Don’t worry, it was also incomprehensible. I think he was saying “It’s not treason-baiting if republicans do it.” more or less. Go figure.

Noted for next time you ask a question.

Or any successes of any kind?

Are you really saying you can’t see a difference?

http://washingtonindependent.com/65015/the-obama-thesis-hoax

Dennis, why didn’t you tell us?

If you didn’t listen to Rush Limbaugh’s radio show today, you missed the news that an obscure blogger had gotten his hands on ten pages of Barack Obama’s college thesis, thanks to Joe Klein of Time magazine. Michael Ledeen had jumped on the news, publishing an excerpt that revealed how the president had “doubts” about the “so-called founders.” And Limbaugh ran with it.

The problem: It was a hoax, actually marked as a satire, as Klein blogged earlier today. Ledeen apologized.

[H]e got me, and lots of others. It worked because it’s plausible.

Here’s some of what Ledeen and Limbaugh considered plausible:

The subject of this paper, which totaled 44 pages, was American government. Entitled Aristocracy Reborn, this paper chronicled the long struggle of the working class against, as Obama put it, “plutocratic thugs with one hand on the money and the other on the government.”

In the paper, in which only the first ten pages were given to the general media, Obama decries the plight of the poor: “I see poverty in every place I walk. In Los Angeles and New York, the poor reach to me with bleary eyes and all I can do is sigh.”

Without spending too much more time on this, it seems a piece of the persistent rumors that, surely, the young Barack Obama must have relied on smarter white radicals to write his first memoir.

UPDATE: Via Media Matters, I see that Limbaugh discovered the hoax midway through the show, and used what used to be known as the “fake but accurate” defense.

Claiming “I have had this happen to me,” Limbaugh says he doesn’t care if thesis quotes are fake, “I know Obama thinks it”

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200910230019

Irony! Who’s the hoax swallower now?

I wonder if Tiger-Beat Dittoheads will continue to defend their idol. I’m guessing they will.

Your example was of Sean Penn. Sean Fucking Penn.

Do you really want to hold him up as someone wrongly attacked for being treasonous?

Bring it on, buddy.

2. Yes

That’s not what you said. I know what you said and I know what you meant.
Just because some people called some people treasonous for despicable behavior does not mean it was treasonous for Cheney to say what he said, nor is it hypocritical of Hannity not to condemn him for what he said. Being critical of president Bush is not what Hannity called treasonous, and I must’ve heard him say that a hundred times.

A better example for you for the next time this comes up between the two of us would’ve been Al Gore crazy loon tirade after we went to war when he roared ‘He be-traaaayed this country’ among other things. Not sure if The Great American Sean Hannity called him treasonous for that, but if he did, that’s quite a bit different than saying the president dithered in Afghanistan.

Listen, no harm no foul. Sorry if you’re pissed at me. I just don’t like the terms traitor or treasonous, just like I don’t like the R word and I wanted you to explain just what it was Hannity or anyone was calling anyone else treasonous for that pissed you off so much that we’re not supposed to be criticizing President Thin-Skinned at all now, lest we be considered treasonous.

Dennis at 3:03 pm:

If you can provide an example, which you tried and failed to do on your first feeble attempt, then by all means, keep trying.

Dennis, after the (objectively awesome) example he asked for was delivered, at 3:32 pm (the same day):

Leeeaaaaavvvveee mememememememememememe allllloooonnnneeee

Indeed.

1. While Bush was in office, did various conservative pols and media types claim that criticism of the president’s policies served to undermine our nation’s interests?

2. Now that Obama is in office, are at least some of these same people now criticizing the policies of the current administration?

If you won’t concede at least these two points, then I fuckin give up; because you are too dishonest to waste time on.

You’d have to find that infinitely more pleasurable than obsessing over me.

just asking you to be accurate in your assessment.

and shortly thereafter:

I don’t think that the charge of treason was used one/one hundredth of the amount that liberals throw out the racist charge now, yet that’s not how it’s portrayed by most of you guys on here.

He wants people to be accurate in their assessments, yet he thinks (with no supporting evidence) that liberals throw the racist charge 100 times more than and wingnuts say called treason (is this based solely on olliverwillis.com or the Internets as a whole–Dennis isn’t clear). Then Dennis asserts (“yet that’s not how“) that most of you guys portray this.

So because Dennis thinks that X is a fact, he then concludes that Y is definitely true because “most” of Z people say so. And he’s asking others to be accurate.

Did I get any quotes wrong?

The beeping noise you’re about to hear is Dennis backing up. Again.

Link:
http://www.oliverwillis.com/2009/10/22/robert-gibbs-on-cheneys-beclowning-on-afghanistan/#comment-186726

I admit that’s what I think. I was talking and responding to him after I had asked him to give me an example of what his previous claim was.

If you can provide an example, which you tried and failed to do on your first feeble attempt, then by all means, keep trying.

But how about in your own words this next time, and not someone else’s that you give me a link to, mm-kay, Link-boy?