It is distasteful to me that you take such a serious topic in such a cavelier manner.
as you've yet again failed to differentiate any terms or distinction.
*Sigh* More blowhard accusations. Your ability to insult and accuse has been entertained enough for me to be solidly convinced of your impropriety.
Seeing that you've refrained from civilized discussion and are resorting to flailing about and gnashing your teeth, I pity that you invest so much in debates that you never intend to win. It seems that your point was abandoned long ago, and in your minds eye you throw hurtful accusations -- not in an effort to further the discussion, but as a means to exact for yourself some childish retribution.
I'll be around when you wish to get back to the point...
I'm sorry that you are unfamiliar with the history of the United States. What country are you from? Sometimes I just assume.
Yes, there are a lot of assumptions in those sentances, aren't there.
Here's a primer on this particular subject.
Not suprisingly, there is nothing in there that supports your claim. Perhaps, instead of vague handwaving you could present succinctly the points you wish to make.
Things have progressed since then.
Yes they have. But I'm with Bill, calling each other the 'n' word is not what one would call progression.
No, his assumption about the hate-filled eyes that would be coming to get him if he dared speak to the kids in the 'modern slang' was the racist part.
Even if that were true, that doesn't excuse the racism you showed in lauging at him for not being a black man. Nor the racism you show in presuming that only black people have tasted discrimination. Quite honestly you are the most racist, hateful person I've encountered since KatherineD on Poliglut. And that is saying something! Much more racist than LGF.
Muslim, Islam, Islamist, Wahabbi Terrorist, whatever, it's all the same to you.
Another set of words to put in others mouths? One would have expected you to learn better by now. You know what, the inability to get out of fatuous ruts is not uncommon to you. But you seem to do it with more flair than most.
ability to completely miss what it is I'm writing.
If only, if only. Now, really. Aside from these red-herrings, what was your point again?
You miss the part where I said "no longer directly followed by...direct violence to the name-called"?
You know what I did, and to your credit. Had I seen it I would have rather pointed it out for its obvious over-embelishment of the negative connotations. Your rhetoric knows no limits, well if you consider historic context to be limits;)
So you presume to lecture Bill Cosby on what 'nigger' means. And attempt to deflect alphapatriot that being laughed at because he isn't black as something other than racism.
So, what was your point again? Me thinks you've gotten lost chasing your own red-herrings;)
The signal to noise ration has, unfortunately fell through the floor now. Any last words? Last meal? Cigarette? Okay, ready or not...
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Unfortunately we will be left guessing just how it is different:) Even more important we will be left guessing just what distinction you make between those that practice a peaceful religion espoused by Mohamed and those that use it to subject the world to it politically.
Sharia law, when interpreted by backwoods nutjobs, is quite like that.
Hmm, I wonder what you (who presumes to *not* be a backwoods nutjob) would interpret this example Shar'ia law...
"Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great." (Qur'an 4:34 English translation: MH Shakir)
isn't quite up to the barbarism you subscribe to all Muslims
You'd think your attempts to put words in others mouths would have been exposed enough for you to abandon this most dishonest tactic... Apparently some dogs never learn new tricks. Again it is you who is wants to "subscribe to all Muslims" some grand conflation. I'll keep pointing that out as often as you do that.
But again this invites the question of how you would draw the distinction...
Sources of law are Islamic law
The US law has Islamic sources also. For instance we have Sheriffs. But no one says that we in the US live under Islamic law.
Even more relevant to this discussion is that before the current elections Indonesia was still seen as a largely secular society. The influence of Sharia law is seen mainly in family law.
That would explain your confusion.
Now your just being cheeky:)
Dictionary. Look into it.
It never ceases to amaze just how much your argument hinges on presuming what I don't know. What part isn't ad-hominem or deliberate misquoting that is;)
merely expanding the number of people that must be destroyed before peace can come again.
Must be destroyed? You are advocating destroying whole religions? Since as you seem inable to draw a difference between an Islamist and a Muslim, one can only conclude that is how you think. Yet the derision in your voice as you accuse LGF of the same thing would lead me to think otherwise. I'm not sure you've worked this issue out fully yet.
The fact that you think "Islam" is some sort of Muslim Protestant tells me
You know, taking words out of context is always easily countered by putting them back in context. Observe...
This is how you quoted me...
Islam is to Muslim what Protestant is to Christianity. But the main difference is that Islamists believe in a political superiority that drives a nationalistic expansion of their law to the whole world. It is the mixture of the political ambitions with the Muslim religion that makes one an Islamist.
Seems like a cohesive structure doesn't it. No clues to demark any editorial cutting or adding. However, here is the origional quote...
Probably the best way I can explain it is this: Islam is to Muslim what Protestant is to Christianity. Well that just explains that Islam is a subset of Muslim, and how much depends on who you talk to. But the main difference is that Islamists believe in a political superiority that drives a nationalistic expansion of their law to the whole world. It is the mixture of the political ambitions with the Muslim religion that makes one an
I see why you are confused. When someone on LGF talks about the 'death cult' they mean Islam.
You have a far ways to go to show sufficient grounding to call others confused;)
It's not better than calling someone 'nigger' and then stringing them up to a tree? I guess we have different conceptions of what progess is, in that case.
Talk about your intellectual honesty. Don't think the bait and switch is lost on me. The progress being refered to was established by yourself as...
The main point being that the word has been able to enter popular culture because it's utterance is no longer directly followed by, or is an implied threat of, direct violence against the name-called. A linguistic pavlovian response that has been mediated by cultural progess.
As you didn't mention trees or string, it is positively disingenious for you to redefine what you mean by progress post-hoc. Don't think the attempt is lost on me though.
And the acceptance of the 'n' word is not progress in my book at all. As Bill Cosby has pointed out much better than I can.
"The more you invest in that child, the more you are not going to let some CD tell your child how to curse and how to say the word 'nigger.' This is an accepted word. You are so hip with 'nigger,' but you can't even spell it," an impassioned Cosby lamented
Whatever happened to 'Black is beautiful?' Well, it was replaced with 'nigger please,'" he said to laughter.
LGF does what it can to paint Islam as a religion of violence and to stir up hatred for those that follow it.
Which is different than painting the Muslim religion and stirring up hatred against it. But I digress as I think you are getting closer. The last hurdle is to answer if LGF doing that or are they just relaying what Islam is doing and that is the natural reaction it solicits. As Bill Whittle points out they aren't writing five page essays on the hate rhetoric of Islam and why it needs decisive action. He is simply relaying what the islamic clerics themselves are preaching and doing. That so many in the comments section react that way is, in my view, understandable. But I hardly blame the messenger.
Then pray tell, why is the title of the post, penned by Mr. Johnson, "Discipline, Islamic Style"?
Islamic law in practice is rather bloody in its prescribed punishments. That the teacher as a single datapoint doesn't indict a religion, the religion does that on its own. LGF runs a site open to comments, feel free to express your concern over his title. As far as I'm concerned I see where he is coming from. It is a bit over-reaching but not unwarranted.
That citing a questionable source, refuted by others
The severity of the punishment may be in question, but not the overbearance of the punishment. You continue to conflate the two issues as one grand inaccuracy in a spitefully driven ambition to make hay for a strawman. And I'll continue to point that out;)
As yes, the difference between Islam and Muslim is what exactly?
Probably the best way I can explain it is this: Islam is to Muslim what Protestant is to Christianity. Well that just explains that Islam is a subset of Muslim, and how much depends on who you talk to. But the main difference is that Islamists believe in a political superiority that drives a nationalistic expansion of their law to the whole world. It is the mixture of the political ambitions with the Muslim religion that makes one an Islamist.
So the crux of Charles' position is based on that single statement by a traunatized child?
Apparently. And it is a good thing for Charles to show the intellectual honesty to reveal his source. Who for all the problems not withstanding is an eye-witness to the account. Again, if what I said was "your point exactly" then you would agree that you are over-reaching.
This makes my point precisely. Regardless of what actually happened, it still points to the 'fact' that Islam is psychotic.
No, I wouldn't agree with you or Charles or Zombie on that. The actions of a disgruntled school teacher who was punished (albeit too lightly for my tastes) does not indict a expansionist political movement nor religion. Well, not on its own. It only points to the person committing the attrocity.
Also, it's pretty obvious that Zombie feels this applies to the religion as a whole.
So far this is something I've only seen you say. I've read Zombie's comments and they were rather reasonable in that regard, he differentiated between Islam and Muslim just as you expect him/her to do. Again, this is something you would already have accepted if what I said was your "point precisely". Not, "my point almost". Not, "My point for the most part". You said, "my point precisely".
Unfortunately you would be sad to learn that I live in Harlem, and the phrase used above is a colloquial version
You pin a lot on what you presume others don't know. Rest assured it means the same thing where I am from.
A linguistic pavlovian response that has been mediated by cultural progess.
I'm with Bill Cosby on this one, calling people 'nigga' is not progress.
you are simply wrong, or have never read a single thread on LGF.
Again, you hang a lot on what you presume I don't know. Do you really want to base your argument on me never having read a thread on LGF?
Selected quotes from that thread
Selected? Enough said;)
You'd be amazing how sustaining hatred can be.
Ask the Palestinians.
Agreed.
Also, one learns in any forum to take comments with a grain of salt. Sure there are people out there that believe we should Nuke the muslim world. Marxist Hacker42 is one of them on/. for example. And they are genuine (I think) in their desire for a final solution. Wrong, but genuine. One can take them for what they are. Others are trolls seeking to seed damning quotes into the conversation. Either way eat with appropriate spices.
But what is interesting to me is that of those posts I could only see three references to the whole Muslim religion by name -- and two were from your commentary. Again you are putting words in other's mouths. Others sarcastically intoned their disgust that Islamists use religion as a figleaf for their attrocities by reverberating the claim that it is the 'religion of peace', which is a very valid complaint.
In conclusion you are still over-reaching and putting words in people's mouths to do it. This *is* the very problem CBS got into with their 60 Minutes story on the memos.
The children said Majid whipped them mercilessly for not reading their lessons at the top of their voices after afternoon prayers Tuesday.
"But it did not reduce his anger and he cut off our ears with a pair of scissors," one of the students said.
The students attacked by Majid were taken to a local hospital for treatment. [emphasis mine]
I checked to see if that is how the Indo-Asian News Service is still reporting it, and they are.
Hate makes you stupid, and, it would seem, deceitful.
Indeed. You claimed it was intellectually dishonest how Charles reported it. How I don't know when the article clearly states what he says it does.
Zombie did make the clarification you say he/she did, but clearly you are making hay from this where Zombie isn't. To call it an outright lie is, well, hate born rhetoric that makes you stupid and, it would seem, deceitful:) From Zombie...
So, even though the crime was probably not as serious as the original article implies, it is still beyond comprehension that a teacher would even ponder doing this. Islamic psychosis at work.
Zombie recieved many kudos for providing clarification. And when someone drove the same point as you did Zombie put them in their place...
girlie, you're being irrational and ridiculous. You just pointed out that someone (me) DID have the same level of scepticism and DID fact check the story. And then in the next sentence you say that no one did any fact-checking.
*Yawn* I can see you're not even worth dealing with.
What's the difference between 'cut' and 'chops off'?
Bigotry. Plain and simple.
Don't think it is lost on me that someone who used the 'n' word in the title of their post is accusing people of being bigoted. Above you called #15 good journalistic practice, but I do see how.
And remember this folks, the counter to someone taking a quote out of context is always by putting it back into context. Observe...
Your selective quoting (which you can see in the post above) of Bill Whittle lead you to the conclusion,
BTW, what 'no rational person' can deny is that *the second* a Muslim gets his hands on a bomb, THEY WANT TO USE IT TO KILL US ALL IMMEDIATELY.
THEY, the Muslims, ARE HEADED RIGHT FOR US! We have to get 'them' first.
They have been a big proponent of the meme that it doesn't matter which Muslims we kill, as long as we are killing some of them.
But the error, of course, is that you are the one who extended the observations on a whole religion. It is you who paints with the overly broad brush. From the grandparent post we see context that leads toa different conclusion. One easily sees that Mr Whittle does not suffer from the same 'racism'...
Have I slandered 1.5 billion people? I don't know. Have I? I speak of Radical Islam. I speak of people determined to kill and terrorize to impose their religion on the rest of the world. If you are a Muslim who is against these practices, you have my respect and admiration. And, as with all other religions in the United States, I will as passionately defend your right to practice your faith in harmony and goodwill as I attack those who may carry the Crescent far, far away from your peaceful and devout beliefs.
So while Bill Whittle (and LGF) can distinguish radical Islam from the Muslim religion, you apparently cannot. While you complain of bad journalism and biased reporting, it is your post that selectively re-works anothers words into something they didn't say at all.
Zombie, in that reference would be a better reference for journalistic integrity had he/she actually linked to the article they were referring to. As it is Zombie is playing the razor of probable reason to the story which is not a bad thing to do. But without evidence of his own he is only offering a competing opinion.
As far as Charles, the article clearly says what Charles says it does. What was the moral you were espousing again?
Kos is a community site, there is no consensus or "master leader" unlike the other blogs you listed in your other post like Instapundit.
I think you have the wrong post, I didn't link to Instapundit, or Andrew Sullivan. Instapundit is pretty good, Sullivan not so much. Hugh Hewitt is a better demagogue blog, in my opinion. But I don't really like demagogue blogs. Well except Bill Whittle's.
As for the community nature of Kos, you can't have it both ways. You can't say that Kos has a democratic selection for articles and doesn't operate on a majority concensus. While it is true that every community has people over a large spectrum of ideological thought, each site encourages and develops a particular culture and group-think.
See, Kos is another K5 in that they use the software K5 developed. Kos is a heavily partisan site, just ask Kos...
Daily Kos, one of the top progressive political sites on the web, is now a Scoop site.
It was previously on MT, but the partisan nature of the site attracted large numbers of trolls and flamers hijacking my message boards.
His decision to run Scoop was to help enforce a partisan group-think, not encourage dissent. And his site is continuing with a "Baghdad-Bobia" fever as yet another article came out today re-hashing the same memo appolegies.
Taking forged intelligence handed to them by Iranian spies
What forged intelligence was this?
Exactly who are these guys working for, anyway?
Oh please. Not another "Bush is the most cunning, manipulative and intelligent *puppet* evar" routine. I guarantee you that whenever you see someone extoled for genious and mocked for subordinate cluelessness at the same time, you are beholding a very kludged together alternate theory to reality.
LGF is a running argument for the extermination of the Muslim religion
Actually, this is what I mean. Probably the best explanation of LGF comes from Bill Whittle,
What does matter is what Little Green Footballs does on a daily basis. Charles Johnson does not sit down and write five essays a day on why he thinks Radical Islam is a deranged and poisonous and growing Death Cult. Charles simply links to newspaper articles, usually from Arab and Islamist sources like Arab News and Reuters, that show without question that Radical Islam is calling, daily and nightly, for the destruction of the West, the murder, enslavement or conversion of its citizens, and the establishment of a world-wide Caliphate where Shariah - Islamic Law - is the only law.
This is not his opinion. This is not the opinion of Western editorial writers. This is a filter (and of course it's a filter - that's why it is useful) that looks at Islamist thinking and behavior daily and shows what Islamists are saying and doing in their own words.
Bill also explains just how it relates to the Muslim religion and how it does not relate...
Have I slandered 1.5 billion people? I don't know. Have I? I speak of Radical Islam. I speak of people determined to kill and terrorize to impose their religion on the rest of the world. If you are a Muslim who is against these practices, you have my respect and admiration. And, as with all other religions in the United States, I will as passionately defend your right to practice your faith in harmony and goodwill as I attack those who may carry the Crescent far, far away from your peaceful and devout beliefs. But I will not pretend I do not see and hear what I see and hear every single day, just because you may not like to hear it. That is not something I or millions of my countrymen will submit to. Accept, or at the very least, understand that right now. I say this for both our sakes. More on this later.
The philosophy of Radical Islam is at war, not only with America and the West, but with everything that is not Radical Islam. So, do they hate us? Yes they do. Judging from their street demonstrations, and the rhetoric issuing from their madrassas, does anyone seriously doubt that if millions were given a button that would wipe us from the face of the earth, they would push it?
I don't see how any rational person could deny this is so.
such as Hunter, put in a tremendous amount of effort in looking at the documents and, mostly, at the arguments against the documents.
Indeed. Allow me to quote Hunter in the article you linked to...
As I have said before, this "Typewriter" series was founded on one simple premise. The right-wing are liars. They have been liars. They will continue to be liars. It is part and parcel of modern "movement" conservatism. And, indeed, they were lying in this case as well, and continue to do so, and will probably continue until the day the Rapture, space aliens, or tainted Big Macs finally come to take them away.
That "one simple premise", in my book, does not show very rigorous research. I remember Baghdad Bob complaining, when people were questioning him about reports of US Soldiers in Baghdad, how the US were liars. And that is why we should believe him over the pictures of tanks rolling down the Baghdad highway.
Well I looked further. Poor soul is (just as I said) still stuck on whether or not there was proportional spacing when everyone else is talking about typesetting technologies.
Well you decide. For all their sophmoric hijinks, here is an article linked to from LGF. Compare that to the Kos article which had the following as the only points of technical merit. You tell me if the Kos article shot down all of the points like it says it does...
Did proportional type exist back in the dark ages of 1972? Yes.
Did "Times New Roman" and similar fonts exist? Yes.
Did superscript "th" characters exist? Yes.
Could "centering" be accurately achieved on a typewriter? Sigh. Yes.
Could typists correctly determine where to wrap words so that they would not run over the margins of the page? (What, are you stupid?) Yes.
And so on, and so on, as each argument was shot down, and new ones arose to assert themselves. That's it. That was the crux of the argument. Then we went from typeface to signatures, to what slang terms were or were not common during the Vietnam era, etc. etc. And still, they were shot down.
It is a real travesty that this is what you call collecting and analyzing at great length. And this is someone you point to as an intellectual at Kos?
he said that when he was trying to weasel out of the the fact that he'd lied like a rug to Luke.
Not to nit-pick, oh minstrel of the dark-side, but what he said was true. And since it is a good explanation of how a emperial analysis and tight technical definitions can detract from larger observation and understanding.
Obi Wan explains what he means in the subsequent lines when he says, "he's more machine now than a man". Not only had his body died (his brain being supported by his suit) but his spirit/personality as well. The good natured Annakin was (in Old Ben's eyes) forever lost.
This theme is supported in his death scene where Annakin does away with the machinery, and his son gets to know him only in his death. A death held is statia until Luke redeemed him.
Spin? Yes. Understanding? I think so.
If you press me, I'll have to bring out Star Trek to back my point;)
MensNewsDaily.com collects pretty good commentary from a number of contributers on a number of issues that aren't forefront on the MSM. Their articles are short and poigniant. They have a forum you can discuss the articles in, so I would call that a blog.
Powerlineblog.com is pretty reasonable for commentary and was one of the big players in Rathergate. INDCJournal might be less reasonable but they have the quickest footwork in the business. They'll be the ones to call the sources, call experts, etc... Footwork that is a lost art in journalism. But their commentary is a bit off-balance and can often trip themselves up.
Little Green Footballs is often misunderstood, but I like them. They do their job very well. Even better though is Watch which is devoid of the sophmoric commentary.
But then there is an upper eschelon, which FactCheck belongs to, as does Belmont Club. When Belmont treats an issue, you've got gold.
But the absolute MOAB of the blogosphere is Bill Whittle. He posts seldomly, and when he does it is incredibly long. But there is no better writer on the Internet that I've found. As it says on his website: If Steven den Best is Spock, he is the Captain Kirk. Seriously there is no finer work on the internet than his "Strength" series, followed closely by "Empire".
For humor, Scrappleface and CoxandForkum are great. They not only give you the humor but they give you the stories that inspired it.
Actually there is something to that. Allow me to ask Obi Wan Kenobi about this...
Many of the truths that we hold to are true, from a certain point of view
Spinsanity is a good point of view, but often they suffer from their own spin. I've seen then get into quite the tangle with other journalism outlets and it is quickly evident that it is spin v spin. Not overtly partisan spin, cool intellectual spin but spin none the less.
These tussles showed me how often they can only put up competing opinions against others opinions. It is what you expect from analysis actually. A better site is FactCheck.org which doesn't try to compete with opinions and spin and sticks to facts.
Kos suffered from a case of "Baghdad-Bobia", a rare condition where their shear willingness to believe blinds them to facts that are evident to everyone else. To the Kos, the CBS forged memos were real and still are. During the debate over typesetting, it was enough to show a typewriter with proportional spacing while everyone else was performing technical analysis on different spacing technologies.
The Washington Monthy seems alright though. Chomsky suffers from being Chomsky. And no one suffers from it more than him;) His analysis never raises above the complexity of answering the question, "How are we going to pin this on the USA?" And if it doesn't answer that question he ignores it. Which, unfortunately, means he ignores much of what is going on in the world.
Regarding the small "th" after the date, Dr. Bouffard told me that it was possible to order specialty keys that would duplicate the automatic miniaturization completed by word processors after a numerical date, but it was certainly not standard, and wouldn't make a lot of sense in a military setting. "That by itself, while suspicious, is not impossible, but in conjunction with the (font irregularity of the) number four, it is really significant," he said.
The number four problem is described thusly...
Next, Dr. Bouffard began entering individual characters in an attempt to match them to the remaining fonts that were available on proportional spacing typewriters of that era, focusing on numbers. Thus far, one character stood out, the number "4." In the document provided by CBS News, the number 4 does not "have a foot" and has a "closed top," which is indicative of Times New Roman, a font exclusive to more modern computer word processing programs. other characters matched the old proportional spacing fonts (available on only a small few typewriters of the era), but this number did not (please note that this is only an initial analysis with numerical characters).
Dr. Bouffard ran this number and could not find a match in his entire database of over 4,000 typewriter fonts that have been maintained and collected into his computer database since 1988. Otherwise, the font is very indicative of Times New Roman, the font that is only available on computer word processing programs.
The fact that it matches so closely to a word document is very significant. One way to tell something is forged is to be able to reproduce the document yourself. And the degree to which they match (not accounting for the xeroxing) is nothing short of exact.
Sorry folks, this is most assuredly a fake.
Of course I was convinced when I heard it was proportional too. Not because it was unavailable at the time, but because no lazy military clerk worth his salt would take the additional time to write with proportional font for just a Memo. Also it seems that the lack of letterhead and innacuracies in the address are sending this little attempt down the toilet, and hopefully taking CBS with it.
Quite a conspiracy theory there. Was there a claim of hacking?
This theorizing sounds all to much like the commonly cartoonized humor of Ashcroft playing gestapo for Bush to solve the Michael Moore problem or Richard Clarke problem. I believe you have said as much yourself.
But when push comes to shove Kerry runs to Ashcroft to silence the Swiftvets, an occurance that seems lost on the socially sarcastic watchdogs of our civil liberties.
Truth is beat out by a conspiracy theory told over and over again? I only mark the people rooting for the theories over the truths.
Slashdot Mirror
Define what you think the words mean.
;)
It's a simple thing really.
Faux-naif is no reason to repeat myself
But you get full marks for trying. The problem with you is that you put far too much faith in disenginuous rhetorical tactics.
BTW, calling me a racist is funny.
It is distasteful to me that you take such a serious topic in such a cavelier manner.
as you've yet again failed to differentiate any terms or distinction.
*Sigh* More blowhard accusations. Your ability to insult and accuse has been entertained enough for me to be solidly convinced of your impropriety.
Seeing that you've refrained from civilized discussion and are resorting to flailing about and gnashing your teeth, I pity that you invest so much in debates that you never intend to win. It seems that your point was abandoned long ago, and in your minds eye you throw hurtful accusations -- not in an effort to further the discussion, but as a means to exact for yourself some childish retribution.
I'll be around when you wish to get back to the point...
Then try and be consistent in their use. You haven't been.
Howso?
I'm sorry that you are unfamiliar with the history of the United States. What country are you from? Sometimes I just assume.
Yes, there are a lot of assumptions in those sentances, aren't there.
Here's a primer on this particular subject.
Not suprisingly, there is nothing in there that supports your claim. Perhaps, instead of vague handwaving you could present succinctly the points you wish to make.
Things have progressed since then.
Yes they have. But I'm with Bill, calling each other the 'n' word is not what one would call progression.
No, his assumption about the hate-filled eyes that would be coming to get him if he dared speak to the kids in the 'modern slang' was the racist part.
Even if that were true, that doesn't excuse the racism you showed in lauging at him for not being a black man. Nor the racism you show in presuming that only black people have tasted discrimination. Quite honestly you are the most racist, hateful person I've encountered since KatherineD on Poliglut. And that is saying something! Much more racist than LGF.
Muslim, Islam, Islamist, Wahabbi Terrorist, whatever, it's all the same to you.
Another set of words to put in others mouths? One would have expected you to learn better by now. You know what, the inability to get out of fatuous ruts is not uncommon to you. But you seem to do it with more flair than most.
ability to completely miss what it is I'm writing.
If only, if only. Now, really. Aside from these red-herrings, what was your point again?
You miss the part where I said "no longer directly followed by...direct violence to the name-called"?
;)
;)
You know what I did, and to your credit. Had I seen it I would have rather pointed it out for its obvious over-embelishment of the negative connotations. Your rhetoric knows no limits, well if you consider historic context to be limits
So you presume to lecture Bill Cosby on what 'nigger' means. And attempt to deflect alphapatriot that being laughed at because he isn't black as something other than racism.
So, what was your point again? Me thinks you've gotten lost chasing your own red-herrings
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Unfortunately we will be left guessing just how it is different
Sharia law, when interpreted by backwoods nutjobs, is quite like that.
Hmm, I wonder what you (who presumes to *not* be a backwoods nutjob) would interpret this example Shar'ia law...
isn't quite up to the barbarism you subscribe to all Muslims
:)
;)
You'd think your attempts to put words in others mouths would have been exposed enough for you to abandon this most dishonest tactic... Apparently some dogs never learn new tricks. Again it is you who is wants to "subscribe to all Muslims" some grand conflation. I'll keep pointing that out as often as you do that.
But again this invites the question of how you would draw the distinction...
Sources of law are Islamic law
The US law has Islamic sources also. For instance we have Sheriffs. But no one says that we in the US live under Islamic law.
Even more relevant to this discussion is that before the current elections Indonesia was still seen as a largely secular society. The influence of Sharia law is seen mainly in family law.
That would explain your confusion.
Now your just being cheeky
Dictionary. Look into it.
It never ceases to amaze just how much your argument hinges on presuming what I don't know. What part isn't ad-hominem or deliberate misquoting that is
merely expanding the number of people that must be destroyed before peace can come again.
Must be destroyed? You are advocating destroying whole religions? Since as you seem inable to draw a difference between an Islamist and a Muslim, one can only conclude that is how you think. Yet the derision in your voice as you accuse LGF of the same thing would lead me to think otherwise. I'm not sure you've worked this issue out fully yet.
The fact that you think "Islam" is some sort of Muslim Protestant tells me
You know, taking words out of context is always easily countered by putting them back in context. Observe...
This is how you quoted me...
Seems like a cohesive structure doesn't it. No clues to demark any editorial cutting or adding. However, here is the origional quote...
You have a far ways to go to show sufficient grounding to call others confused
It's not better than calling someone 'nigger' and then stringing them up to a tree? I guess we have different conceptions of what progess is, in that case.
Talk about your intellectual honesty. Don't think the bait and switch is lost on me. The progress being refered to was established by yourself as...
As you didn't mention trees or string, it is positively disingenious for you to redefine what you mean by progress post-hoc. Don't think the attempt is lost on me though.
And the acceptance of the 'n' word is not progress in my book at all. As Bill Cosby has pointed out much better than I can.
LGF does what it can to paint Islam as a religion of violence and to stir up hatred for those that follow it.
;)
Which is different than painting the Muslim religion and stirring up hatred against it. But I digress as I think you are getting closer. The last hurdle is to answer if LGF doing that or are they just relaying what Islam is doing and that is the natural reaction it solicits. As Bill Whittle points out they aren't writing five page essays on the hate rhetoric of Islam and why it needs decisive action. He is simply relaying what the islamic clerics themselves are preaching and doing. That so many in the comments section react that way is, in my view, understandable. But I hardly blame the messenger.
Then pray tell, why is the title of the post, penned by Mr. Johnson, "Discipline, Islamic Style"?
Islamic law in practice is rather bloody in its prescribed punishments. That the teacher as a single datapoint doesn't indict a religion, the religion does that on its own. LGF runs a site open to comments, feel free to express your concern over his title. As far as I'm concerned I see where he is coming from. It is a bit over-reaching but not unwarranted.
That citing a questionable source, refuted by others
The severity of the punishment may be in question, but not the overbearance of the punishment. You continue to conflate the two issues as one grand inaccuracy in a spitefully driven ambition to make hay for a strawman. And I'll continue to point that out
As yes, the difference between Islam and Muslim is what exactly?
Probably the best way I can explain it is this: Islam is to Muslim what Protestant is to Christianity. Well that just explains that Islam is a subset of Muslim, and how much depends on who you talk to. But the main difference is that Islamists believe in a political superiority that drives a nationalistic expansion of their law to the whole world. It is the mixture of the political ambitions with the Muslim religion that makes one an Islamist.
Triangulation as a last defense?
my point exactly.
Yes apparently so. What was that point again?
So the crux of Charles' position is based on that single statement by a traunatized child?
Apparently. And it is a good thing for Charles to show the intellectual honesty to reveal his source. Who for all the problems not withstanding
is an eye-witness to the account. Again, if what I said was "your point exactly" then you would agree that you are over-reaching.
This makes my point precisely. Regardless of what actually happened, it still points to the 'fact' that Islam is psychotic.
No, I wouldn't agree with you or Charles or Zombie on that. The actions of a disgruntled school teacher who was punished (albeit too lightly for my tastes) does not indict a expansionist political movement nor religion. Well, not on its own. It only points to the person committing the attrocity.
Also, it's pretty obvious that Zombie feels this applies to the religion as a whole.
So far this is something I've only seen you say. I've read Zombie's comments and they were rather reasonable in that regard, he differentiated between Islam and Muslim just as you expect him/her to do. Again, this is something you would already have accepted if what I said was your "point precisely". Not, "my point almost". Not, "My point for the most part". You said, "my point precisely".
So just what is that point --precisely?
Unfortunately you would be sad to learn that I live in Harlem, and the phrase used above is a colloquial version
;)
/. for example. And they are genuine (I think) in their desire for a final solution. Wrong, but genuine. One can take them for what they are. Others are trolls seeking to seed damning quotes into the conversation. Either way eat with appropriate spices.
You pin a lot on what you presume others don't know. Rest assured it means the same thing where I am from.
A linguistic pavlovian response that has been mediated by cultural progess.
I'm with Bill Cosby on this one, calling people 'nigga' is not progress.
you are simply wrong, or have never read a single thread on LGF.
Again, you hang a lot on what you presume I don't know. Do you really want to base your argument on me never having read a thread on LGF?
Selected quotes from that thread
Selected? Enough said
You'd be amazing how sustaining hatred can be.
Ask the Palestinians.
Agreed.
Also, one learns in any forum to take comments with a grain of salt. Sure there are people out there that believe we should Nuke the muslim world. Marxist Hacker42 is one of them on
But what is interesting to me is that of those posts I could only see three references to the whole Muslim religion by name -- and two were from your commentary. Again you are putting words in other's mouths. Others sarcastically intoned their disgust that Islamists use religion as a figleaf for their attrocities by reverberating the claim that it is the 'religion of peace', which is a very valid complaint.
In conclusion you are still over-reaching and putting words in people's mouths to do it. This *is* the very problem CBS got into with their 60 Minutes story on the memos.
I checked to see if that is how the Indo-Asian News Service is still reporting it, and they are.
Hate makes you stupid, and, it would seem, deceitful.
Indeed. You claimed it was intellectually dishonest how Charles reported it. How I don't know when the article clearly states what he says it does.
Zombie did make the clarification you say he/she did, but clearly you are making hay from this where Zombie isn't. To call it an outright lie is, well, hate born rhetoric that makes you stupid and, it would seem, deceitful
Zombie recieved many kudos for providing clarification. And when someone drove the same point as you did Zombie put them in their place...
Bigotry. Plain and simple.
Don't think it is lost on me that someone who used the 'n' word in the title of their post is accusing people of being bigoted. Above you called #15 good journalistic practice, but I do see how.
And remember this folks, the counter to someone taking a quote out of context is always by putting it back into context. Observe...
Your selective quoting (which you can see in the post above) of Bill Whittle lead you to the conclusion,
But the error, of course, is that you are the one who extended the observations on a whole religion. It is you who paints with the overly broad brush. From the grandparent post we see context that leads toa different conclusion. One easily sees that Mr Whittle does not suffer from the same 'racism'...
So while Bill Whittle (and LGF) can distinguish radical Islam from the Muslim religion, you apparently cannot. While you complain of bad journalism and biased reporting, it is your post that selectively re-works anothers words into something they didn't say at all.
Zombie, in that reference would be a better reference for journalistic integrity had he/she actually linked to the article they were referring to. As it is Zombie is playing the razor of probable reason to the story which is not a bad thing to do. But without evidence of his own he is only offering a competing opinion.
As far as Charles, the article clearly says what Charles says it does. What was the moral you were espousing again?
I think you have the wrong post, I didn't link to Instapundit, or Andrew Sullivan. Instapundit is pretty good, Sullivan not so much. Hugh Hewitt is a better demagogue blog, in my opinion. But I don't really like demagogue blogs. Well except Bill Whittle's.
As for the community nature of Kos, you can't have it both ways. You can't say that Kos has a democratic selection for articles and doesn't operate on a majority concensus. While it is true that every community has people over a large spectrum of ideological thought, each site encourages and develops a particular culture and group-think.
See, Kos is another K5 in that they use the software K5 developed. Kos is a heavily partisan site, just ask Kos...
His decision to run Scoop was to help enforce a partisan group-think, not encourage dissent. And his site is continuing with a "Baghdad-Bobia" fever as yet another article came out today re-hashing the same memo appolegies.
Taking forged intelligence handed to them by Iranian spies
What forged intelligence was this?
Exactly who are these guys working for, anyway?
Oh please. Not another "Bush is the most cunning, manipulative and intelligent *puppet* evar" routine. I guarantee you that whenever you see someone extoled for genious and mocked for subordinate cluelessness at the same time, you are beholding a very kludged together alternate theory to reality.
Actually, this is what I mean. Probably the best explanation of LGF comes from Bill Whittle,
Bill also explains just how it relates to the Muslim religion and how it does not relate...
Indeed. Allow me to quote Hunter in the article you linked to...
That "one simple premise", in my book, does not show very rigorous research. I remember Baghdad Bob complaining, when people were questioning him about reports of US Soldiers in Baghdad, how the US were liars. And that is why we should believe him over the pictures of tanks rolling down the Baghdad highway.
Well I looked further. Poor soul is (just as I said) still stuck on whether or not there was proportional spacing when everyone else is talking about typesetting technologies.
Well you decide. For all their sophmoric hijinks, here is an article linked to from LGF. Compare that to the Kos article which had the following as the only points of technical merit. You tell me if the Kos article shot down all of the points like it says it does...
It is a real travesty that this is what you call collecting and analyzing at great length. And this is someone you point to as an intellectual at Kos?
he said that when he was trying to weasel out of the the fact that he'd lied like a rug to Luke.
;)
Not to nit-pick, oh minstrel of the dark-side, but what he said was true. And since it is a good explanation of how a emperial analysis and tight technical definitions can detract from larger observation and understanding.
Obi Wan explains what he means in the subsequent lines when he says, "he's more machine now than a man". Not only had his body died (his brain being supported by his suit) but his spirit/personality as well. The good natured Annakin was (in Old Ben's eyes) forever lost.
This theme is supported in his death scene where Annakin does away with the machinery, and his son gets to know him only in his death. A death held is statia until Luke redeemed him.
Spin? Yes. Understanding? I think so.
If you press me, I'll have to bring out Star Trek to back my point
Yeah I have to agree, Fact Check is pretty good.
MensNewsDaily.com collects pretty good commentary from a number of contributers on a number of issues that aren't forefront on the MSM. Their articles are short and poigniant. They have a forum you can discuss the articles in, so I would call that a blog.
Powerlineblog.com is pretty reasonable for commentary and was one of the big players in Rathergate. INDCJournal might be less reasonable but they have the quickest footwork in the business. They'll be the ones to call the sources, call experts, etc... Footwork that is a lost art in journalism. But their commentary is a bit off-balance and can often trip themselves up.
Little Green Footballs is often misunderstood, but I like them. They do their job very well. Even better though is Watch which is devoid of the sophmoric commentary.
But then there is an upper eschelon, which FactCheck belongs to, as does Belmont Club. When Belmont treats an issue, you've got gold.
But the absolute MOAB of the blogosphere is Bill Whittle. He posts seldomly, and when he does it is incredibly long. But there is no better writer on the Internet that I've found. As it says on his website: If Steven den Best is Spock, he is the Captain Kirk. Seriously there is no finer work on the internet than his "Strength" series, followed closely by "Empire".
For humor, Scrappleface and CoxandForkum are great. They not only give you the humor but they give you the stories that inspired it.
Try being a pro-drugenforcement Libertarian sometime. Four years of that and I was outta there.
These tussles showed me how often they can only put up competing opinions against others opinions. It is what you expect from analysis actually. A better site is FactCheck.org which doesn't try to compete with opinions and spin and sticks to facts.
Kos suffered from a case of "Baghdad-Bobia", a rare condition where their shear willingness to believe blinds them to facts that are evident to everyone else. To the Kos, the CBS forged memos were real and still are. During the debate over typesetting, it was enough to show a typewriter with proportional spacing while everyone else was performing technical analysis on different spacing technologies.
The Washington Monthy seems alright though. Chomsky suffers from being Chomsky. And no one suffers from it more than him
Sorry folks, this is most assuredly a fake.
Of course I was convinced when I heard it was proportional too. Not because it was unavailable at the time, but because no lazy military clerk worth his salt would take the additional time to write with proportional font for just a Memo. Also it seems that the lack of letterhead and innacuracies in the address are sending this little attempt down the toilet, and hopefully taking CBS with it.
Quite a conspiracy theory there. Was there a claim of hacking?
This theorizing sounds all to much like the commonly cartoonized humor of Ashcroft playing gestapo for Bush to solve the Michael Moore problem or Richard Clarke problem. I believe you have said as much yourself.
But when push comes to shove Kerry runs to Ashcroft to silence the Swiftvets, an occurance that seems lost on the socially sarcastic watchdogs of our civil liberties.
Truth is beat out by a conspiracy theory told over and over again? I only mark the people rooting for the theories over the truths.
Okay, I'm just going to ask. That is Dr. Kernighan as in "Kernighan and Ritchie"? That is IBM's expert?
To me it is not a very smart investor who bet against IBM in this matter.