Well, there's another misleading PJ post.
My condemnation of the Washington Times is very well deserved.
As for this particular author you defend as not being right-wing -
He's with the right-wing Hoover Institution. The first interview I found with him was done by the web site "Right Wing News".
In the interview, he spouted the typical right-wing views, such as how we'd have won Vietnam with a little more violence.
Or take this sample, which sensible people will perhaps laugh at in horror, showing how right-wingers justify extreme violence often against civilians.
In in, about the Iraq War in which perhaps a million Iraqis of a population of 28 million have been killed, the question they have is, 'should our troops have created more terror':
For another note on the guy's views, they ask about his reading - and it's all either far-right (most) or a bit is 'middle', none left of that:
The first thing he says are the radical (in modern times) National Review (which Buckley's son left in protest over the radicalism), and the Neocon Kristol rag Weekly Standard.
No, this guy is not worth reading IMO. And your response was very misleading, leaving out the pertinent info about this guy IMO.
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
Craig... you attacked the guy because the article in the OP was from the Washington Times as if that is a sign of the apocalypse.
As I pointed out the Washington Times has NOTHING to do with this piece or the writer. The guy is syndicated to dozens, if not hundreds, of papers across the country.
You can find the exact same article as the OP in many papers if you look around, thus you whole "Washington Times Rev. Moon" bit is meaningless BS aka a strawman that has nothing to do with the content of the article.
Oh... and BTW I notice you are still attacking the messenger and ignoring what he actually said.
As I pointed out the Washington Times has NOTHING to do with this piece or the writer. The guy is syndicated to dozens, if not hundreds, of papers across the country.
You can find the exact same article as the OP in many papers if you look around, thus you whole "Washington Times Rev. Moon" bit is meaningless BS aka a strawman that has nothing to do with the content of the article.
Oh... and BTW I notice you are still attacking the messenger and ignoring what he actually said.
This article is just terrible. Would prefer Al Gore rode a bike to work and lived in a tent instead? The president of the United States admits he "spoke too soon" about the situation with henry Gates...
Whatever, this sort of behavior will only help Obama to win in 2012. Keep up the good work cons!
:thumbsup:
Whatever, this sort of behavior will only help Obama to win in 2012. Keep up the good work cons!
:thumbsup:Paul Krugman is syndicated widely too, but you don't find him in the Washington Times, now do you?
The fact is that of syndicated writers, papers select which ones they publish, and the Washington Times has a long record of consistently publishing radical right-wingers.
It has long earned a presumption not to read what it publishes - although I'm sure you can find some decent things in it on occassion.
I'm sure you can find something the KKK Grand Wizard or Charles Manson have said that's not terrible, as well, but you don't go around citing them for discussion.
Bottom line, this writer is a far-right wing author who fits the presumption I mentioned, I'm not interested in someone who says such absurd things - and you made a misleading description of him in his defense, and then dodged that fact,not wanting any accountability for it, in your response.
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
Craig, you still have yet to do anything other than attack the writer.
What about the content of his article?
Al Gore lectures us about saving the world, but has a carbon foot print that is hundreds of times that of an average American.
Gates cries racism over his arrest and yet everyone on the scene, including a black cop, claims that Gates acted strange.
John Edwards gives his speech about two Americas, and then returns to his million dollar mansion paid for by suing the same insurance companies that he attacks for being greedy.
Dodd, talks about corporate greed, but then turns around and takes sweet heart deals from that same companies.
The Democrat party is controlled by a bunch of rich fat cats who think they know the solutions to a bunch of problems that they have never faced in their lives and who provide solutions that they turn around and exempt themselves from.
What about the content of his article?
Al Gore lectures us about saving the world, but has a carbon foot print that is hundreds of times that of an average American.
Gates cries racism over his arrest and yet everyone on the scene, including a black cop, claims that Gates acted strange.
John Edwards gives his speech about two Americas, and then returns to his million dollar mansion paid for by suing the same insurance companies that he attacks for being greedy.
Dodd, talks about corporate greed, but then turns around and takes sweet heart deals from that same companies.
The Democrat party is controlled by a bunch of rich fat cats who think they know the solutions to a bunch of problems that they have never faced in their lives and who provide solutions that they turn around and exempt themselves from.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
Washington Times: the paper of the super-duper overprivileged--complaining about rich anybody is patently laughable.
Big surprise they are whoring for the mega-CO2 emitting industries.
Big surprise they are whoring for the mega-CO2 emitting industries.
Yes, he did.
First, I criticized the source as being discredited radical right-wing, and PJ disagreed - by disagreeing with my criticism of it as right-wing, that's a start on saying it's not right-wing.
Then he went on to list a number of 'mainstream sounding' credentials for the author, while leaving out the many facts showing he is right-wing.
That was making a case that the author was not a far-right wing person.
You're wrong.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
In this thread? No, he didnt. Heres a breakdown of what he actually said:
Responding to your attack on the owner of the rag, instead of the content, PJ replied:
Which is true. It wasnt.
Then, he said this about the author:
which is also true, and no mention of party affiliation. Here's a synopsis of him.. And theres this: Hanson writes weekly columns for National Review and Tribune Media Services, and has been published in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, American Heritage, City Journal, The American Spectator, Policy Review, The New Criterion, and The Weekly Standard, among others.
And finally, PJ said:
which, again, is true. And that concludes PJ's post. I think maybe a dinner out might be in order for you. Get some fresh air or something. You seem to think any time someone disagrees with you it is due to not understanding, and you immediately jump to conclusions and start some twisted analysis of what the poster actually meant. Sorry Craig, youre way off base, and wrong.
So you are being disingenuous by saying he is discounted for being published in the rag.
His political leanings or party affiliation (he's a Democrat BTW) werent brought up until you threw it into the ring. For what reason? Who knows.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter