Blumenthal exonerated
Chris Bellomy
Nagourney -- an establishment wankfest.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNhzPBn3zP0
cb
David V. Loewe, Jr
wrote:
>The NYT is still the paper of Judy Miller and Adam
>Nagourney -- an establishment wankfest.
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNhzPBn3zP0
I don't see how that clip exonerates him...
--
"Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small
increases in food supplies we make, ... The death rate will increase
until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to
death during the next ten years."
Paul Ehrlich in April 1970
honkifyoulovejustice
wrote:
> On Wed, 19 May 2010 15:19:13 -0500, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc>
> wrote:
>
> >The NYT is still the paper of Judy Miller and Adam
> >Nagourney -- an establishment wankfest.
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNhzPBn3zP0
>
> I don't see how that clip exonerates him...
HERE'S A VIDEO OF HIM NOT SAYING IT! IF IT'S NOT ON THE VIDEO, IT
DIDN'T HAPPEN! JESUS CHRIST, DON'T YOU OF ALL PEOPLE KNOW THAT?
David Loewe, Jr.
You are laughable.
I said, in a case where there was a SINGLE INCIDENT that it not being on
a video (or videos) that covered the entire SINGLE INCIDENT constituted
that there was no proof and that it didn't happen. [1] With Blumenthal,
the tale seems to have grown in the telling.
[1] There were 3 things alleged that day 1) A "chorus" of the "N-word"
chanted at John Lewis, 2) that Emmanuel Cleaver got spat on and 3) that
Barney Frank got called a "faggot." To deal with those in reverse order,
protestors said the last one was true - a single person had done so.
They also said that person was shouted down and told that if he
couldn't be civil, he could leave. Now, I thought this was what the
left in general and Bellomy in particular wanted done. Yet, he gives no
praise when protestors do the right thing. As for Cleaver, we have
video of him walking between the buildings. A man closer to his
destination than he is using cupped hands as a makeshift megaphone and
is, in the heat of the moment, spraying about as much as he is saying.
Cleaver passes him as he yells. About a minute or so (IIRC) later,
Cleaver comes back to the guy and gets right in his face. Naturally, he
gets sprayed some by the shouter. Cleaver runs off and comes back
shortly with a cop of some jurisdiction. I can't remember if the guy
left or Cleaver couldn't figure out who it was, but no one was hauled
off. Some time later (days or a week or so), Cleaver himself backs off
the claim that he was deliberately spat on.
And, finally, there is Lewis. We have several videos which, viewed in
their entirety, cover the complete walk between the buildings (which IS
WHERE the Congressmen claim the incident happened). At no point can
even a single instance of the "N-word" be heard. Did someone or even
several someones along the route yell it out? It is very possible.
However, given the claim of a "chorus" (which is THE thing I say never
happened) and the reaction to a person calling Congressman Frank a
"faggot," I doubt it as no one reacts to another protestor as if they
had said that.
You guys are pitiful wretches.
If you guys can't figure out the differences between the accusations and
the situations then you need mental help badly and you need to get it
very quickly.
--
"Yes, John, but that is because you have to think the worst of everybody
else in order to avoid thinking about how much of a wanker *you* are."
David Chapman in <8kku9v$kee$4...@gxsn.com> on John S. Novak, III
honkifyoulovejustice
> On Wed, 19 May 2010 13:58:17 -0700 (PDT), honkifyoulovejustice
>
That wuz e-z.
Kyle T. Jones
Really? Because you just confirmed that each of the three things
alleged to have happened (in your words) -
(1) A "chorus" of the "N-word" chanted at John Lewis
(2) that Emmanuel Cleaver got spat on
(3) that Barney Frank got called a "faggot".
happened.
(3), you concede. (2), you concede, while excusing it as not being
"deliberate". (1), you say "Did someone or even several someones along
the route yell it out? It is very possible" - so you concede it's very
possible that one or more folks yelled "nigger" at him - but want to
argue whether or not that constitutes a "chorus"?
GMAFB, David - that's a nit not worth picking.
> If you guys can't figure out the differences between the accusations and
> the situations then you need mental help badly and you need to get it
> very quickly.
So, the difference is interpretation of the word "chorus"?
Wowsers.
Cheers.
David V. Loewe, Jr
Well, you and your elk have been ACTING like I said all three never
happened. I said one of them never happened.
>(1) A "chorus" of the "N-word" chanted at John Lewis
>(2) that Emmanuel Cleaver got spat on
>(3) that Barney Frank got called a "faggot".
>
>happened.
>
>(3), you concede.
And again, the surrounding protestors took the corrective action
recommended by 4 out of 5 moonbats and get NO credit for doing the right
thing.
There is no win here, so fuck you people.
>(2), you concede, while excusing it as not being
>"deliberate".
Dude...
CLEAVER has backed off this one.
>(1), you say "Did someone or even several someones along
>the route yell it out? It is very possible" - so you concede it's very
>possible that one or more folks yelled "nigger" at him - but want to
>argue whether or not that constitutes a "chorus"?
>
>GMAFB, David - that's a nit not worth picking.
Yes, it IS. One indicates a lone nutcase or a few of them. The other
indicates the whole crowd (and by conjecture the whole movement) is a
bunch of racists. There are some stains that do NOT wash off - even if
the underlying facts are proven wrong. You can't let those kinds of
lies take root.
Niven's Law says that you *will* get a few idiots and not to worry
overmuch about it because it can't be stopped. Worry when you get a LOT
of them. Chris, Dan, Ralph, you and ESPECIALLY sam (and perhaps others
who slip my mind now) seemed dead set on proving that the entire
movement was racist.
It isn't true.
It isn't supported by the evidence
And it is, in hindsight, a pitiful lie of a talking point.
>> If you guys can't figure out the differences between the accusations and
>> the situations then you need mental help badly and you need to get it
>> very quickly.
>
>So, the difference is interpretation of the word "chorus"?
>
>Wowsers.
You still don't get it, do you?
--
"Her name was Anne and I'll be damned if I recall her face
She left me not knowing what to do."
- Gordon Lightfoot
Kyle T. Jones
>> (1), you say "Did someone or even several someones along
>> the route yell it out? It is very possible" - so you concede it's very
>> possible that one or more folks yelled "nigger" at him - but want to
>> argue whether or not that constitutes a "chorus"?
>>
>> GMAFB, David - that's a nit not worth picking.
>
> Yes, it IS. One indicates a lone nutcase or a few of them. The other
> indicates the whole crowd (and by conjecture the whole movement) is a
> bunch of racists. There are some stains that do NOT wash off - even if
> the underlying facts are proven wrong. You can't let those kinds of
> lies take root.
>
> Niven's Law says that you *will* get a few idiots and not to worry
> overmuch about it because it can't be stopped. Worry when you get a LOT
> of them. Chris, Dan, Ralph, you and ESPECIALLY sam (and perhaps others
> who slip my mind now) seemed dead set on proving that the entire
> movement was racist.
>
But, David - I don't think the entire movement *is* racist. I don't
even think the majority of the movement is racist - at least, no more
racist than average. And I've said such at least three times in this
very chatrum - IIRC, at least once in direct reply to yourself.
I do think if you concede that it is very possible, in your own words,
"someone or several someones along the route (yelled) it out" - it's
easy to suppose a person, righteously offended and no doubt still a bit
hot under the collar, could describe that incident to someone else as a
"chorus" of racial epitaphs.
It's mild exaggeration at best. Given that you claim this as your sole
point of contention, it hardly seems worth the effort you've poured in...
Cheers.
David Loewe, Jr.
<KBf...@realdomain.net> wrote:
>David V. Loewe, Jr wrote:
>
>>> (1), you say "Did someone or even several someones along
>>> the route yell it out? It is very possible" - so you concede it's very
>>> possible that one or more folks yelled "nigger" at him - but want to
>>> argue whether or not that constitutes a "chorus"?
>>>
>>> GMAFB, David - that's a nit not worth picking.
>>
>> Yes, it IS. One indicates a lone nutcase or a few of them. The other
>> indicates the whole crowd (and by conjecture the whole movement) is a
>> bunch of racists. There are some stains that do NOT wash off - even if
>> the underlying facts are proven wrong. You can't let those kinds of
>> lies take root.
>>
>> Niven's Law says that you *will* get a few idiots and not to worry
>> overmuch about it because it can't be stopped. Worry when you get a LOT
>> of them. Chris, Dan, Ralph, you and ESPECIALLY sam (and perhaps others
>> who slip my mind now) seemed dead set on proving that the entire
>> movement was racist.
>>
>But, David - I don't think the entire movement *is* racist. I don't
>even think the majority of the movement is racist - at least, no more
>racist than average. And I've said such at least three times in this
>very chatrum - IIRC, at least once in direct reply to yourself.
Which is why I named more people than just you (this wasn't and still
isn't happening in a vacuum) and added "seemed" (and there certainly
were times that it seemed like you believed it despite your
protestations otherwise) as a qualifier.
>I do think if you concede that it is very possible, in your own words,
>"someone or several someones along the route (yelled) it out" - it's
>easy to suppose a person, righteously offended and no doubt still a bit
>hot under the collar, could describe that incident to someone else as a
>"chorus" of racial epitaphs.
Or a race-baiting idiot (which is what I think of Congressman Cleaver).
>It's mild exaggeration at best.
I disagree.
>Given that you claim this as your sole
>point of contention, it hardly seems worth the effort you've poured in...
"There are some stains that do NOT wash off - even if the underlying
facts are proven wrong. You can't let those kinds of lies take root."
You have to nip this stuff in the bud.
--
"...it's time for me to go."
Albert A. Gore Jr. conceding the 2000
Presidential Election
TOE
I don't see how this helps. But, this, IMO, nails the coffin shut:
http://www.slate.com/id/2254214
"But Blumenthal has never given anyone a break. He has made a career
out of holding others to the strictest standards of truth—and
mercilessly prosecuting them when they fall short."
And I agree with you on the NYTs, it is actually worse since Miller
left, Frank Rich is still there.
-Tom Enright
“The Times continues to treat communism as a cute campus peccadillo
like pot smoking or nude streaking. . . . Being a communist is
personal but being the pregnant teen daughter of a vice presidential
candidate is public business?”
> cb
Pauli G
>
> - Show quoted text -
that's the bottom line, the guy has made a career out of being careful
with his words, so I'm not cutting him slack on this one, even though
that means we'll probably have the WWF in the senate representing us.
Chris Bellomy
> On May 19, 4:19 pm, Chris Bellomy<ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote:
>> The NYT is still the paper of Judy Miller and Adam
>> Nagourney -- an establishment wankfest.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNhzPBn3zP0
>
> I don't see how this helps. But, this, IMO, nails the coffin shut:
>
> http://www.slate.com/id/2254214
>
> "But Blumenthal has never given anyone a break. He has made a career
> mercilessly prosecuting them when they fall short."
Also, Blumenthal has a long history of being clear that
he didn't serve in Vietnam. There are far more quotes
from him to that effect than just this one verbal gaffe.
cb
David V. Loewe, Jr
wrote:
>TOE wrote, On 5/20/10 8:46 AM:
>> On May 19, 4:19 pm, Chris Bellomy<ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote:
>>> The NYT is still the paper of Judy Miller and Adam
>>> Nagourney -- an establishment wankfest.
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNhzPBn3zP0
>>
>> I don't see how this helps. But, this, IMO, nails the coffin shut:
>>
>> http://www.slate.com/id/2254214
>>
>> "But Blumenthal has never given anyone a break. He has made a career
>> out of holding others to the strictest standards of truth�and
>> mercilessly prosecuting them when they fall short."
>
>Also, Blumenthal has a long history of being clear that
>he didn't serve in Vietnam. There are far more quotes
>from him to that effect than just this one verbal gaffe.
The Saletan article (from Slate, linked above) shows that Blumenthal
also seems to have an apparently long history of implying and
insinuating that he DID serve in 'Nam.
--
"God was knocking on the door. And He wanted in real bad."
Larry Niven & Jerry Pournelle - Footfall
J. Hugh Sullivan
wrote:
>TOE wrote, On 5/20/10 8:46 AM:
>> On May 19, 4:19 pm, Chris Bellomy<ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote:
>>> The NYT is still the paper of Judy Miller and Adam
>>> Nagourney -- an establishment wankfest.
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNhzPBn3zP0
>>
>> I don't see how this helps. But, this, IMO, nails the coffin shut:
>>
>> http://www.slate.com/id/2254214
>>
>> "But Blumenthal has never given anyone a break. He has made a career
>> out of holding others to the strictest standards of truth�and
>> mercilessly prosecuting them when they fall short."
>
>Also, Blumenthal has a long history of being clear that
>he didn't serve in Vietnam. There are far more quotes
>from him to that effect than just this one verbal gaffe.
>
>cb
He said it more than once. And this is a time when people falsifying
their service are getting clobbered.
Hugh
Chris Bellomy
> On Thu, 20 May 2010 13:00:39 -0500, Chris Bellomy<ten.wohsdoog@sirhc>
> wrote:
>
>> TOE wrote, On 5/20/10 8:46 AM:
>>> On May 19, 4:19 pm, Chris Bellomy<ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote:
>
>>>> The NYT is still the paper of Judy Miller and Adam
>>>> Nagourney -- an establishment wankfest.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNhzPBn3zP0
>>>
>>> I don't see how this helps. But, this, IMO, nails the coffin shut:
>>>
>>> http://www.slate.com/id/2254214
>>>
>>> "But Blumenthal has never given anyone a break. He has made a career
>>> mercilessly prosecuting them when they fall short."
>>
>> Also, Blumenthal has a long history of being clear that
>> he didn't serve in Vietnam. There are far more quotes
>>from him to that effect than just this one verbal gaffe.
>
> The Saletan article (from Slate, linked above) shows that Blumenthal
> also seems to have an apparently long history of implying and
> insinuating that he DID serve in 'Nam.
Yes, but Will Saletan has a long history of being
an idiot. So who are you going to believe: the idiot,
or the source?
cb
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
>David V. Loewe, Jr wrote, On 5/20/10 2:49 PM:
>> On Thu, 20 May 2010 13:00:39 -0500, Chris Bellomy<ten.wohsdoog@sirhc>
>> wrote:
>>> TOE wrote, On 5/20/10 8:46 AM:
>>>> On May 19, 4:19 pm, Chris Bellomy<ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote:
>>
>>>>> The NYT is still the paper of Judy Miller and Adam
>>>>> Nagourney -- an establishment wankfest.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNhzPBn3zP0
>>>>
>>>> I don't see how this helps. But, this, IMO, nails the coffin shut:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.slate.com/id/2254214
>>>>
>>>> "But Blumenthal has never given anyone a break. He has made a career
>>>> out of holding others to the strictest standards of truth�and
>>>> mercilessly prosecuting them when they fall short."
>>>
>>> Also, Blumenthal has a long history of being clear that
>>> he didn't serve in Vietnam. There are far more quotes
>>>from him to that effect than just this one verbal gaffe.
>>
>> The Saletan article (from Slate, linked above) shows that Blumenthal
>> also seems to have an apparently long history of implying and
>> insinuating that he DID serve in 'Nam.
>
>Yes, but Will Saletan has a long history of being
>an idiot. So who are you going to believe: the idiot,
>or the source?
This is becoming standard with you. If someone doesn't consistently
spout your line, they are idiots. You've been on a big "attack the
source" jag since the start of the year. Your rants about Rasmussen
Reports is yet another example of the trend.
So, we're at the point where you've got to back it up before I pay it
any mind at all.
--
"Will you come quietly, or must I use earplugs?"
- Russ Cage
Chris Bellomy
> On Thu, 20 May 2010 15:28:33 -0500, Chris Bellomy<ten.wohsdoog@sirhc>
> wrote:
>
>> David V. Loewe, Jr wrote, On 5/20/10 2:49 PM:
>>> On Thu, 20 May 2010 13:00:39 -0500, Chris Bellomy<ten.wohsdoog@sirhc>
>>> wrote:
>>>> TOE wrote, On 5/20/10 8:46 AM:
>>>>> On May 19, 4:19 pm, Chris Bellomy<ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> The NYT is still the paper of Judy Miller and Adam
>>>>>> Nagourney -- an establishment wankfest.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNhzPBn3zP0
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't see how this helps. But, this, IMO, nails the coffin shut:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.slate.com/id/2254214
>>>>>
>>>>> "But Blumenthal has never given anyone a break. He has made a career
>>>>> mercilessly prosecuting them when they fall short."
>>>>
>>>> Also, Blumenthal has a long history of being clear that
>>>> he didn't serve in Vietnam. There are far more quotes
>>> >from him to that effect than just this one verbal gaffe.
>>>
>>> The Saletan article (from Slate, linked above) shows that Blumenthal
>>> also seems to have an apparently long history of implying and
>>> insinuating that he DID serve in 'Nam.
>>
>> Yes, but Will Saletan has a long history of being
>> an idiot. So who are you going to believe: the idiot,
>> or the source?
>
> This is becoming standard with you. If someone doesn't consistently
> spout your line, they are idiots.
Ah yes, Will Saletan, he who subscribes to Charles Murray's
lunatic ideas on eugenics, is the guy you want to defend.
Maybe, just maybe, you should consider that I usually
have pretty good reason for calling them idiots.
cb
David V. Loewe, Jr
wrote:
>David Loewe, Jr. wrote, On 5/20/10 3:58 PM:
>> On Thu, 20 May 2010 15:28:33 -0500, Chris Bellomy<ten.wohsdoog@sirhc>
>> wrote:
>>> David V. Loewe, Jr wrote, On 5/20/10 2:49 PM:
>>>> On Thu, 20 May 2010 13:00:39 -0500, Chris Bellomy<ten.wohsdoog@sirhc>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> TOE wrote, On 5/20/10 8:46 AM:
>>>>>> On May 19, 4:19 pm, Chris Bellomy<ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> The NYT is still the paper of Judy Miller and Adam
>>>>>>> Nagourney -- an establishment wankfest.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNhzPBn3zP0
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't see how this helps. But, this, IMO, nails the coffin shut:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.slate.com/id/2254214
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "But Blumenthal has never given anyone a break. He has made a career
>>>>>> out of holding others to the strictest standards of truth�and
>>>>>> mercilessly prosecuting them when they fall short."
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, Blumenthal has a long history of being clear that
>>>>> he didn't serve in Vietnam. There are far more quotes
>>>> >from him to that effect than just this one verbal gaffe.
>>>>
>>>> The Saletan article (from Slate, linked above) shows that Blumenthal
>>>> also seems to have an apparently long history of implying and
>>>> insinuating that he DID serve in 'Nam.
>>>
>>> Yes, but Will Saletan has a long history of being
>>> an idiot. So who are you going to believe: the idiot,
>>> or the source?
>>
>> This is becoming standard with you. If someone doesn't consistently
>> spout your line, they are idiots.
>
>Ah yes, Will Saletan, he who subscribes to Charles Murray's
>lunatic ideas on eugenics, is the guy you want to defend.
Again, we're at the point where you've got to back it up before I pay it
any mind at all.
Moreover, his views on eugenics (whatever *those* might actually be)
have exactly zero to do with his views on Blumenthal. You have just
engaged in a classic example of argumentum ad hominem - a "classic
logical FALLACY." [emphasis added]. You have, therefore, lost
credibility - not gained any - with this exchange.
>Maybe, just maybe, you should consider that I usually
>have pretty good reason for calling them idiots.
I've already weighed that notion and it came up short. I find that,
usually, you don't have all the evidence when you call them idiots. And
sometimes when you are given contrary evidence you ignore it.
--
"So we cheated and we lied and we tested
And we never failed to fail it was the easiest thing to do"
- Stills, Curtis & Curtis