Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Overreacting and overreaching
Posted by: McQ on Thursday, October 04, 2007

Anyone else notice how lately the Dems seem to overreact and overreach on things?

I'm sure Reps do it too, but not to the extent I've seen Dems do it lately. That may all change if we see a Democrat in the White House. We'll see. But right now it seems the Dems hold the lead in the field of overreaching and overreacting. It's like they don't know how to make a point and then, forgive me, "move on".

And speaking of lately, this Limbaugh thing has been going on for what, 8 days now? It has sucked the air out of everything to include the big battle the Dems were trying to mount on SCHIP and we've hardly heard Iraq mentioned except in relation to the kerfuffle.

8 days and still going. Seem an overkill to you?

Wesley Clark is out there talking about yanking Limbaugh off of AFN and imposing a rating system on political talk. Overreaching? A bit.

Now this:
U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., was among 41 senators who signed a letter condemning radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, and Salazar said Wednesday he would vote for a resolution censuring Limbaugh for “going beyond whatever rights he had to attack soldiers.”
Huh?
Censure in the United States is a congressional procedure for reprimanding the President of the United States, a member of Congress or Judge.
No overreaction there.

What was it Harry Reid said about the MoveOn.org ad?
"No one over here endorses the ad that was in that newspaper. None of us do. But we want to talk about the war. They want to talk about an ad in a newspaper."
Yet here they are, 8 days later still talking about Limbaugh. The NRCC is fine with that though. They're apparently raising money because of it.

Another thank-you card to send to the Dems.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Well, they had their "MoveOn" moment, and now they are having their "Rush" moment. And saying a lot about themselves, in the process.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
I’m wondering how many people this will drive away from the Democrats. It’s such an obvious trumped-up controversy. And they just won’t let go of it.

I know the Kos kids are convinced that Rush really did mean our soldiers are phony, but is anybody else buying that? It’s so patently ridiculous. And if reasonable people see how trumped up the whole thing is, won’t at least some of them be repulsed by those who are trying to manufacture outrage over nothing?
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
Do you remember when Democrats were accused of overreaching on domestic spying in 2006? Surely, they said, the backlash from the liberal NY Times uncovering these programs and Democrats being angry about them would lead to losses at the polls for Dems in the fall. That didn’t quite work out.

Look, any time the Democrats do anything, they’ve been accused of overreaching. The Republicans overreached when they tried to impeach President Clinton, and the Dems would honestly be overreaching if they tried to impeach Bush, but to tut-tut about overreaching because they went after Rush Limbaugh 1 time out of 20,000 is kinda silly.
And if reasonable people see how trumped up the whole thing is, won’t at least some of them be repulsed by those who are trying to manufacture outrage over nothing?
Well, we know how John Kerry’s botched joke kept the House and Senate in Republican hands, right?
 
Written By: Oliver Willis
URL: http://www.oliverwillis.com
Face it, Oliver.
The Democrats keep this stuff up because they have nothing else.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Man, talk about partisan blindness! The over-reaction and overreaching on Limbaugh is a mirror image of the over-reaction and overreaching the GOP did on moveon.org. And, of course, most of the country has noticed neither (indeed, I’m surprised at how few people even heard about Ahmadinejad’s visit to the UN). Remember, blogworld is not the real world.

Bithead, the Democrats have the Congress and a good chance at the Presidency in ’08. One could say the GOP overreacted to moveon.org because they have nothing else (seriously, what do they have)? I say: they are acting more alike than different, and their partisans are seeing the flaws in the other while rationalizing the flaws in their own.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Well, the latest salvo is Mrs Edwards questioning Rush’s Vietnam 4F deferment.

I say bring it on. The more the left attacks popular Republicans, the more the right is going to gel to fight it. And that means come next Nov. the right will be out in force.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
Man, talk about partisan blindness! The over-reaction and overreaching on Limbaugh is a mirror image of the over-reaction and overreaching the GOP did on moveon.org
No, Erb, as usual, you’re wrong.

There’s a major difference betwen over-reaction and outright lies.
The Democrats and their attack on Limbaugh are the latter.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Do you remember when Democrats were accused of overreaching on domestic spying in 2006?
Good grief Oliver - are you actually comparing this manufactured nonsense to something with at least a grain of substance and some actual implications?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I was listening to Rush, when he made his "phony soldiers" remarks. It was clear in context that he was talking about people who were falsely presenting themselves as soldiers to buttress their opposition to the war.

Rush did not call real soldiers that oppose the war "phony soldiers".

The controversy is based on a lie contrived by Media Matters.

The only thing that the "phony soldiers" controversy has in common with the "betray us" controversy is that they are both inventions of a leftist group.


 
Written By: newshutz
URL: http://
More of that Phony Senator stuff.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Good grief Oliver - are you actually comparing this manufactured nonsense to something with at least a grain of substance and some actual implications?
Well, of course he’s going to equate them. Bad for Republicans is bad for Republicans. That’s all that matters.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
It is a good laugh that they’re deflecting the political conversation away from the (politically winning but real life awful) SCHIP battle
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
he would vote for a resolution censuring Limbaugh for "going beyond whatever rights he had to attack soldiers."
Even allowing that Rush said what they tell us he said (which I don’t), the "whatever rights" the man speaketh of would be that pesky First Amendment...

Darn framers of the constitution!!
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Oh Bithead, you see the world through partisan lenses. GOP good, Democrats bad. Conservatives good, democrats bad. Using Congress to attack moveon.org good, to attack Limbaugh bad. I suspect you’ll not veer from that comfortable little world view you have, except perhaps to criticize Republicans who stray from what you think they should believe. Ah, how nice to have a set packaged world view through which you can interpret reality. No tough issues, no quandries, no working out between various perspectives and arguments. It’s all ready made.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
I suspect you’ll not veer from that comfortable little world view you have
You’re really not one who should be saying this Scotty....
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
no working out between various perspectives and arguments
Um...you may want to rethink this considering your consistent refusal to assign more criticism to any one group over another. It’s fairly easy to sit on the fence and act morally superior.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
You’re really not one who should be saying this Scotty....
Indeed... and there seems a lesson, there.

MEanwhile, Erb, back to the point at hand.

There’s a major difference betwen over-reaction and outright lies.
The Democrats and their attack on Limbaugh are the latter.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Um...you may want to rethink this considering your consistent refusal to assign more criticism to any one group over another. It’s fairly easy to sit on the fence and act morally superior.
Since I often take provocative positions based on moral principles, you really have no basis for that charge. I also know from experience that neither political party can claim moral superiority, or superiority of ethical tactics, they both play the same Machavellian game.

My goals are: a) learn to see how other perspectives interpret a situation; b) treat others with respect; c) when criticizing other positions, focus on the argument/position and not the person; and d) in those extremely rare cases where I truly think someone is totally undeserving of respect, then simply refuse to engage that person — don’t insult, just let him or her be. I also recognize that these are really complex issues that defy one ideological answer, so I try to keep an open mind, admit when I’m wrong, and learn.

You can see this as some morality play between groups. For me, morality and ethics are embedded in an extremely complex set of circumstances. Some things are crystal clear, but most depend a lot on perspective.
There’s a major difference betwen over-reaction and outright lies.
And, of course there is real disagreement about who is lying. You can’t comprehend that because your perspective is purely partisan. You don’t seem to understand that others who think differently may be honest and intelligent, but have a different perspective than yours. Two legs bad, four legs good. Hey, if that’s what gives you meaning, that’s cool.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Since I often take provocative positions based on moral principles
LOL! Really? When was THAT?
And, of course there is real disagreement about who is lying. You can’t comprehend that because your perspective is purely partisan.
Oh, I comprehend it just fine.
Allow me to demonstrate this by asking you to counter this statement:

From any objective POV, the attack on Limbaugh was a baseless smear, intended to create distraction from the failures of Congress to remove us from Iraq, and from their attacks on our troops.

Go ahead. I’ll wait.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
I opposed both the Iraq war and Kosovo war on primarily moral grounds, for example. I also avoid raw partisanship because it usually has to engage in moral relativism (e.g., Reid’s different treatment of the Petraeus ad and Limbaugh quote, and the rights response to each of those as well).

And, from any OBJECTIVE POV the attack on Limbaugh was not much different than the attack on moveon.org, both were distractions from the reality of politics, and both parties seem to prefer it that way (though the partisans of each party will self-righteously declare their position based on principle and the other side’s a lie). Most of the public sees that and hence are turned off by politics and tune out politics. That’s one reason people don’t vote or care — it’s more noise and insult than real discussion and honest debate.

And both sides simply blame the other side. I also know from experience on political online discussions that the more I try to remain focused on ideas and polite, admitting when I err and altering my position when someone makes a persuasive argument, the more some people get vicious and even go to bizarre lengths of claiming I don’t believe arguments I spend time crafting and publicly pronounce. In short, I think for some, real discussion is to be avoided.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
My goals are: a) learn to see how other perspectives interpret a situation; b) treat others with respect; c) when criticizing other positions, focus on the argument/position and not the person; and d) in those extremely rare cases where I truly think someone is totally undeserving of respect, then simply refuse to engage that person — don’t insult, just let him or her be. I also recognize that these are really complex issues that defy one ideological answer, so I try to keep an open mind, admit when I’m wrong, and learn.
Well m’lud, you botched it the other day then....

You can start be explaining your troll post at the end of
Battlespace preparation and the blogosphere
Posted by: Jon Henke
Hardly someone remaining out of the fray with regards to insult.
Alas, such high minded virtues, so carelessly cast aside in a moment of ill considered haste.

As to these two cases MoveOn & Rush - both are a waste of the time for our Legislative Branch.
But one is clearly a manufactured incident and the other one is not.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Billy Hollis and Keith Indy,

You honestly think this criticism of Limbaugh will lose the Democratic party potential voters? Ha! It isn’t 1994. Mr. Limbaugh, over time through his multiple divorces, doctor-shopping crime, and now this, has alienated many of his listeners.

I would venture to say that 99% of his listeners at this time are those who wouldn’t be voting for a Democratic candidate anyway; so, there is nothing to lose by going on the offensive against him. Hold a quick resolution vote (as with the MoveOn one), put all congress members on record, and watch what happens.
 
Written By: Farquarsoy
URL: http://

As to these two cases MoveOn & Rush - both are a waste of the time for our Legislative Branch.
But one is clearly a manufactured incident and the other one is not.
Joe Klein in Time magazine makes a strong case that the hubbub over the moveon.org ad is manufactured. So I guess that means the Rush one is not.

Or maybe both were, but each side wants to think theirs is ’real’ and the other’s is ’manufactured.’
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
"MoveOn" moment, and now they are having their "Rush" moment.
OK, I have go listen to Moving Pictures now; the real Rush.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
You honestly think this criticism of Limbaugh will lose the Democratic party potential voters?
There’s a slice of moderate voters I do think is vulnerable, yes. These folks know, no matter what they think of Rush, that’s he’s not going to slam the troops. I’d like to think there are voters that have enough revulsion for those whose insist on fantasy interpretations to the contrary that they would be affected.

Perhaps I’m naive or too optimistic. And I grant there may not be that many such voters. But yes, I think there are some.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
Critizing Rush will lose voters? Would any intelligent voter ignore the issues and base their vote on whether Democrats criticized Rush Limbaugh? I’d shudder to think voters were that shallow and trivial in making their decision. Of course, the election is so far away, it would be bizarre if this kind of trivial thing actually affected voters in 2008, who by then will have seen a myriad of ads, debates, and speeches. Let’s get real here. If I vote Republican (which in the Senate race here I probably will) it will be because of real issues.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
I’d shudder to think voters were that shallow and trivial in making their decision.
I’d shudder to think voters didn’t recoil from a mediocrity like Harry Reid. And this episode has done plenty to demonstrate his mediocrity.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
"b) treat others with respect; c) when criticizing other positions, focus on the argument/position and not the person"

"You don’t seem to understand that others who think differently may be honest and intelligent, but have a different perspective than yours"

Sort of like the Swift Boat Veterans?
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
I opposed both the Iraq war and Kosovo war on primarily moral grounds, for example.
Yeah right. We shouldn’t have saved the folks in Kosovo, or Iraq, from brutal dictators. Forgive me if I don’t find any morality in your fear to take action. Further, were there any wars you did support?
I also avoid raw partisanship because it usually has to engage in moral relativism (e.g., Reid’s different treatment of the Petraeus ad and Limbaugh quote, and the rights response to each of those as well).
You trying to separate yourself from moral relativism, has got to be the laugh of the day.
And, from any OBJECTIVE POV the attack on Limbaugh was not much different than the attack on moveon.org
The attack on Limbaugh was completely different, because what Limbaugh said was fact. What Moveon said was not. And, yes, demonstrably so in both cases. That you can’t tell the difference, speaks volumes about your lacks than I ever could.
In short, I think for some, real discussion is to be avoided.
Ummm... that’s just it... you avoid real discussion with anyone who dares to challenge you. You always have.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Oh, by the way, Erb... just because you’re attempting a moral equivalence of two completely disparate events, doesn’t mean you got by with your moral relativism, nor that you got by with dodging the question.

You’re still on the hook.



 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
You’re the moral relativist Bithead. When they do it, it’s bad, when we do it, it’s good. For you, it seems politics trumps morality.

And Billy, yeah, Harry Ried doesn’t look so good. But voters across the country aren’t going to vote in their local and Presidential elections based on Harry Ried’s performance, are they?
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
But voters across the country aren’t going to vote in their local and Presidential elections based on Harry Ried’s performance, are they?
Well, I look at the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994, and the Democratic one in 2006, and I find it hard to believe the perceptions of the national parties didn’t affect those elections.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
You don’t seem to understand that others who think differently may be honest and intelligent, but have a different perspective than yours.
Earlier from Erb:
Those who attack Kerry over [his actual words] are the real a******s.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Well, I look at the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994, and the Democratic one in 2006, and I find it hard to believe the perceptions of the national parties didn’t affect those elections.
1994 you had a very unpopular President who had made numerous gaffes on national policy. In 2006 you had a very unpopular war in Iraq and a similarly unpopular President. In 2007 you have a sideline criticism of a talk radio host whose popularity is not what it was. Can this really compare? I don’t think either party is very popular right now, so unless something changes the Democrats will probably hold Congress. The White House depends on the personalities who get nominated. The GOP’s best chance is a Clinton candidacy, I think.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
When they do it, it’s bad, when we do it, it’s good.
No, Erb.
I make my judgements about good and bad on the reasons BEHIOND the action. Like, is the charge even close to accurate, for example. Apparently, you areThe unable to rise to that level of discernment... as I note JWG pointing out to you.

And you’re still on the hook, just so you know.
And Billy, yeah, Harry Ried doesn’t look so good. But voters across the country aren’t going to vote in their local and Presidential elections based on Harry Ried’s performance, are they?
Heh... to a greater degree than you might want us to think, Erb.
Ever heard of "coat tails" ?

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us

I make my judgements about good and bad on the reasons BEHIOND the action.
Like the GOP attacking moveon.org to take attention away from real debate about the war? OK...

You think the Senate majority and minority leaders have coattails in elections? You know, I don’t think you care about even trying to pretend you’re being honest, for you it’s all about partisan rhetoric, isn’t it? That’s moral relativism, Bithead. Truth is irrelevant, just your little partisan political game. And at this point, your side seems to be losing (but my side of pragmatic libertarianism — which is not represented by either of the political parties — has no chance, so I can’t gloat). I guess Joe Biden for the Democrats or Rudy Guiliani for the Republicans look like the best for their respective parties, but I disagree with both more than I agree.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Yeah right. We shouldn’t have saved the folks in Kosovo, or Iraq, from brutal dictators.
Thank you for proving you know little about the Kosovo conflict. Hint: almost all the atrocities happened after we attacked (the refugee crisis started after the bombing), and it wasn’t at all about a ’brutal dictatorship’ in any event.

You don’t really know what you’re talking about, do you Bithead? You don’t even try to deal with fact, you just play a little game, don’t you?
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
1994 you had a very unpopular President...
I think there’s a fair amount of hindsight in your perception. 1994 was a complete surprise to everyone at the time; if the reason was as clear as an unpopular president (who nevertheless won a big re-election victory only two years later), then it should have been better foreseen.

Granted that the impact of national perceptions of parties is unpredictable, nevertheless it looks silly to me to deny that it has had a major effect on elections at times in the past, and could again.

As you point out, with the current disgust with both parties, there’s no real way of predicting how things will develop. With a year to go, we could see "conventional wisdom" coming down hard on either of the two parties. The more the parties do stupid stuff, the more they are inviting exactly that outcome.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
You honestly think this criticism of Limbaugh will lose the Democratic party potential voters?
Not at all what I said...
The more the left attacks popular Republicans, the more the right is going to gel to fight it. And that means come next Nov. the right will be out in force.
Has nothing to do with Democrats loosing potential voters, as Republicans aren’t going to vote for a Democratic president.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
This is just too funny...

Someone thinks Rush is important enough to knock down a few pegs...
On June 15, 2004, Brock appeared at a Washington bookstore, Politics & Prose, to discuss his just-published book, The Republican Noise Machine: Right-Wing Media and How It Corrupts Democracy. Media Matters was still in its early stages at that point, and Brock explained to the audience what he hoped to accomplish. It was an unquestionably political plan.

The conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh, Brock told the small group, had “poison[ed]” the minds of swing voters, who are key to any election victory. The problem was not just people who listened to Limbaugh, Brock argued, but people who talked to people who listened to Limbaugh. “There is a viral effect of this noise machine that is difficult to quantify,” he said. “But the bottom line is that if you’ve got an office, and you’ve got ten people in an office, and just one of those people is listening to Rush Limbaugh and repeating false stories at the water cooler, you are corrupting and poisoning that entire office.”

Sooner or later, Brock said, that has an effect at the polls. “Although I think many liberals are in denial about the effect of all this,” he explained, “there are moderate, persuadable, independent and swing voters who are being systematically lied to every day.” The beneficiary was the Republican party.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
Thank you for proving you know little about the Kosovo conflict. Hint: almost all the atrocities happened after we attacked (the refugee crisis started after the bombing), and it wasn’t at all about a ’brutal dictatorship’ in any event.
Well, all the ones we were able to prove, and that only because we were there, Erb. (Again, Erb hadn’t even considered that one.) Hint; Prove your statement. Give-away: You cannot. THe real bottom line, here, is that Kosovo was one of the few things that Bill Clinton actually did right. No surprise, then, that you can’t bring yourself to support it.
You don’t really know what you’re talking about, do you Bithead?
(Shrug) Well, it’s clear YOU don’t. As I keep proving time and again... along with everyone else in here, of course.





 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Someone else thinks the effort to muzzle right wing talk radio is important enough...
Rep. Henry Waxman has asked his investigative staff to begin compiling reports on Limbaugh, and fellow radio hosts Sean Hannity and Mark Levin based on transcripts from their shows, and to call in Federal Communications Commission chairman Kevin Martin to discuss the so-called "Fairness Doctrine."

"Limbaugh isn’t the only one who needs to be made uncomfortable about what he says on the radio," says a House leadership source. "We don’t have as big a megaphone as these guys, but this all political, and we’ll do what we can to gain the advantage. If we can take them off their game for a while, it will help our folks out there on the campaign trail."
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
Thank you for proving you know little about the Kosovo conflict. Hint: almost all the atrocities happened after we attacked (the refugee crisis started after the bombing), and it wasn’t at all about a ’brutal dictatorship’ in any event.

Well, all the ones we were able to prove, and that only because we were there, Erb. (Again, Erb hadn’t even considered that one.) Hint; Prove your statement. Give-away: You cannot. THe real bottom line, here, is that Kosovo was one of the few things that Bill Clinton actually did right. No surprise, then, that you can’t bring yourself to support it.
What ones were we "able to prove" because "we were there" that happened before the NATO bombing, Bithead? Hint: very few atrocities occurred (and up until near that time the US listed the KLA as a terrorist organization for its attacks on Serbs), and we knew a lot about what was going on even before the war. I think you’re making this stuff up as you go along, I don’t think you really have looked into the Kosovo war at all. You can’t back up what you claim, and what you claim is so vague that it’s clear you’re trying to pretend you know more than you do.

The war started shortly after the ethnic Albanians signed the Rambouillet agreement, and the Serbs did not. The US threatened Serbia with bombing if they didn’t sign, the Serbs refused and the bombing began. The Serbs responded by unleashing a refugee crisis. NATO and Clinton bombed continually, but from above 15,000 feet, which did little to stop the Serbs from their actions — indeed, it only aroused anger at the Kosovars, and brought in Serbs from Bosnia and elsewhere to join in paramilitary operations.

Here is my first blog
— before I know what I blog was — that I kept during the Kosovo war.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
I don’t doubt you were stupid enough to have held those positions, Erb.
In a question if your stupidity, I will lean toward that being in evidence every single time. however, you are obtuse as always.... and I think intentionally so, in this case.

go back and reread the question and try again.

Hint: very few atrocities occurred (and up until near that time the US listed the KLA as a terrorist organization for its attacks on Serbs), and we knew a lot about what was going on even before the war.
Really? So now, suddenly, our intel has some merit, huh?
Tell me something; what else you have to go on? If you’re going to complain about our intelligence in Iraq, and base your entire case on what they’re saying about Kosovo, your own credibility leaves much to be desired. In your case, I should say "more than usual."


 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Gee, Bithead, you use a lot of words but say nothing. You call me stupid, but make no argument. You through out vague rhetorical questions, but make no direct claims. You counter nothing I wrote. You can’t. Reading your posts is like reading an exam of a student who didn’t study and tries to BS an answer. It’s transparent.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider