Comments on: Today’s Moment Of Irony With Glenn Reynolds

By: stue dqsvru

stue dqsvru — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 20:16:34 +0000

edvqxlr izwvynl hlcoqzfjt fqyboce zsqoywtj tacqofur oulhqdj

By: jj

jj — Sat, 25 Nov 2006 07:35:52 +0000

Glenn Reynolds has been so wrong about Iraq for so long that it’s amazing that anyone really takes him seriously anymore. Although he insists he is a libertarian with an open mind, he’s been part of a WH and right-wing media campaign that has consistently misled people about the war. He’s managed to put a happy face on conditions in Iraq and ceaselessly scapgoated the media for their coverage – all without ever setting foot outside the safety of Tennessee. Never is heard a negative word about the people who planned and executed this war.

Indeed.

His peformance is an example of how self-serving and questionable his theories are about blogging and the new media. Somehow, being a media watchdog means linking to sites you already agree with and patting yourself on the back for it. Pretty lazy.

By: Duros62

Duros62 — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 20:04:52 +0000

Only ‘frame’, … is left blabbing incoherently to the four winds

And by blabbing incoherently, you actually mean refuting your arguments and pwning you, don’t you?

By: frameone

frameone — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 16:26:35 +0000

Is it time for an intervention yet?

By: frameone

frameone — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 16:25:41 +0000

“The Great Dugger, ‘look upon me ye mighty and despair’, reigns supreme.”

Wow. Simply wow. Dugs, can’t you wait at least until noon before hitting the Scotch?

By: S

Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:23:16 +0000

Dugger | Nov 15, 2006 8:03:46 AM
“The Great Dugger, ‘look upon me ye mighty and despair’, reigns supreme.

“… while I masturbate and post non sensical comments on OW’s blog. HEY, where’s my Scotch?”

By: Dugger

Dugger — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:21:49 +0000

Nimmer, Ol’ bean or beanette,

Are you satirising me? Eh. What.

By: Nimrod Gently

Nimrod Gently — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:07:18 +0000

Are you sarcastinly taking the piss out of yourself now or what?

By: Dugger

Dugger — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 13:03:46 +0000

Once again, the oppositon has ‘cut and run’ from the OW battlefield. Only ‘frame’, chased by the contentless yapping jackal ‘S’, is left blabbing incoherently to the four winds. The Great Dugger, ‘look upon me ye mighty and despair’, reigns supreme.

By: S

Wed, 15 Nov 2006 04:35:15 +0000

Dugger | Nov 14, 2006 12:26:45 PM
“Both parties spefically voted for war with Iraq. There was absolutley zilch arbitrary about that.”

Shur, Dukker, wha’ever u shay!

But, baby, the cocked up, mismanaged INVASION by The Decider is one of the main reasons the Republicans got their asses kicked out of office! WE WON!!!

Haaaaahahahahahahahaha!!!

By: Nimrod Gently

Nimrod Gently — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 22:44:13 +0000

Dugger, for using semantics as an excuse for ignoring the points S made altogether, you’re a weasel. And if you actually believe the shit you’re putting out to avoid it, you’re a dumbass.

By: frameone

frameone — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 21:53:15 +0000

Also from the same article:

The Senate is expected to hold a final vote on the measure late Thursday or early Friday. Thursday morning, Majority Leader Tom Daschle announced he will support Bush on Iraq, saying it is important for the country “to speak with one voice at this critical moment.”

Daschle said the threat of Iraq’s weapons programs “may not be imminent. But it is real. It is growing. And it cannot be ignored.” However, he urged Bush to move “in a way that avoids making a dangerous situation even worse.”

Clearly Bush did move in ways that made the situation worse by setting out to undermine the UN inspectors.

By: frameone

frameone — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 21:50:55 +0000

IN another thread someone said you were all surface dugger. Clearly you only stop at the headlines and fail to read or actually comprehend anything beyond it. Idiot.

By: frameone

frameone — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 21:49:05 +0000

Oh and here’s another little fact from the CNN story for you to choke on:

Most opposition came from Democrats, who were sharply divided on the issue. Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Missouri, said giving Bush the authority to attack Iraq could avert war by demonstrating the United States is willing to confront Saddam Hussein over his obligations to the United Nations.
…
Six House Republicans — Ron Paul of Texas; Connie Morella of Maryland; Jim Leach of Iowa; Amo Houghton of New York; John Hostettler of Indiana; and John Duncan of Tennessee — joined 126 Democrats in voting against the resolution. A total of 215 Republicans and 81 Democrats voted for it.

To Recap: Gephardt felt that it was important to believe the President would act in good faith because if he did the resolution “could avert war.” A majority of Dems disagreed and voted against the bill. So when you write: “Both parties spefically voted for war with Iraq.” You really have to qualify it twice over but you didn’t. Why? because you’re a hack.

By: frameone

frameone — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 21:39:40 +0000

OMG. Dugger, no one is saying that the vote didn’t give the President authority to go to war. But you said the vote was SPECIFICALLY for war with Iraq. It wasn’t. It required the President to verify that war was the last resort. It actually initiated a process to AVOID WAR that the president nevertheless, deliberately sabotaged.

By: frameone

frameone — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 21:37:18 +0000

What Rex says. Only to add that Dugger, you are so intellectually bankrupt at this point you need to cut your losses and file Chapter 11 on your brain.

By: Dugger

Dugger — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 21:34:15 +0000

rex,

I honestly think you are wrong. See what CNN said right after. CNN headline Oct 10, 2002:

“House gives Bush authority for war with Iraq”

It was a war vote. There are a gazillion references to it as a war vote. Furthermore, some Democrats and a single R (senator, more reps) must have seen it exactly that way at the time, because they voted against it. Check Robert Byrd’s analogy to Tonkin. Check Kucinichs words then.

By: Rex Mundane

Rex Mundane — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 21:07:04 +0000

I think youre taking it ouf of context Dugger. Edwards is calling the 2002 vote a “vote for war” only now after the fact of the war being waged. In 2002 the vote was not put in such language while being voted on and was, as Frame is pointing out, put in terms of “we authorize the preznit to go to war if its necessary as a last resort and he does all the other stuff to prevent it from becoming a necessity, which they promptly did the exact opposite of. Whether or not the vote was a “war vote” is, I’ll grant you, painfully obvious now, but not so much at the time.
Also, quit being an ass.

By: Dugger

Dugger — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 20:57:45 +0000

Hey, Nimmer. What was the question? I was supposed to ignore S’s confusion and guess what he really ‘meant’ to say?
H*ll, you folks want me to make both sides of the argument for you??
Tell you what, from now on, when any of you make a post that you don’t really mean or think is incorrect, just put an asterisk next to it and I will try to creatively pretend it makes sense. How ’bout that?

By: Dugger

Dugger — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 20:53:24 +0000

“I was wrong,” Edwards wrote in a guest column published Sunday in The Washington Post. “It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake.”

Man, I’m good. First they are claiming Stalin was a rightist, now its that the war vote (see John Edwards above calling it a war vote) was not a war vote.

And this quote from “usliberals”: ‘In the Senate, the 21 Democrats, one Republican and one Independent who courageously voted their consciences in 2002 against the War in Iraq were: etc’

But wait, maybe Edwards is a Bush or Rove trick.