'Great Oversimplification'
Steve Benen noticed the same article as Will Bunch did, but Will took exception to the NY Times' coverage. AttyTood:
Earlier tonight, I posted Dan Froomkin's piece on I.F. Stone that said, in part, that today's journalists "are encouraged to write in a way that subjugates not only their personality but their judgment." What would be an example? Check out this story set to run in tomorrow's New York Times, with the hard-hitting headline: "Bush Distorts Qaeda Links, Critics Assert":
[..]But his references to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, and his assertions that it is the same group that attacked the United States in 2001, have greatly oversimplified the nature of the insurgency in Iraq and its relationship with the Qaeda leadership.
Greatly oversimplified?
The truth is this: What George W. Bush said to the nation yesterday was a lie, and an easily provable one.
Five years, two unwinnable wars, hundreds of thousands of deaths and life altering injuries and the NY Times STILL gives Bush the benefit of the doubt. You can ask NYT Public Editor Clark Hoyt** why by contacting him at public@nytimes.com or (212) 556-7652. Tempting as it might be to direct some rage over the complicit media at Mr. Hoyt, please remember that you have far more credibility and are much more persuasive if you avoid the nasty-gram tactic.
**Changed to reflect current Public Editor
Bloody semantics! They are parsing death.
It is simply because publications fear this administration and their wrath.
The truth is the Dems are afraid of Bush. They are afraid of Cheney. They are afraid, period.
The Times' public editor hasn't been Daniel Okrent for some time. It is now Clark Hoyt, who had an excellent column last Sunday about reporters' failure to call Bush on those fake "Queda" links. So go gentle on Mr. Hoyt -- he's one of the good guys.
L.A. Confidential @ 3:
And so since they are afraid to do what the American people elected them to do, they are co-conspirators.
Pathetic situation.
And they continue to call it a 'war' when it is, in fact, an OCCUPATION. When is the MSM going to stop pussyfooting and call a spade a spade?
Nits Chimp?
The New York Times worked very hard to get this war started.
I think a case can be made that without their efforts, this war may never have begun.
Everyone who has died as a result of this war, were killed because the people at the NYT worked hard to have them killed.
I've heard lots of rationalizations for supporting the war. To me they sound like practice arguments to try on God when judgement day comes. Perhaps they can fool St Peter?
We could have won the war in Afghanistan. We could have, if we hadn't taken our eyes off the prize by invading Iraq. Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory!
Gee-whiz!
The Democrats are afraid? No they're not. They're something else entirely.
They're complicit.
Afraid. Get real.
L.A. Confidential @ 5:
And they will continue to be afraid of Bush and Cheney after they leave the WH. Even more pathetic.
Olbermann and Moore are the only ones with the cajones to speak the truth!
One of the best screen caps of all time!
soothsayer @ 13:
Yeah, just like a chimp picking bugs out of his head.
If you keep picking at that thing georgie, it'll get worse.
gempei @ 11:
EnricoFermi @ 2:
No it;s simply because the NYT has a zionist CEO and chief editor for that matter. It's all here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1585562142333161866&q=stranger+...
watch the whole 5 parts and learn.
The NYTimes has always been an Establishment Elite publication.
"All The News That's Fit to Print." What the HELL does THAT mean?
"Fit to Print" implies censorship, pure and simple.
Capitol Briefing
By Paul Kane | July 12, 2007; 7:23 PM ET | Category: House , Iraq
The House's Iraq Vote: A Look at the 'Defectors'
With a 223-201 vote, the House has once again voted to set a deadline for ending major military actions in Iraq, a move that came despite a highly unified Republican opposition to any timeline for withdrawal.
The final tally was similar to previous votes that included strong withdrawal language. This time around House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) kept her left flank firmly in check, as all but one member of the Out of Iraq Caucus -- Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) -- supported the bill, which would call for almost all troops off the Iraqi battlefields by April 1, 2008. Kucinich believes the bill did not go far enough to end the war immediately.
The remaining 9 'nay' votes among Democrats all came from lawmakers who represent mostly rural, moderate-to-conservative districts. Of the 42 freshmen elected in 2006, only two -- Reps. Christopher Carney (D-Pa.) and Brad Ellsworth (D-Ind.) -- voted against the resolution.
Four of the Democratic 'nays' came from lawmakers who had previously supported timelines for withdrawal: Reps. Carney, Ellsworth, Tim Holden (Pa.) and Vic Snyder (Ark.). One Democrat who had previously been opposed to withdrawal legislation switched his vote in favor of pulling troops out by next spring -- Rep. Lincoln Davis (D-Tenn.).
On the GOP side of the aisle, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) continues to maintain incredible solidarity, despite a war that is opposed by 65 percent to 70 percent of the nation, depending on which public opinion poll you're reviewing. Just four Republicans voted with Pelosi, up from two earlier this spring. The new GOP votes for withdrawal were Reps. Jo Ann Emerson (Mo.) and John "Jimmy" Duncan (Tenn.).
Here's a full breakdown of the members who "defected" on today's Iraq vote:
DEMOCRATIC "NOs"
* John Barrow (Ga.)
* Dan Boren (Okla.)
* Christopher Carney (Pa.)
* Brad Ellsworth (Ind.)
* Tim Holden (Pa.)
* Dennis Kucinich (Ohio)
* Jim Marshall (Ga.)
* Jim Matheson (Utah)
* Vic Snyder (Ark.)
* Gene Taylor (Miss.)
GOP "YEAs"
* John 'Jimmy' Duncan (Tenn.)
* Jo Ann Emerson (Mo.)
* Wayne Gilchrest (Md.)
* Walter Jones (N.C.)
The Public Editor at the New York Times is now Clark Hoyt.
Hoyt replaced Okrent about five months ago. In a column last week he made some hard hitting criticisms of the paper for afailing to accurately represent events in Iraq and for taking the administration's word without question:
New York Times Spanks Itself
But go ahead and contact him anyway because the new article co-written by Judith Miller's ex-partner still misses the point about the composition of the insurgenct.
I thought after last Sunday's NYT editorial about the war, they had finally joined the reality-based community, although too late and too little. Today? guess not!
ReedMan @ 17:
Here we go again with the Zionist angle.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
also note the qualifier: "...Critics Assert" which takes away from it being a factual statement to a matter of hearsay: we're not saying Bush lied, we heard someone else say it.
Did bush distort or not? Take a damn stand you cowardly spineless hacks @ NYT (and MSM in general)
The press has gone from investigating and reporting facts to reporting what people say, regardless if what they say is true or not.
Poor chimpy. That 666 birthmark on his head always tingles when he tells a lie.
The president lied to the world with this statement... too bad no one in power seems to care enough to challenge him on it... like the Republicans, for example, who are able to lose in the next election. I'd like to hear them say, "Mr. President, I'm sorry but you are a fucking liar!"... OK, they would never say that but I can dream, can't I?
Hopefully, we will be "allowed" to have elections in 2008 so that we can begin to disassemble everything the repukes have done in the last seven years.
@19, BaScOmBe Says
-- Thanks for the list of the Dem traitors, Bascombe.
Say in W voice "I'm the Oversimplificator!"
Dr. Acula.
As a Jewish person, I can tell you this:
Zionists are NOT our friends.
They want to annihilate Israel, not to protect it.
ysbaddaden @ 16:
soothsayer @ 13:
Now if some sculptor could capture that pose onto marble, the Bush Librarery will have it’s main sculpture for the entrance.
Filthy Harry @ 23:
my point exactly! the 'critics assert' presumptively excludes the refutation of the boosh lies as valid by presenting the objection as 'assertions'
nytimes - 'all the shit we see fit to print'
Dr. Acula @ 26:
you're more than welcome!
Orwell's Illegitimate Son @ 28:
Are they the equivalent of the confederates who want to destroy this country if they can't christianize and incorporate it?
So how do we know how many Al Queda members there are in Iraq? Did someone take a census?
here's the letter I wrote to NYT:
It's amazing the Times are still considered a "liberal" newspaper. They've been (or at least prominent members of the staff have been) some of the most vocal cheerleaders of Bush's failed policies.
---
Off topic, but I wanted to know what my fellow C&L readers thought of this weird development between Clinton/Edwards. I'm not sure what to make of it, but it seems a little disturbing:
http://www.wluctv6.com/Global/story.asp?S=6784011
(Mods, feel free to delete this part if you feel it's a distraction to the topic at hand -- I just didn't know when the next open thread would be, and this seemed like something we should consider discussing here).
BaScOmBe @ 31:
So much already in our paper, that birds refuse to do their dooty.
I apologize, C&Lers. I needed to update my contact list to reflect the current Public Editor for the NYTimes. The correct person to contact is Clark Hoyt.
WEEKLY END THE WAR DEMONSTRATION
By the way a group of us meet every Thursday 4:30 to 6PM
on the corner of Middleneck Road and
Northern B'lvd in Great Neck Long Island NY
We demonstrate against this war,
Bring American Flags and or "Bring Home the Troops" signs
or sign Honk to End the war
Or What ever suits your fancy
OVERSIMPLIFICATION?? NOT SO...OVERT LIE INSTEAD!
Thanks, C & L, for the email for the New York Times. I've just written my thoughts to them and told them that if they continue to spread propagandized "fiction" as truth, the american people will immediately begin to boycott their newspaper.
As I see it, the New York Times will soon be joining the rest of the nonsensical "street rags" out there.
Their credibility is on it's way down the toilet with this sham!
Great picture. It looks like he is scratching at fleas.
Date: July 13, 2007
To: The New York Times (public@nytimes.com)
Subject: Gordon and Gutenberg article: "Bush Distorts Qaeda Links, Critics Assert"
Dear Editor,
I am greatly disappointed (perhaps angry) that the U.S. "paper of record" has, five years into an unlawful war of choice, run a Michael Gordon and Jim Gutenberg article that avoids much needed critical analysis of the facts and in its opening paragraph panders to the Bush Administration. Bush asserts the following(and you quote), which is an outright lie:
“The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq,” he said, “were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th, and that’s why what happens in Iraq matters to the security here at home.”
Then, as explanation for Bush's remark, The Times offers this:
"But his references to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, and his assertions that it is the same group that attacked the United States in 2001, have greatly oversimplified the nature of the insurgency in Iraq and its relationship with the Qaeda leadership."
I am very confused about the latter comment as explanation. "Greatly oversimplified?" Bush did not oversimplify; he lied. As nearly every military leader, defense official, or honest member of the government will confirm, the al Qaeda group that has emerged in Iraq, did so in response to our invasion and occupation. They are not the same group that attacked us on 9-11-01, but an insurgent group that has trained with those 9-11 attackers in order to become a real threat in Iraq. Yes, you state this fact as well. However, it is essential that when the media writes about the Iraq war, they not only provide an accurate depiction of the events and facts, but that they refuse to give cover to the perpetrators of the crime: the Bush Administration.
I believe that the headline for this article should not be "Bush Distorts Qaeda Links, Critics Assert," which infers more about Bush's critics (75% of the nation) and less about our President's lies that led us into, and keep us in, a war of his choice. Perhaps, "Bush Falsehoods Persist About al Qaeda in Iraq" would be a more honest, accurate, and significant headline, which could lead to a very interesting and timely article.
Thank you,
One Woman, Ink.
Dear Mr. Hoyt,
I appreciate the fact that the New York Times has written a major article calling out President Bush's distortions regarding Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and its highly diffuse links to "the ones who attacked us...on September 11th." However, in citing the position of Bush's critics, it would have been more accurate to say that we accuse him not of "overstating" the Al Qaeda connection, but of misrepresenting it or even inventing it, whether deliberately or through ignorance and mental confusion. We accuse him of opportunism and irresponsibility in using his position to misinform the public, rather than to inform it. His distortions are such "oversimplifications" that they border on outright lies, because many of the groups attacking our troops or Iraqi civilians have no connection to Al Qaeda at all -- either in name, ideology or organizational ties -- as anyone reading your newspaper would know. So either our president is less well informed than New York Times readers, or he is deliberately distorting the truth to score political points, and that is a more serious accusation than "overstatement." The article should have attributed to the president's critics our actual views.
Best regards,
....
Wow! -- now everybody is Al-Qaeda! See there WAS a connection... (or the media would have you believe that...)
Oversimplification?
This is the attention span challenged Pretzelnit. What did you expect from a simpleton.
Zio-Sheep @ 44:
And they have their rowboats and bicycles of mass destruction! They're coming!! They're HERE!! HIDE! RUN!!
Oh....protect me, George Bush.
Great simian stance there, Shrubbie.
Want a banana?
Would he understand anything if it hadn't been oversimplified for him by some handler?
I think this bit of song describes boosh's Iraqi view best:
I ain't no student,
of ancient culture
Before I talk
I should read a book.
But there's one thing I do know,
There's a lot of ruins in Mesopotamia.
Praise Bob!
Oversimplification works. It works in 2000, 2004, 2006, and will work in 2008.
Peeps have enough on their daily life, to give a scant opinionated view on politics. Oversimplification works.
It works in the church, and in politics alike.
So get real, and stop the negative propaganda already, as if oversimplification is a bad thing. It isn't !!!!
Orwell's Illegitimate Son @ 28:
As a fellow MOT, thanks for the clarification.
Left Behind Advocate @ 49:
coming from a self-professed 'left behind' advocate. tee hee hee, left behind, hee hee, oh that is rich.
church and politics: two of the most dishonest insitutions in existence. both dabble in the art of deception and manipulation.
so, we know YOU need things to be oversimplified and dumbed down. but for the thinking class, details and data are positive. america needs people that don't want things to be oversimplified, america needs its citizens to be active participants and call the manipulators (in church and politics) on their lies.
you are being sarcastic, aren't you? that is too friggin crazy to be a serious comment...
Does boosh eat what he finds?
Good thing he didn't find any WMD's.
Keep in mind that this NYT article itself appears to be a response to the column the public editor Hoyt already wrote about conflating al Qaeda and al Qaeda in Iraq.
So when contacting Hoyt, I think it would be useful to acknowledge that he has already addressed that issue.
I do agree that more explicitly calling the lie a lie is in order (i.e., not just an "oversimplification," and also for Gordon to address the role of his newspaper in advancing the lie.
You are right Enrico Fermi. Right before Bush came in to office the press and media were rated 17 in accuracy. I thought that was terrible, until I heard that they were now rated 53. "A Tragic Legacy" by Glenn Greenwald, An attorney in Constitutional law.
In 2003 Iran held out an olive branch to Bush. They were very generous, and he snubbed them.
He wants to go to war with Iran and they are setting us up for it with all this terrorist talk.
Write your representatives and tell them we don't want a war with Iran. That's all you have to say. One line in an email.
Two unwinnable wars? Sorry, I get off the kumbaya bandwagon when the hippies start crying about afghanistan. There hasnt been such a just war since WWII. The anti-war left was about as wrong as it can possibly get on that war. Every bit as wrong as the right is on Iraq. I remember the lame war protests around that time. All these ultra-left wing anthropology and soc majors trotting around their tired rhetoric. In their eyes, the US cannot defend itself and brown non-american people are automatically right about everything.
bubba @ 55:
oh, yeah! cliche, stereotype, cliche right back 'atcha!
I guess you disagree and didnt get past trying to be cute. Assuming you disagree Ill reply in kind; Neener Neener Neener.
bubba @ 57:
how could one take your "hippy"; "kumbaya"; "brown non-american people" BS seriously?
your shill post is on par with a neil cavuto breakdown of today's developments; its reliant on a mixture of strawmen, inaccuracies and confusion.
and, how is afghanistan going? the resurgent taliban... is that part of the strategy?
bubba, I didn't say anything about Afghanistan being justified. Please don't conflate issues. The fact is (and this is not kumbaya, this is reality), we took our eyes off the ball in Afghanistan. The Taliban has come back, opium crops are at an all time high, the Afghanis lives are not even slightly better off, in fact, significantly worse, AND the region is still a terrorist training haven.
Have we won yet?
i didn't know that anybody felt that the war w/ afghanistan was wrong. It has certainly gone wrong under Bush but it seems like we could have done well by that country if we hadnt fucked it up.
Also, that article is a dramatic shift from NYT (and Gordon in particular) habit of conflating al qaeda in mesopotamia with the 9/11 al qaeda, and although there are certainly critiques to be made of the article, I dunno that NYT not calling Bush a big fat liar is one of them. I mean, he is, but that's the kind of thing a trashy newsrag like NYPost would write. We all know what they mean. The bigger question is where the hell did Gordon come from taking any part in an article like that? hes the biggest enabler ever.
Greenwald has a really good post on this topic, which I've basically just summarized for you all. That guy can write his ass off.
Anyone got a banana?
I'm sorry, I shouldn't have said that.
Anyone got a banana daquiri?
Great picture!!
Makes Bush look like the class idiot who's been asked a question and doesn't have a fuckin clue as to what the answer is.
Samson- @ 58:
My comment was a paragraph on a message board. If you want in depth analysis, try a book. I suspect the real reason you are upset is that I skewered your personal belief system. Well, that would mean that you and I disagree. Is the sky falling yet?
As I suspected, your last comment about "how is it going" establishes you as a likely foe of the afghan war. Why dont you just come out and say it? Why so coy?
HEY MOMMY, LOOK AT THE MONKEY IN A SUIT!
Nicole Belle @ 59:
I agree with all of this. I may have conflated your criticism of the waging of the afghan war with the peace movement's rhetoric about it being unjust and unnecessary in the first place.
bubba @ 63:
in-depth analysis?
huh? whaaa?
its just that i prefer to read comments that don't rely on kneejerk reactions and stereotypes.
and, since you are so adamant at fingering the "foes", i was definitely NOT against taking out the taliban and effin' up al qaeda. i marched in philly against iraq but i supported the afghan war.
to be honest, what bothered me was your use of stereotypes. i find them so friggin inane, inaccurate and immature. sorry, but i do. yup, you guessed it, my degree is in anthropology and sociology (although my job has nothing to do with that, not that you give 2 hoots), and yet i was FOR the afghan war... not to shake your pigeonhole outlook.
and i mention iraq b/c, as nicole mentioned originally and then again directly to you, the comment was about the war being winnable, not just. i had hoped that bush/cheney would have removed the taliban from power, restored some semblance of modernity (running water, electricity, food production, etc.), and routed al qaeda--but this is not what happened. and NOW, i fear that we can't really win. it was just, i thought, but bush went ahead and destroyed what chances we had for success.
now the taliban is coming back, the poppy/opium, al qaeda, etc., etc., etc.
wars take time to win. I would encourage a little more patience.
more NYT Analysis @
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/07/new_york_times_disto...
So who is surprised??....
"We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."
David Rockefeller,
Founder of the Trilateral Commission,
in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, in June, 1991
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1673006066912130603&q=bush+banne...
A little piece of historic reference for those Bush fans who love the articulate ass.
bubba @ 55:
I have yet to know of an "ultra-left wing anthropology and soc [major]" who holds the view that "brown non-american [sic] people are automatically right about everything."
But I have had the bad fortune of knowing of a certain Bush admistration that has been overwhelmingly and consistently wrong about, and/or grossly incompetent in the handling of, every single issue of importance facing our nation -- security, energy, healthcare, the environment, etc.
Much of that is true but stereotypes often contain some truth. If we parsed every single sentence with qualifications for every possible interpretation then we would all need to consult lawyers before posting.
I said what I did because Ive personally known people just like this. I used to date one who has since become a talking head. I am passingly familiar with the rhetoric. I know some of the people who spout it and I know the kinds of degrees that said spouters tended to pursue. Im not making any claims to omniscience, Ive just seen and heard what Ive seen and heard.
There isnt a day that passes on this site (and many others) where right-wingers arent skewered with relish over issue x. Does every person who could be classified as right-wing subscribe to the issue currently being skewered? Probably not. Do we need elaborate addendums to every post saying, "**Well, bill hoskins(r) from canton ohio doesnt think that, but f the rest of them"? No. Its assumed that the poster is not in fact the Messiah or the Kwisatz Haderach and isnt referring to all known right-wing life in the universe.
As for the Afghan war. Its certainly been back-burnered by the iraq nonsense and hasnt gone as well as anyone hoped but I dont think its lost by any means. And Im not pointing any fingers here but I do believe that there are some people who want to see it completely lost to score political points against george bush. A right-winger would overstate this and claim its widespread, which I wont do. But I also wont pretend that I dont detect that sentiment from time to time.
E-mail sent to Hoyt, and not a nasty-gram. Just the facts. I asked if they were journalists or writing for their biggest advertisers.
Inca Garcilaso de la Vega @ 71:
Well, you and I have had different experiences then. Imagine that.
But of course they dont put things in those terms, those are my words. I doubt they would admit that there were people with brown skin. They'd quibble for an hour over the correct shade and then give you a lecture on the meaninglessness of color categorizations. By the time the 8 hour speech on "the history of US involvement in south and central america" begins they will have you doubting the existence of skin itself. ;) Electrons and all that. The big finish will be some variation how the US is secretly looking for oil in Afghanistan. That or George Bush is behind 9/11.
If you arent familiar with the type, lucky you.
Bubba @72 (strings are getting too long to 'quote')
you are right, it would serve no one's interest to have to parse every thought/word when posting on blogs. i agree with that, as, FSM knows, i have definitely, over the years, written some dumB things. but, bubba, i would also say that when i call out a certain group of people and use them as a cudgel to my point i expect some backlash. there is a certain risk involved in projecting past experiences on total strangers.
but then you wrote "Kwisatz Haderach" and i bust my gut laughing. tip of the hat on that one, not too many people can pull out obscure dune refernces and fit them into their post--so, good job on that.
bubba @ 72:
"but I do believe that there are some people who want to see [the war in Afghanistan] completely lost to score political points against george bush"
Here we go again, another shining example of paranoia.
Left Behind Advocate @ 49:
Oversimplification works for: couch potatoes, the illiterate, brain-dead-zombies, those who don't care, pious types, assholes, dummies, Koolaid drinkers, red-staters, the rich, power-mongers and propagandists, but NOT FOR ME.
Inca Garcilaso de la Vega @ 76:
A critic of Bush does not need any one particular failure in order to condemn him as the worst failure of leadership in American history. It's ingrained in him, in his every step, in his every utterance, in his every move. He is a complete and utter loser.
I think the big mistake is these two wars are called wars. They're not really wars, they are occupations. If they were wars, you'd give it everything you've got, and once victorious, have war crimes trials. This is an endless occupation to secure oil rights, and have a presence in central Asia, and "hopefully" (they hope) permanent military bases. It's no WW II good guys/bad guys scene. It's about insinuating American presence in the Middle East for the foreseeabe future, to control the wealth generated by oil.
slippytoad @ 78:
The failure of George Bush doesnt absolve everyone else of their sins and failings. If you think George Bush being evil has made all liberals good, I dont know where to start. You only quoted a segment of my original post so Ill say again I dont think wishing failure on our troops is a widespread sentiment.
slippytoad @ 78:
Could kindly clarify if you're referring to Bush or "a critic of Bush" when using "him", "his" or "he"?
bubba @ 74, thanks for clarifying your earlier comment @ 55.
Turns out that, like you, I'm also familiar with people who can lecture for hours on "the history of US involvement" and related hegemonic issues, whether perceived or real.
But none of them believes, as you assert, that "[foreigners] are automatically right about everything." The latter is a wholly different assertion, one that suggests an inappropriate attribution onto a person who holds an opionion that is seemingly contrary to yours.
Would you care to comment on the second -- and more relevant -- part of my post, namely that we have a White House that is consistently wrong on, and/or grossly incompetent in handling, every single major issue of our times?
typo: opinion
Another oversimplification by our uber simpleton.
Inca Garcilaso de la Vega @ 82:
Im a democrat so of course I find the Bush administration incompetent.
As for your other assertions, Ive made plain that Im characterizing conversations that ive had with certain individuals where you were not present. Unless you have attained Harry Potter like abilities I dont see how you can know the beliefs of people whom I have spoken with and you have not. Seriously, put down the internet, its causing you distresss.
Selectively quoting me and not reading for comprehension will get you what exactly?
BTW, if someone hasn't said this already, that's one of the best screen captures of the President I've ever seen. Truly revealing ... Nice work.
bubba @ 85:
I appreciate your concern about my well being. But, alas, the Internet is not causing me any distress. And to be sure, nor is your regrettably infantile and wholly irrelevant reply ("Unless you have attained Harry Potter like abilities..." please.)
As to your claim that I am failing to read for comprehension, I invite you to re-read my post. I did not selectively quote you, let alone claim that I know "the beliefs of people whom [you] have spoken with."
Instead, I state that, as you, I also happen to be familiar with a few of these "ultra-left wing anthropology and soc majors" types; but, unlike you, none of the ones that I know believe that "brown non-american [sic] people are automatically right about everything."
It was you who, on the other hand, stated that "all these ultra-left [...]" (emphasis added) types believe the above.
What was gross was all the squashed fleas and ticks under boosh's fingernails.
Comments are closed on this entry