’)On a quick break here and wanted to post a quote by SEIU president and Friend of Obama Andy Stern for you to contemplate as the White House bully boys try to salvage Dear Leader’s legislative agenda.
From p. 220 of the book:Asked about his organizing philosophy, Andy Stern summed it up this way: “[W]e prefer to use the power of persuasion, but if that doesn’t work we use the persuasion of power.”
From Andy Stern’s book “A Country That Works”, p. 59:
That’s right. The “persuasion of power” Malkin portrays as a far left death maxim is Stern making a point of talking about labor practices and picketing.
SCARY! GLENN BECK! ACORN! SOCIALISM!
Of course, Malkin is no stranger to protest, but when she does it she does it with guys carrying swastikas.
Using past experiences to predict future behavior is hack work? Stern states his philosophy, then goes on to explain how he put that to work in that particular situation. Why is it unreasonable to expect him to continue to follow that philosophy in this new situation?
Mob Thugs with brickbats?
And, of course, we also used effective old-school tactics
Mob Thugs with brickbats?
I don’t advocate violence, but I have to admit that there are a few right-wing anti-union extremists who could probably benefit from a good brickbat treatment on their keister.
That Malkin finds picketing and striking threatening but is happy to share a podium with swastika boy it tells us all we need to know.
Malkin shared the stage with Olbermann?!? When?
Because making fun of O’Reilly for his nazi-like tendencies is exactly the same as sporting Nazi symbols at an anti-brown-people rally.
SF, you should just go ahead and change your nom de plume to FalseEquivalence.
This is disgusting.
EVERYONE knows Media Matters holds the trademark on taking quotes out of context. They oughta sue her for infringement.
I am appalled beyond belief.
J.
Swing and a miss, Buzz.
And Farris.
And JayTea.
EVERYONE knows Media Matters holds the trademark on taking quotes out of context.
Actually, “everybody knows” that you made that up and can’t supply a single example to support your accusation.
Repack, you want a single example?
Rush Limbaugh and the “phony soldiers” bullshit.
That one got all the way to the US Senate… and ended up a great big club for Limbaugh to make every single Democrat senator look like the idiots they are.
J.
“the media’s libruhl even though newspapers carry my column and I got a Today Show booking”-Michelle
Headline: Oliver Demagogues Demagogue, Mental Midgets Cheer.
Coming up after the break – Water: The Gold Standard of Moistness.
Media Matters always takes quotes out of context, because for “conservatives”, “context” means rewriting any part of reality or history and making shit up so that it favors “conservatives”.
Guess you forgot to post the link there, Jay. Let me help you out.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200709270010
You’ll find the out-of-context quotes about 4 screens down towards the end of the verbatim transcript.
Rush Limbaugh and the “phony soldiers” bullshit.
I went and read the transcript, which includes the entire context of the conversation. Limbaugh said that people like me, who have served in the Army but do not support the war in Iraq, are “phony soldiers.” If you don’t believe the transcript is accurate, please supply the accurate version.
Thanks for directing my attention to the evidence that you were making stuff up.
I’m getting to JT, I can feel it!
Maybe I should run for office on the theme that I annoy the wingnuts.
Unfortunately, Repack, that sort of thing only works with wingnut voters. The rest of us actually care about the country.
I went and read the transcript, which includes the entire context of the conversation.
No you didn’t. Wikipedia has the “fuller” transcript. You’ll note that Media Matters cuts their transcript off right when Rush explicitly mentions Jesse Macbeth by name.
Full-er (adj.)
– Modified
– Scrubbed
– “Improved”
No you didn’t. Wikipedia has the “fuller” transcript. You’ll note that Media Matters cuts their transcript off right when Rush explicitly mentions Jesse Macbeth by name.
I don’t know why you think it’s exculpatory to learn that Rush equated called all the soldierS (note plural) who opposed the war phony and compared them to the one (singular) fraud MacBeth.
MM did Rush a favor by leaving that bit out.
“Phony soldiers” = one guy
“fake soldiers” = one guy
And in the sentence, “They have their celebrities and one of them was Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth,” “celebrities” equals one guy, one of whom happens to be Jesse Macbeth.
Yup, Rush was talking about one guy all along. In the plural. Because he rolls like that. Screw grammar. If he means one guy, he’s gonna use the plural. Because, man, does that piss off the liberals.
$4.2 million donation to the Marine Corps- Law Enforcement Foundation by Limbaugh, Wilbur.
Guess how much did Harry ‘Limp Leader’ Reid donated on a challenge by Limbaugh?
My, what big leaps you’re able to make, fafaroo. Olympian leaps, in fact. Amazing how you guys always portray Limbaugh as the big fat idiot and his audience as complete dolt morons when it suits your purposes, which is nearly all of the time. But for those instances where you want to stretch things out for your leaps of logic, then you have to make it out like Limbaugh is the evil genius mind-control wizard and his subjects are able to detect every micro-nuance you deem worthy of the charge.
Like the same tactics you do with Bush, you seem to play both sides of the street and it never makes any sense.
I don’t know why you think it’s exculpatory to learn that Rush equated called all the soldierS (note plural) who opposed the war phony and compared them to the one (singular) fraud MacBeth.
Quite possibly the finest bit of parsing since “the definition of ‘is’”.
Guess how much did Harry ‘Limp Leader’ Reid donated on a challenge by Limbaugh?
My opinion of Harry is not very high either, but is there any reason he would respond at all to any sort of challenge from that windbag?
I applaud Limbaugh for using his celebrity to raise money for worthy charities, but he could raise twenty times as much ans it wouldn’t replace the simple apology he has never been man enough to give.
Limbaugh is the evil genius mind-control wizard and his subjects are able to detect every micro-nuance
I think it’s amusing that Dennis things the difference between singular and plural is a ‘micro-nuance’
Can anybody tell me what this crazy eyed hack stands for?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoM90bAsr1M
How’s she any different from the Weekly World News?
Can anybody tell me what this crazy eyed hack stands for?
Internment of Others.
Advancing the Wingnut Cause.
Shrieking dingbats.
How’s she any different from the Weekly World News?
Though both cater to the ill-informed, the Weekly World News is a newspaper, whereas Ms. Malkin is a human being.
Good grief, Wilbur, yes, the way that sentence was constructed and to try to make it that he was impugning all soldiers, that is a micro-nuance on yours and fafaroo’s part. How many service men have you heard say that they thought Limbaugh didn’t give a shit about them? Idon’t recall any at all. I do, however recall soldiers holding up a sign mocking John Kerry’s failed joke at how dumb they were to be in in the military seving in Iraq.
Keep making that bed, Britney. There’s plenty of room for you and your ideological compadres: Rush Limbaugh, Paleo Pat, Jim David Adkisson, et al. Have a good sleep!
I do, however recall soldiers holding up a sign mocking John Kerry’s failed joke at how dumb they were to be in in the military seving in Iraq.
What’s ignored, is that:
1. Kerry was himself, in the military
2. Bush has made hundreds of gaffes himself.
You ARE the former Mister ed here, aren’t you, Indeed?
Why do you have to change names and not tell anybody? It’s not like you embarrassed yourself any more as Mister ed than you are already with your new name.
Why do you have to change names and not tell anybody? It’s not like you embarrassed yourself any more as Mister ed than you are already with your new name.
Huh? Is your bed not very comfy, Britney? Oh, I’m sorry to (virtually) hear that. Perhaps you oughtn’t have made it so. What’s done is done. Peace!
My bed’s very comfortable, ed. Sleep Number. It’s awesome, you should try it.
But for those instances where you want to stretch things out for your leaps of logic, then you have to make it out like Limbaugh is the evil genius mind-control wizard and his subjects are able to detect every micro-nuance you deem worthy of the charge.
Yes, Dennis, it’s a huge leap of logic to assume that when someone uses the plural, several times, and uses the phrase “one of which is” he is actually speaking about one person and not a group of people, only one of which he specifically names.
Good grief, Wilbur, yes, the way that sentence was constructed and to try to make it that he was impugning all soldiers, that is a micro-nuance on yours and fafaroo’s part.
No, Dennis. He was impugning all soldiers who criticize the war as “phony soldiers.”
And, of course, lost in all this is still the fact that Malkin distorted the meaning of what Andy Stern wrote to make it sound like he favored some kind of gestapo tactics.
Malkin provided no ellipsis, no context, no link. Just innuendo’s of bullying and thug tactics.
Yup, I can think of nothing more thuggish than “issuing reports” and exercising the legal right to strike.
fafaroo, you guys lost that battle on all fronts. Continuing to fight it after the principals have signed surrender papers is pointless. Sorry, time to move on.
OMG, fafaroo, you adamantly defended Oliver and Media Matters when they did that.
I won’t ask if you have no shame, I know already.
fafaroo, you guys lost that battle on all fronts.
Because Britney said so!
Hardly the first example of
JesseMichelle Malkin’s hackeryGood grief, Wilbur, yes, the way that sentence was constructed and to try to make it that he was impugning all soldiers, that is a micro-nuance on yours and fafaroo’s part.
Micro-nuance. Hah. I got yer micro-nuance right here!
CALLER 2: No, it’s not, and what’s really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.
LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.
Common-sense reading of that: Limbaugh is equating the caller’s “these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media” with “the phony soldiers”, and agreeing with the caller that those soldiers are not “real soldiers”. He is pretty much saying “soldiers who speak out to the media against the war are not “real soldiers” but “phony soldiers”.
Now, you seem to be saying that what Limbaugh says later makes us re-think that commonsense reading, but does it? A couple of minutes later, after the initial call was over (and the transcript on Rush’s site is, ironically, abridged to make the intervening time seem less), here is what he says:
Here is a Morning Update that we did recently, talking about fake soldiers. This is a story of who the left props up as heroes. They have their celebrities and one of them was Army Ranger Jesse MacBeth.
Again, fake soldierS, celebrities: plural, more than one. Rush, in defending his obscene self says “I was talking about ONE SOLDIER,” as much as admitting that there were no others he knew about besides Macbeth. By fudging singular and plural he smears all soldiers speaking against the war by associating them with MacBeth, implying that they are in some way like Macbeth and that there is more than the one established fraud among them, a allegation for which he obviously has no evidence.
Maybe that’s not what Rush intended to do, but that is the commonsense meaning of his words. If he did not intend to engage in that smear, then he should have been a man and apologized. Instead, he chose to go on the offensive against those who called him on it. Class act, as always. And to have the same crowd defending this who are still claiming that Kerry intentionally insulted the troops in his botched joke, or that Obama owes an apology to all policemen everywhere, is the epitome of rich.
In any case, to compare this “out of context” case to Malkin’s flagrant and manifest out-of-context quoting is not just false equivalence, its the Platonic ideal of false equivalence.
And really, do you wingnuts ever stop long enough to think things like “maybe I should agree that what Malkin’s doing here is reprehensible before I point out that some left-winger at some time did something similar?”
Wilbur. Verdict has been handed down. Harry Reid lost and then tried to glom off Limbaugh’s good deed of donating the four mill to the Marine Corps charity.
El Rushbo took the lemons the Dems threw at him and made a ton of sweet, delicious lemonade.
End of story.
Maybe some day people will run Limbaugh- Harry Reid phony soldier reenactments and you can play a bit part, but until then, best to just move on and live to fight another day.
Jay Tea: EVERYONE knows Media Matters holds the trademark on taking quotes out of context. They oughta sue her for infringement.
And, once again, the immediate reaction from one on the right isn’t to find such behavior bothersome. No, it’s “Look, over there!” and “But your guys do it, too!”
The aspirations of the right: We’re only as bad as the other side.
Wilbur. Verdict has been handed down
Um, by whom?
Shorter dennis
Jay Tea: EVERYONE knows Media Matters holds the trademark on taking quotes out of context. They oughta sue her for infringement.
Any key examples of MM’s transgressions you’d care to share? No? OK, then.
El Rushbo took the lemons the Dems threw at him and made a ton of sweet, delicious lemonade.
Awesome! You should be proud your guy is the de facto Supreme Leader of the Republican Party. He’s a KKKlassy guy!
He GAVE one, Indeed. You’re either being an obtuse douchebag or you’re too lazy to look through the thread in order not to look like an obtuse douchebag. I’m not sure which is worse.
Also, the Michael Savage quote where they only showed half a sentence as their headline for the blog story, that your cohorts here defended.
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200906180017
where they only showed half a sentence as their headline for the blog story
And the quote fully explained the point of what Savage was saying. And the audio of the comments is included. You guys, when caught, always insist that the entire 3-4 hour show be posted to show “context”. Gimme a break.
Because, man, does that piss off the liberals.
Meaning one person? Who is it?
He GAVE one, Indeed.
I think Indeed was looking for a valid example, Dennis.
Also, the Michael Savage quote where they only showed half a sentence as their headline for the blog story, that your cohorts here defended.
Gawd. Dennis is just making a monty python retrospective out of himself, isn’t he? He’s put down the soft cushions and brought in the COMFY CHAIR. Shorter Dennis.
whereas Ms. Malkin is a human being.
But just barely.
lost in all this is still the fact that Malkin distorted the meaning of what Andy Stern wrote to make it sound like he favored some kind of gestapo tactics.
OR that she is implying help from the White House in employing said tactics.
Also, the Michael Savage quote where they only showed half a sentence as their headline for the blog story, that your cohorts here defended.
Should we have a look at some of the thing your good friend, Michael Savage has said over the years?
http://mediamatters.org/research/200405140003
Oh, I’m sorry, was that out of context?
That’s just a sampling. Need I go on?
Nice bedfellows you have there, Britney.
Take that bone out of your nose and call me back!
Whoops, that’s classic–as your pet name for your hero goes–”El Rushbo.” My bad. Was that out of context too? If so, what was the context?
And “El Rushbo”? Really? How old are you, 12?
Wilbur. Verdict has been handed down. Harry Reid lost and then tried to glom off Limbaugh’s good deed of donating the four mill to the Marine Corps charity.
A few things.
1. What the hell does that have to do with anything?
2. According to my driver’s license, I’m not Harry Reid. So what’s your point?
3. So giving to charity means you can erase things you said?
4. Why should Harry Reid have to play by Limbaugh’s rules?
Anthropologist? I thought he was a plant doctor.
whereas Ms. Malkin is a human being. – Indeed
But just barely. – Duros62
Interesting that anyone who criticizes the President is a racist, but anyone who criticizes Michelle Malkin is not.
I am never sure if it is because of the loathing that Liberals feel toward Asian-Americans for not embracing victim status, or because she makes the case that you can be a successful intelligent woman and not be a feminist. Or both.