is there that Obama trusted his counsel? With empirical evidence against it, and mere speculation for it, any objective analysis would have to “follow the evidence,” as they say on CSI.

    Thanks for your consideration.

    Let me say this emphatically… just in case you did not get this from my above comments about your father’s era, and today. While I can see your dad making more extreme contacts in his era, there is no way in Hades I can justify that from our privileged POTUS today.

    The fact that Obama “says” your father “fell short” of being a trusted counsel means nothing from a man who lives daily on political expediency for his every waking moment.

    I give your consideration for your father, your exposure to him intimately, and his time and place in our country. Obama? No pass…. And, in fact, I believe Obama just added your father under the bus, with the other sundry expendable bodies.

  11. 163

    American Voter

    “The men the American public admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth.”

    Not every quote conveniently transcends time and situation. . .thus my challenge . . but apparently I may not challenge.

    OK MataHarley. . .so in 2009. . .
    from what I have read from your responses, I am to believe. . .

    1) I may not challenge the wholesale use of this quote or I am affronting Mencken — even
    though his words rang true to the particular situation he was referring. (I do not agree
    that it fits with Anita Dunn, the White House vs Fox News. . .in large part because people
    have more facts/audio/video, at their instant need)

    2) This quote now wholesale applies to 100% of all Americans for any topic,
    transcending time — and topic — and the internet age.

    3) As an American, I cannot decide who I admire — for myself? I must embrace daring
    liars and cannot have my own opinions on a person’s integrity or message?

    Therefore as I am an American and Obama is one of the most daring liars — at least in my lifetime — I should embrace him because of a decades old quote. . .I will toss out my Conservative values tomorrow, never question anything, sing songs of Chairman Maobama, and block Fox News from my cable selection. So that will make me fit conveniently into the grove of the quote?

    I thought this thread was about Anita Dunn, the White House PR war, and Fox News. I have been dismayed with the daring liar Barrack Obama for over a decade and thankfully, the polls and Fox News ratings show that I am in growing company.

    I remained a conservative living in downtown Chicago after 10 years — as I think for myself.

    Not all quotations, as profound as they may have been at the time uttered, transcend time and situation.

  12. 164

    MataHarley

    premium_subscriber

    oh for crissakes, American Voter… what the hell are you talking about? I’m still trying to figure out why you would attribute an anti-goverment libertarian’s saying to Benedict Arnold… who was pro-England in the Revolution (and most certainly not anti-government… ) and I can’t get a cogent answer. No judgment call… just trying to sort out out your train of thought.

    I have to say… your clarification only made it worse, compounded by some pouting ‘tude.

    I’m not sure how you interpreted the quote, or why you seemed to attribute that to “the situation” (as opposed to Mark’s other quotes ending his comments??) to Benedict Arnold. But I sure can tell you… it’s the opposite of how I saw it.

    Since I can’t make heads of tails of your “wounded to the quick” response about challenging, maybe it will help if I offer up a more simplified translation and show you how I think it relates quite well to Obama.

    The men the American public admire most extravagantly [i.e. Obama, Axelrod, Rahm’bo, and ilk] are the most daring liars; [can’t argue that one…] the men they detest most violently [opposition… conservatives Beck? Rush? tea parties? insurance industries? CBO? pick one…] are those who try to tell them the truth.” – H. L. Mencken (1880 – 1956)

    Now the only way I can see the case you’re trying to make is maybe you’re thinking mirror opposite.. that the “public admires most” the conservative voices in today’s time. In which case, I need some of whatever you’re taking. Other than that, anti-big government are the voices Mencken (an anti-big government activist) was saying are the most detested…. both in his FDR era and our time today. Therefore it transcends time and situation perfectly.

  13. 165

    American Voter

    I don’t swear to make a statement. . . I was raised differently.

    No ‘tude here — I see it more on your part when someone disagrees with you — I don’t care to get another lecture — yes, you are HIGHLY intelligent BUT you do not have all the answers. Step down from your elitist intellect once in awhile and try to see other points. . .from the mainstream person’s point of view.

    Also, the difference in eras is the electronic instant information. . .which makes a difference in peoples’ opinions on truthfulness. If it made no difference — why is the FCC gearing up for net neutrality on Thursday — more control. People can lie — but they don’t get away with it forever otherwise Obama would still be in the 70s in poll ratings. Why does China control their internet access? Why are Fox News’ rating going up and BHO’s going down?

    This could all change — with total media control, we would be back to an FDR situation with no discernable way to determine truthfulness.

    It is late, I think you are very, very smart and highly knowledgeable on history and current events — but not always the supreme authority in philosophical thinking.

    By the way — Benedict Arnold was just used as an example of absurdity — The quote offered all americans revering the liar. . .no they don’t, not all.

    I am due to go on duty in a few minutes — so you win, you are an author, this is your site and there is no difference in 2009 to the era of FDR, and all Americans think alike…got it!

  14. 166

    Hard Right

    No larry, I did not quote mao. It’s just more dishonesty on your part. It’s like saying because mao once said the word car, I was quoting him when I said car. The fact is I actually wasn’t aware of what mao had said as murderous communist thugs aren’t my inspiration. Way to show we are right about you lying for obama and really, yourself.

    There are now 82 comments on this thread. Virtually all of them are the genre of echo chamber feeding the echo chamber. I was trying to interject a modicum of thoughtful debate.

    Ah yes, benevolent larry came here to save us partisan zombies from ourselves. Why, we must disagree with him because we just don’t think. Us close minded ideological bigots just need to be shown the light by someone of superior intellect or reasoning skills.
    Larry, you have just proven what I said. This really all about you and your ego. Your problem with us is that we refuse to join you in your fantasy world and you cannot deal with that.

    You can’t even be honest with yourself about your views.
    You claimed to be more fiscally conserrvative than Conservatives. Yet you support health reform that will create monster deficits and destroy the economy.
    You excuse obama’s spending by blaming it on Bush.
    You can’t even admit that obama’s picks aren’t moderate. You try to play the subjectivity game.
    You defend dunn because you are defending obama and by extension yourself. Just because you cannot see that doesn’t mean I can’t.
    There is no defending what she said and your eforts to do so ARE narcissistic and disgusting.

  15. @Hard Right:

    I do believe that Hitler is quoted in the Holocaust Museum….does that mean that the people who established and operate the museum agree with Hitler?

    No, not so much.

    Of course, Beck’s criticism of Dunn was not related to her quoting Mao…his well placed criticism of her was related to Dunn’s selection of Mao as one of her “favorite” philosophers…one that she returns to over and over.

    Wait until you hear the clip of the new manufacturing czar that was released today. As difficult as it is to believe, there’s a guy in the White House who is indeed quoting Mao…and agreeing with him about the results that can be achieved at the end of the barrel of a gun.

    This guy, Ron Bloom, doesn’t believe in the free market and openly admits it, calling the free market a “joke”.

    Unbelievable this group in the White House….is there a “normal” one in the bunch?

    Absolutely. Un. Believable.

    Yet the spinning, the knee padded gyrations, and the intellectually dishonest spittle flecked defenses will continue.

    How many radicals does it take to make a pattern?

  16. 168

    Mike's America


    Warning: implode() [function.implode]: Invalid arguments passed in /var/www/vhosts/floppingaces.net/httpdocs/wp-content/themes/floppingaces-2015/functions.php on line 281

    @American Voter: Don’t go away mad and PLEASE do not go away. Not sure what you are Mata are squabbling about but to quote Rodney King “Can’t we all just get along?”

    I always enjoy your comments and that’s not because I agree with them but it helps.

    @Aye Chihuahua:

    Is this the clip you were looking for?

  17. 170

    Hard Right

    They aren’t moderates but larry wants to play the definition of “is” game.

    Radical marxists that hate America are now in charge. Lovely.

  18. 171

    MataHarley

    premium_subscriber

    Well, Mike’s A… welcome to the club INRE what AV and I are “squabbling” about. To this moment, I still haven’t a clue what AV meant about Benedict Arnold in relation a quote about dissenters of big government being detested. Which, frankly, describes today’s times quite well. The liars are Obama, Dunn, etc. Those violently detested are the opposition.

    Twice I nicely requested some clarification of the bizarre analogy in comments #104 and again in #111, when the explanation in #110 made not a lick of sense. After all, neither Benedict Arnold or Madoff were “extravagantly” admired, neither were opposing big government, and Mencken did not live in the times as either of those men (ala AV: I was also looking at the era in which Mencken lived.)

    I then get some defensive slap with his/her snippy comment and ‘tude in #113, as if I’m somehow restricting his freedom of speech and having opinions. Huh? It then follows up with more personal insults in #115.

    Color me very baffled. Seems to be “a failure to communicate” here. Of course, that just must be entirely my fault. What the hey…

    No biggie. I’ll just have to accept that whatever train of thought there was INRE Mencken’s quote will just forever elude me. And at this point, I don’t give a whit what AV meant. May not have been raised to swear, but certainly has no problems slinging personal mud at me when the communications line go south. Just another heads up for me that there are some with whom we share similar opinons, but just can’t seem to carry on a sensible cyber conversation.

  19. 172

    openid.aol.com/runnswim

    @ Hard Right, who said:

    No larry, I did not quote mao. It’s just more dishonesty on your part. It’s like saying because mao once said the word car, I was quoting him when I said car. The fact is I actually wasn’t aware of what mao had said as murderous communist thugs aren’t my inspiration. Way to show we are right about you lying for obama and really, yourself.

    Actually, Hard Right, you DID quote Mao. You just didn’t know that you quoted Mao. Go to a familiar quotation source and look up “politics is war,” and Mao is credited as being the author. The fact that you apparently didn’t know this doesn’t change what you did.

    Let’s look at several other Mao quotes:

    Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools of thought contend.

    Despise the enemy strategically, but take him seriously tactically.

    Politics is war without bloodshed, while war is politics with bloodshed.

    And so on.

    Now, let’s say that your occupation is that of “professional political strategist.” Mao, as Dunn noted in her commencement speech, went from being a nobody to overthrowing a despotic regime and becoming the leader of a country of a billion people. By any definition, he is one of the most master political strategists of all time. Mao is generally viewed as being a political genius but a military klutz.

    Once again, Dunn’s point is that you can learn from everyone, and she intentionally chose polar opposites on the scale of human goodness. She clearly wasn’t holding up Mao as an example of human goodness, she was holding him up as one of the greatest political philosophers of all time. Which he clearly is.

    At the US Army War college, they study Ho Chi Minh, who was the master military strategist of his particular genre.

    Republicans don’t realize it, perhaps, but today’s political tactics (e.g. see above) are straight out of the Chairman Mao playbook. This goes for Republicans as well as Democrats. You guys are waging political war — in fact, you are waging political guerilla war. You despise the “enemy” strategically, but you take him seriously (at least you SHOULD take him seriously) tactically. One of your weaknesses is that you are unwilling to let different schools of thought contend. You suffer from a surfeit of certitude, and this threatens to be your downfall.

    You don’t realize it, but you would be vastly better off engaging me (e.g. in the style of Mata and Wordsmith) as opposed to simply throwing crude insults my way.

    Hard says that I’m here because of my “ego.” Well, I do have an ego, but that’s not the primary reason I’m here. I could go around knocking on doors and passing out leaflets. I have done that in the past, as when I wanted to convince the Huntington Beach City Council to build a youth sports complex. Or I could contribute money to go to political advertising. I’ve done only a little of the latter, choosing to invest, instead, in the education of my children and in the furtherance of my small business. Instead, I like discussing politics on the Internet, where there are 10 lurkers for every participant, and where it’s the lurkers who are potentially up for grabs, persuasion-wise. I’ll never convince anyone like Mike, or Aye, or Hard, or even Mata, Wordsmith, Scott, or the other polite conservatives who write on this blog. But I just might get the odd silent reader to view both sides of a given issue more equally, and this makes me feel as if I am participating in our political system.

    – Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

  20. 173

    Hard Right

    1) I did not quote mao. Stop lying. You know I wasn’t quoting him.

    2) You are a narcissist. Your latest post proves it. You are soooo enlightened and balanced you are going to save those who are ignorant from us partisans.

    3) Stop trying to make excuses for dunn/obama. She clearly looks to a mass murderer for guidance. The fact you even defend that says volumes about you.

    4) Seek mental help. You have next to no understanding of yourself. In fact I understand you better than you do. You haven’t a clue why you worship obama despite having been told multiple times. Liberalism is a mental illness and yes, you are a liberal.

  21. 176

    Mike's America


    Warning: implode() [function.implode]: Invalid arguments passed in /var/www/vhosts/floppingaces.net/httpdocs/wp-content/themes/floppingaces-2015/functions.php on line 281

    @openid.aol.com/runnswim: I’m the veteran of a number of statewide campaigns and also worked in the White House Office of Political Affairs during a presidential campaign. I can’t recall ONE “professional political strategist” in all that time who ever quoted Mao, let alone made a speech with him as a centerpiece.

    I do recall a great many conservatives citing Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson, John Locke, Samuel Adams and a host of other founding fathers, patriots and political philosophers.

    Your transparent attempt to sweep the Mao Mania in Obama land under the rug is LAUGHABLE!

  22. 177

    Mike's America


    Warning: implode() [function.implode]: Invalid arguments passed in /var/www/vhosts/floppingaces.net/httpdocs/wp-content/themes/floppingaces-2015/functions.php on line 281

    @Missy: He’s not speaking for me. He IS speaking for Obama and his cronies.

    Has anyone found a good link with all the Obama commie lovers yet?

    I did find this at American Thinker but wonder if there isn’t a better one?

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/ship_of_fools_obamas_intimates.html

  23. 178

    openid.aol.com/runnswim

    @Mike, Aye, Hard

    I dutifully read your replies (#123,124,126)

    From my perspective, I’ve said all I wish or need to say on this.

    – Larry w

  24. 181

    Mike's America


    Warning: implode() [function.implode]: Invalid arguments passed in /var/www/vhosts/floppingaces.net/httpdocs/wp-content/themes/floppingaces-2015/functions.php on line 281

    @openid.aol.com/runnswim: Oh goodie for you Larry… Here I thought you had picked up your marbles and headed home after being thoroughly discredited from start to finish but you saved the best for last.

    Had to look pretty long and hard for that one didn’t you? On the other hand, I could do a post a day on the connections between Obama Admin officials and commies.

    You really do surprise me sometimes. I would think you are smart enough to know when it would be better to stay quiet rather than destroy what little credibility you have left.

  25. 182

    openid.aol.com/runnswim

    How anyone can write a Mike/Aye/Hard Right response to a debate opponent (Choose one from each category):

    You are a (liberal/Leftist/Socialist/Marxist/Communist). This is just another one of your (falsehoods/fabrications/lies). You have been proven to be (wrong/delusional/without credibility/drinking too much Kool Aid, narcissistic, in need of psychotherapy). Your comments were (laughable, demented, whining, whacko).

    Sincerely, (Mike, Aye, Hard Right)

  26. 183

    Mark

    Credibility? Mike’s America’s flagrant lie about Davis being an “avowed Stalinist,” coupled with his questionable assertion of having researched Davis “in depth,” and followed by his refusal to explain himself, clearly reflect his lack of integrity.

  27. 184

    American Voter

    @Mike’s America —
    Thanks but I am not mad — I go through more grief while at workplace in planning meetings (they have nothing on political debate forums) and ESPECIALLY debating family at Thanksgiving/Christmas as I am sure many ‘enjoy’ — I was on duty last night and came home and slept. You can’t get rid of me that easily. (Although, at a social gathering a month ago, I sure heard a lot of backpeddling and “maybe I was wrong, he is not governing as a centrist” — from Obama voters)

    I was taught not to swear. I was raised to question everything. I was educated that not all of men’s words (quotes) transcend time, scenario and situation — learn from them, but question.

    When someone offers a quote to back up their belief in public forum it was perfectly ok to question. Therefore, when someone offers me a quote to convince me that Americans love the White House Staff and President just because they are liars — I say that yes, a percentage do but that is shifting. Does everyone love FOX News/Glenn Beck — no but it is shifting also — a varitable rating s bonanza. To me the quote applies to polarized viewpoints — NOT WHOLESALE American views.
    ——————————-The quote Mata Harley interpreted for me as she though me too stupid to understand. . .represents a leftist viewpoint.

    The men the American public admire most extravagantly [i.e. Obama, Axelrod, Rahm’bo, and ilk] are the most daring liars; [can’t argue that one…] the men they detest most violently [opposition… conservatives Beck? Rush? tea parties? insurance industries? CBO? pick one…] are those who try to tell them the truth.” – H. L. Mencken (1880 – 1956)
    ——————————-

    I do not subscribe that all Americans most admire the daring liars and used examples to show this formula does not apply. . .wholesale. Neither does that apply wholesale to whistle blowers.

    I used absurd examples to try and blow a whole in this. . .ie daring Liars in history — Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini (although he was breifly a darling), and thousands more — including the absurd examples of two well known liars. . .Madoff, Benedict Arnold, Were/are all of these admired by all Americans because they were liars?

    Subsequently, are all whistle blowers reviled? Woodward and Bernstein come to mind. Glenn Beck IS hated by the left but boy if I had a tv show at 5 o’clock, I sure would love his ratings. And by the way, not everyone loathes Beck. . .he is doing some questioning that was left undone by MSM.

    Additionally, I was trying to raise a point that Americans can run to the internet and check out facts more readily than even a decade ago. . .citizen journalism goes around determined propagandists.

    So while I appreciate and love any history lessons as a chance to learn, I did not appreciate the patronization. I am just trying to question the wholesale application of a quote. . .to justify the argument. . .

    Finally.
    Our country is in a varitable tug-of-war for it’s very foundation. As imperfect of a country as we may be, we have always strived to evolve, improve, and help those in true need.

    We are divided politically (and have been at times throughout our history) and each side of the fence has its arguments. For awhile, Obama was able to con enough people to his campaign rhetoric and hollow promises. According to THE quote we have been beating like a dead horse – Americans love him and his minions. . .but I do not believe all love him. According to the quote. . . the whistle blowers are reviled (FOX et al). . but I do not believe all are reviled. Just depends from what side of the rope one is tugging.

    In this political tug-of-war regarding the White House/Anita Mao Dunn vs Fox/Glenn Beck, I think a more appropriate quote to be ————————
    You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.
    Abraham Lincoln, (attributed)
    16th president of US (1809 – 1865)

    My bet is on the common sense of the American people winning the tug-of-war — and as long as we have the internet and free speech, and speak up about the glorification of mass murderers and stop their deification — our odds are good. . .very good and I’ll bet the 1.8 million of my new best friends that I marched with in DC on 9-12 will back me up on that one!

  28. @openid.aol.com/runnswim:

    Perhaps when you whine like a six year old girl about being referred to as a (liberal [which you, yourself, admit.]/Leftist/Socialist/Marxist/Communist) or about your assertions being exposed as (falsehoods/fabrications/lies [proven over and over and over again]) or about having been proven to be (wrong/delusional/without credibility/drinking too much Kool Aid, narcissistic, in need of psychotherapy) we should simply respond to you with:

    “We know it when we see it.”

    That is, after all, the standard to which your hold yourself.

  29. 187

    openid.aol.com/runnswim

    @Aye (#135).

    No, not “proven” over and over and over again.

    Asserted

    over and over and over again.

    Assertions and judgements by those so asserting, do not make the assertions true.

    In fact, using your own (not exactly high) standards, one might label these assertions as falsehoods.

    Your debate strategy is to make a baseless accusation, keep asserting the accusation, get in the last word, then, in future threads, make allusions to your accusation, elevating it to an assertion, which you claim to have “proven.”

    Uh-uh. The only ones buying it are those who think as you. I’m going over your head and over their heads.

    – Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

  30. @openid.aol.com/runnswim:

    Sorry to be the one to break it to you there champ…but yes, it’s been proven over and over and over.

    Shall I link some examples?

    Of course you’re free, as always, to present something other than your indignant claims in order to attempt to offset the immutable facts.

    Why don’t you start with some screen shots of the mysterious, ever-elusive, non-existent Snopes page you were supposedly quoting or perhaps some Adam Smith quotes in which he supported a progressive income tax as you claimed?

    There are others, but those should keep you busy for a bit.

  31. 189

    Mark

    The “big lie” propaganda technique is epitomized by so-called “Accuracy In Media” and even Mike’s America in their fraudulent “Stalinist” meme. George Orwell (“1984″) described it as “To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed…”

  32. 191

    openid.aol.com/runnswim

    @Aye #138:

    Oh, so those are your examples?

    I explained the “Snopes” thing in detail before. Everyone else got it.

    We were talking about the Obama Peace Prize. Two questions were (1) did he deserve it and (2) wasn’t it odd that he was nominated only 12 days after the inauguration.

    I thought I remembered that George W Bush had been nominated for the Peace Prize also. I did a quick and dirty Google search and brought up a Snopes article, the (large bold) headline for which said “True.” The first headline (and example given) made mention of a rumor that Bush was nominated in 2001, which would have been shortly after his inauguration. I stopped reading at that point and just went and added that to my post. It wasn’t some big major point, and I did provide the link (so, obviously, I wasn’t trying to “lie” about anything).

    After I “published” my comment, I did a mechanical check on the link. I virtually always do this (mechanically check the link, to make sure it works, after it’s posted). To my great surprise, the headline had been changed; it now said “Mixed.” So, for the first time, I read the article carefully and it said that (1) there is no official, public record of Nobel prize nominations; so that no one has the definitive information, (2) the evidence that Bush was nominated in 2002 was much more credible than the evidence he was nominated in 2001, and (3) there are more than 100 Nobel Peace prize nominees; which did buttress my basic assertion that it really wasn’t so remarkable for Obama to have received the nomination shortly after being sworn in, which was the main point I was trying to make.

    Now, I discovered the above within 5 minutes after having posted it and I quickly went back and corrected my mistake. I did this BEFORE Aye’s subsequent “gotcha” comment.

    So, yes, I was “guilty” of having made a careless mistake but (1) there is no way that this mistake met any real world definition of a “lie” and (2) I discovered and corrected the mistake, almost immediately.

    With respect to Adam Smith, the concept that I ever “lied” is outrageous. I stated that Adam Smith has been considered by many to be the father of the progressive tax (which, through the logic of Smith’s own words, includes the progressive income tax, a tax which hadn’t been invented in Smith’s day). This statement is 100% true, as anyone can confirm by Googling “Adam Smith” and “progressive tax.” Here’s only one of a great many examples:

    http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/access/73816461.html?dids=73816461:73816461&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Apr+26%2C+1987&author=Robert+B.+Reich&pub=The+Washington+Post+(pre-1997+Fulltext)&edition=&startpage=d.01&desc=Do+Americans+Still+Believe+In+Sharing+The+Burden%3F

    Quote:

    >>Even Adam Smith, the progenitor of free market-conservatism, saw the wisdom of a progressive tax: “It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more in proportion.”<<

    I have truly never read (or heard) any single person abuse the verb "to lie" to the extent that Aye abuses this word, in his shameful attempts to discredit arguments by discrediting people.

    – Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

  33. 192

    MataHarley

    premium_subscriber

    The miscommunication continues, AV. You said, INRE Mark Davis:

    When someone offers a quote to back up their belief in public forum it was perfectly ok to question. Therefore, when someone offers me a quote to convince me that Americans love the White House Staff and President just because they are liars — I say that yes, a percentage do but that is shifting.

    Again, a head scratcher. Mark did not offer the Mencken quote for that purpose. And in fact, INRE the subject of this post, he offered this:

    Mark #97: Sorry, Mike’s America, but I could care less about Anita Dunn. My blogosphere attention is focused almost exclusively on refuting the lies concerning my father, such as your “avowed Stalinist” fabrication.

    This is the exact same reason Mark entered the FA forum last August. Not to address the subject, but address solely what was said about his father. His quotes (yes, plural) offered were attached to many of his comments, by varied authors, all addressing the concept of spreading lies (exactly the reason he’s present in the thread). i.e.

    Comment 81: “Truth is generally the best vindication against slander.” – Abraham Lincoln

    Comment 89: “Have patience awhile; slanders are not long-lived. Truth is the child of time; erelong she shall appear to vindicate thee.” – Immanuel Kant

    Comment 91: “The men the American public admire most extravagantly are the most daring
    liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the
    truth.” – H. L. Mencken (1880 – 1956)

    Comment 93: “I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. That is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant.”
    – Martin Luther King Jr. (1929 – 1968)

    Comment 95: “The way to combat noxious ideas is with other ideas. The way to combat falsehoods is with truth.” – William O. Douglas

    This has to do with Anita Dunn, Obama and the White House how? It doesn’t. Therefore, the quote you addressed, which you seemed to assume that Mark meant that “Americans love the White House Staff and President just because they are liars” is the first off tangent miscommunication.

    It goes downhill from there.

    The second miscommunication is your assumption the Mencken quote had to include every and all Americans, *and* that they admired them *because* they are liars. If you knew much about Mencken and his writings (which I can now only assume you don’t… and no, that’s not said with an attitude or judgment), he was saying is that those who generally garner the most admiration from the American public *are* liars, and they detest those that try to expose their heroes as liars.

    Nothing could be more appropriate for Obama and the nation/media today than Mencken’s quote.

    The third miscommunication was assuming that Mencken, born 80 years or so after Benedict Arnold had died, was in the same era. In fact, Mencken didn’t start most of these works (other than his cub report gig at a Baltimore paper) 1906 and later. Which is why Mark stated he believed it was a 20th century quote.

    The last miscommunication was you assuming I was somehow infringing on your right to challenge (erroneously) Mark’s purpose for a quote that never existed. I established right from the start that I was merely trying to figure out how you got to your remark on that quote… (and never addressed any of Mark’s other quotes). Especially since you consistently tied it to Anita Dunn… whom Davis has no comment on. It’s not his purpose here.

    Then you launch against me.

    And now I’m a “leftist”. BWAHAHAHA Must remember to see if the DNC will let me within 20 feet of their doors. That oughta be a hoot.

    Like I said… failure to communicate. However unlike you, I did not attack you personally. Instead, in your own failure to communicate/comprehend, you figured I was demeaning you. So you felt justified in becoming personal with me.

    So be it. You’re not the only like minded commenter here with whom I can’t carry on a conversation. Neither of us will lose sleep about it. And if you feel more comfortable as the victim, have at it.

    As for me? This thread has become far too ugly and base on many levels for me to tolerate further… even from the friendlies. You all enjoy your mud slinging and imaginary battles. Further comments will now end up in my e-trash bin.

  34. The first headline (and example given) made mention of a rumor that Bush was nominated in 2001, which would have been shortly after his inauguration.

    I have tracked back and posted page versions all the way back to 2004 which plainly state “Bush wasn’t amongst the nominees…in 2001″ and, later, there was “no substantive evidence to support the claim”.

    I contend that is precisely what the page you read had to say…yet you disregarded that information and posted the claim anyway.

    There’s not an iota of anything to support your claim…in fact, every available version of the page is an explicit 180 degrees in the other direction…yet you posted it anyway.

    Feel free to post the page that you referenced.

    As to Adam Smith, all one needs to do is read his own words to discover that he thought income taxes (of all types) to be “absurd and destructive”.

    In fact, Smith had much to say about his opposition to income taxes and he went into great detail as to why. Perhaps reading The Wealth of Nations (all five volumes) would help. Until then, some snippets for you:

    The ordinary or average price of provisions determines the quantity of money which must be paid to the workman in order to enable him, one year with another, to purchase this liberal, moderate, or scanty subsistence. While the demand for labour and the price of provisions, therefore, remain the same, a direct tax upon the wages of labour can have no other effect than to raise them somewhat higher than the tax. Let us suppose, for example, that in a particular place the demand for labour and the price of provisions were such as to render ten shillings a week the ordinary wages of labour, and that a tax of one-fifth, or four shillings in the pound, was imposed upon wages. If the demand for labour and the price of provisions remained the same, it would still be necessary that the labourer should in that place earn such a subsistence as could be bought only for ten shillings a week free wages. But in order to leave him such free wages after paying such a tax, the price of labour must in that place soon rise, not to twelve shillings a week only, but to twelve and sixpence; that is, in order to enable him to pay a tax of one-fifth, his wages must necessarily soon rise, not one-fifth part only, but one-fourth. Whatever was the proportion of the tax, the wages of labour must in all cases rise, not only in that proportion, but in a higher proportion. If the tax, for example, was one-tenth, the wages of labour must necessarily soon rise, not one-tenth part only, but one-eighth.

    A direct tax upon the wages of labour, therefore, though the labourer might perhaps pay it out of his hand, could not properly be said to be even advanced by him; at least if tile demand for labour and the average price of provisions remained the same after the tax as before it. In all such cases, not only the tax but something more than the tax would in reality be advanced by the person who immediately employed him. The final payment would in different cases fall upon different persons. The rise which such a tax might occasion in the wages of manufacturing labour would be advanced by the master manufacturer, who would both be entitled and obliged to charge it, with a profit, upon the price of his goods. The final payment of this rise of wages, therefore, together with the additional profit of the master manufacturer, would fall upon the consumer. The rise which such a tax might occasion in the wages of country labour would be advanced by the farmer, who, in order to maintain the same number of labourers as before, would be obliged to employ a greater capital. In order to get back this greater capital, together with the ordinary profits of stock, it would be necessary that he should retain a larger portion, or what comes to the same thing, the price of a larger portion, of the produce of the land, and consequently that he should pay less rent to the landlord. The final payment of this rise of wages, therefore, would in this case fall upon the landlord, together with the additional profit of the farmer who had advanced it. In all cases a direct tax upon the wages of labour must, in the long-run, occasion both a greater reduction in the rent of land, and a greater rise in the price of manufactured goods, than would have followed from the proper assessment of a sum equal to the produce of the tax partly upon the rent of land, and partly upon consumable commodities.

    If direct taxes upon the wages of labour have not always occasioned a proportionable rise in those wages, it is because they have generally occasioned a considerable fall in the demand for labour. The declension of industry, the decrease of employment for the poor, the diminution of the annual produce of the land and labour of the country, have generally been the effects of such taxes. The consequence of them, however, the price of labour must always be higher than it otherwise would have been in the actual state of the demand: and this enhancement of price, together with the profit of those who advance it, must always be finally paid by the landlords and consumers.

    A tax upon the wages of country labour does not raise the price of the rude produce of land in proportion to the tax, for the same reason that a tax upon the farmer’s profit does not raise that price in that proportion.

    Absurd and destructive as such taxes are, however, they take place in many countries.

    Pretty clear, eh?

    “It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more in proportion.”

    Partial quotes, out of context, will jump up and bite you in the ass every time. Here’s the entirety of what Smith had to say directly from Smith himself. Note that he is speaking of taxes on house rents (property taxes), not income taxes:

    The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

    The sad thing is this is yet another in a long string of exchanges where I have pointed out the facts; first about Smith, and now Snopes.

  35. 194

    openid.aol.com/runnswim

    @Aye:

    My statement was that Adam Smith is often cited as the father of the progressive tax and it has been widely quoted that BOTH Karl Marx and Adam Smith supported this. That is absolutely, demonstrably, 100% true. Google it. My quotation was by Robert Reich, former Harvard and current UC Berkeley professor and former Secretary of Labor. You want to have an academic debate on the matter, that’s one thing. You could debate with Reich, and I’m prepared to debate with you. But this doesn’t have any impact on the veracity of my statement above.

    With regard to your quotations and arguments, here are my counter-arguments.

    We are talking about two entirely different issues. The first is this: what forms of taxes are to be preferred over other taxes? Smith clearly prefers real estate taxes to income taxes. The second issue is this: once the debate over taxes has been settled, should the tax be “flat” or should it be “progressive?” The words and reasoning of Adam Smith certainly can be (and have been) used to claim that Adam Smith supported progressive taxation.

    The battle over which form of taxation is to be preferred at the Federal level has been decided in favor of the income tax, where it was first imposed by Congress and signed by Lincoln in 1862 to pay for the war and remained in force for almost 10 years. It has been a permanent fixture since the passage of the 16th Amendment in 1913).

    With regard to Snopesgate, I told you exactly what happened. I read the headlines and “went” with those headlines. Within 5 minutes, when doing a purely mechanical check, the headline had been changed from “True” to “Mixed” and I — only at that time — actually read the rest of the article. And I did this within 5 minutes of the original post and I immediately corrected it — BEFORE your “gotcha” post. You want to call me careless — fine. The shoe fits, in this instance. But it wasn’t an intentional lie, and the fact that I posted the link proves that I had no intention to deceive anyone, and it is a fact that you were called out on your shameful attempts to impugn my integrity by a blog reader who happened to be a conservative and you were supported in this effort by no one.

    – Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

  36. @openid.aol.com/runnswim:

    The words and reasoning of Adam Smith certainly can be (and have been) used to claim that Adam Smith supported progressive taxation.

    Not without completely butchering and being absolutely dishonest about what Smith actually said. Hence the lengthy quotes that I provided from Smith’s own words.

    No matter how many times Smith is supposedly “quoted” on the Interwebz, the truth of the claims is sorely lacking as I have pointed out to you over and over and over.

    and it is a fact that you were called out on your shameful attempts to impugn my integrity by a blog reader who happened to be a conservative

    Actually, not true at all.

    SOP referred to my repeated insistence that you provide proof to support your point.

    He/she found my tone “aggressive” which I readily admit is true and make no apologies for.

    SOP was operating at a disadvantage. The poster in question has a very short history here (+/- 6 posts at that moment) and was unaware of our past exchanges, hence my effort to bring them up to speed in a later post.

    As a side note, I would also like to note that my requests for proof of your claim went unanswered from one end of the thread to the other. My requests for specificity regarding prior Peace Prize winners who supposedly received the Prize “not for actual accomplishment, but for good intentions instead” also remain unanswered.

    I read the headlines and “went” with those headlines. Within 5 minutes, when doing a purely mechanical check, the headline had been changed from “True” to “Mixed” and I — only at that time — actually read the rest of the article.

    The problem here is that the “headlines” you’re trying to fall back on as justification never supported your claim regarding the 2001 nomination. The pages said “True” and later “Mixed” in regard to a 2002 nomination.

    Furthermore, as I have said multiple times already, the pages point in the exact opposite direction of what you would have had us to believe regarding 2001.

    and you were supported in this effort by no one.

    So, under the application of your pretzel logic the only way I can be correct is if someone else supports me, eh?

    I’ll tuck that gem of reasoning away for future reference because 99.9994% of the time you have no one at all supporting your arguments.

    And with this post, I am done discussing things with you on this thread.

  37. 196

    ben johnson

    You know what Mr. Beck – I’l GLAD SHE’S there; I’m glad she has the sensibility to be OPEN to alternative SUCCESS methods towards the betterment of the people as a whole. There’s too much of this “what’s in it for me” bs in this country. Maybe the ideals that help propel the NEXT greatest economy and country on this world will be finally be seen here before it’s too late. Oh yes Mr Beck the downfall has already started. The Chinese have just begun to over take and supplant the US as the leading economic force on this planet. The US will NEVER be able to buy back all the (financial) paper the the chinese posses; and just wait for the day when they call for those notes to become due – that will be the epitome of the greed and arrogance the US has shown the rest of the world.

  38. 197

    Mark

    I POSTED: The “big lie” propaganda technique is epitomized by so-called “Accuracy In Media” and even Mike’s America in their fraudulent “Stalinist” meme. George Orwell (”1984″) described it as “To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed…”

    MIKE’S AMERICA RESPONDED: “Thanks Mark. You just described what you and your fellow Stalinists DO EVERY DAY!”

    So there you have it, ladies & gentlemen! Not only does Mike’s America refuse to substantiate his claim that Frank Marshall Davis was an “avowed Stalinist,” but he has now expanded his delusion to include ME because I challenged his claim.

    This clearly reflects the cognitive impairment of Mike’s America and his ilk. As reflected in the “Right-Wing Fantasyland” post at http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/Kaleokualoha/gG59cf :

    “Jumping to conclusions seems to be quite common in the fantasyland of the right-wing blogosphere. When asked to substantiate their conclusions, we may encounter bluster, red herrings, and ad hominem attacks more often than rational, focused answers. Military Intelligence students are quickly disabused of such behavior, and learn the value of supporting every conclusion they proffer. Researchers at the Rand Corporation and other highly regarded research institutions often come from such rigorous backgrounds, where conclusions are based on empirical evidence, rather than wishful thinking.”

    I only wish that I had encountered such wretched characters while on active duty. I would have taught them the cost of such dishonorable conduct, one way or another.

  39. 198

    shaggyworks

    i am like most people i know . i have a job ( NOT NOW ) come home from work cook clean help my kid with homework you know the living biz . well i have found my sealf with some time on my hands and though i would look at gleen beck who i have olney seen 3 – 4 times . i don’t trust the news that i see on tv it just fells like bullshit . seen gleens show and though i would do some looking in to how much bullshit he was squarting out of his mouth . the more i look at his crazy talk the more i trust him . so far he is looking good in my eyes ill prob keep an eye on him after i find a job . i don’t vote becouse i don’t have time to look at what is going on and i don’t trust people ( don’t want to vote for the next hittler ) bush was bad president Barack Obama i don’t know yet i know he it trying to do good thaings but so was hittler . he was trying to change the world

  40. 199

    openid.aol.com/runnswim

    @aye (#145):

    Thank you for demonstrating so clearly the wretchedness of your repeated claims that I have “lied” on the Internet.

    You offer the following examples:

    1. The fact that I stated that a great many people, included highly respected academics, have cited Adam Smith as supporting progressive taxation, along with Karl Marx. You disagree with this premise; I think that Smith’s words clearly show that he does support the concept that people with more money should pay higher taxes, but that’s not the point. The point is that I didn’t lie about anything.

    2. You keep bringing up Snopesgate.

    To quote your #145:

    First, quoting me:

    I read the headlines and “went” with those headlines. Within 5 minutes, when doing a purely mechanical check, the headline had been changed from “True” to “Mixed” and I — only at that time — actually read the rest of the article.

    You retort:

    The problem here is that the “headlines” you’re trying to fall back on as justification never supported your claim regarding the 2001 nomination. The pages said “True” and later “Mixed” in regard to a 2002 nomination.

    O.K. Why don’t we all go and look at the page in question:

    http://www.snopes.com/rumors/nobel.asp

    Current Headlines:

    Claim: President George W Bush was nominated to receive the Nobel Peace Prize

    Status: Mixture (at the time I first read and made my post, it had said True)

    Example: (Collected on the Internet, 2001)

    Now, if one goes on to carefully read the entire piece, it’s evident that, while there is no proof that Bush was ever nominated, the Snopes people consider 2001 to be mere rumor, while 2002 is felt to have more support. However, at the time of my original post, I was hurried (I was actually attending a breast cancer meeting at the San Francisco Marriott and was literally on a breakfast/coffee break in an area with Wi-Fi access) and did not carefully read the text under the headlines. So I made a very temporary mistake, which I myself discovered and corrected within five minutes of the original posting and before Aye posted his “gotcha” message. I discovered my mistake by simply doing a mechanical check of the link. The only reason I discovered the mistake was because the Snopes people had changed the headline from “True” to “Mixed” (or “Mixture,” I thought I’d remembered it was “Mixed,” but today it says “Mixture,” but that’s not substantive).

    This whole Snopes thing is very useful for illustrating Aye’s debate style. When Aye doesn’t agree with your arguments, he focuses the bulk of his energies on going after you, as a person. The Snopes thing has to be the most trivial issue imaginable: were I trying to “lie” about Bush being nominated for the Nobel Prize, would I post a link to my source for this, when the source did not agree with my claim? What this shows is that I made a careless mistake (which, again, I corrected within 5 minutes — before the end of my coffee break); and I have explained this again and again and again, in response to Aye’s continued assertions that this supports his contention that I’m a liar. But Aye just continues to make the assertions.

    Here’s my assertion. Aye is a gutless coward who libels people while hiding behind a pseudonym.

    Quoting me, directed to Aye:

    and it is a fact that you were called out on your shameful attempts to impugn my integrity by a blog reader who happened to be a conservative

    Aye responds:

    Actually, not true at all.
    SOP referred to my repeated insistence that you provide proof to support your point.
    He/she found my tone “aggressive” which I readily admit is true and make no apologies for.

    Your “insistence” that I provide “proof?”

    Good grief, I explained what happened about the Snopes thing. I misread the Snopes article, made a mistake, found my mistake, and corrected it within 5 minutes. What “proof” was required?

    Quoting me:

    and you were supported in this effort by no one.

    Aye responds:

    So, under the application of your pretzel logic the only way I can be correct is if someone else supports me, eh?

    I’ll tuck that gem of reasoning away for future reference because 99.9994% of the time you have no one at all supporting your arguments.

    Here’s the issue: What percent of contributors to this blog are conservatives? I don’t know. But it’s very large. I do know that whenever I make posts which argue against the conservative point of view, I am immediately gang tackled by hordes of conservatives. Of course, no one ever supports any of my arguments. Who wants to be gang tackled by hordes of conservatives?

    But no one and I mean no one thinks that I was “lying” to anyone, regarding the Bush/Nobel prize post. I provided a link. I made a careless mistake. I found my own mistake within 5 minutes and corrected it. And this episode is your exhibit A with regard to me being a liar. And the Adam Smith thing is exhibit B.

    In your latest post, you seemingly offer an exhibit C.

    My requests for specificity regarding prior Peace Prize winners who supposedly received the Prize “not for actual accomplishment, but for good intentions instead” also remain unanswered.

    No, that’s not true. I provided such a list of people who received awards for good intentions but negligible achievement. I conceded that Obama’s nomination was an extreme example of this.

    You apparently believe that the UN Climate Change Committee had achieved something beyond good intentions; others might disagree. In any event, this honest difference of opinion between us is simply that — honest. It is not a lie.

    Again, here’s my assertion:

    Aye is a gutless coward who libels people while hiding behind a pseudonym.

    – Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>