Blogs home BigPrune
Break out the Obama brown shirt
I was in Borders Bookstore recently and could not believe my eyes. In the children's section they are selling a picture book about Barack Obama. No, it wasn't written by the PBS VP debate moderator.
A teachers union recently encouraged its teachers to wear blue shirts while they taught their children, to show support for Obama.
Barack's own website promoted a blue shirt day for voter registration.
I absolutely loved the mesmerizing "Obama" song sung by some of the Obama Youth recently.
Shades of Adolph are appearing everywhere.
Hey, they said Castro was going to do incredible things for Cuba too, then he had the soldiers round up everyone's guns.
Just some observations with some historical points mixed in.
A blue shirt or a brown shirt, what's the freaking difference?
Expect some scary times if Obama gets elected.
This is one time I can say I'm glad I live in Kansas and not Missouri. If I lived in Missouri, I could be investigated for stating my facts and opinions by prosecutors who have sworn their allegience to Heir Obama.
6 October 2008
at 9:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BigPrune (Anonymous) says…
Some more proof perhaps?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUEQz5…
6 October 2008
at 9:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
prospector (Anonymous) says…
I just love the smell of Godwin in the morning.
6 October 2008
at 9:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Mr_Nancy_Boy_To_You (Tom Shewmon) says…
“Expect some scary times if Obama gets elected.”
Amen to that. To say there will be a “score to settle” is an understatement. I say even so bad that some of the most left-wing Dems will turn on Obama.
Never in my adult life have I seen someone as bad as Obama shined up and sold to the public. Scary, yes indeed. Oh well, four years goes fast and that's all he's gonna get if elected, and I think Republicans will be in again solidly for another 8-12 years or more.
6 October 2008
at 9:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…
I don't think it is appropriate for teachers to influence the minds of the children they teach in this manner. What they do on their own time (within reason) is fine. If they are going to do this, then it would only be fair for them to wear a shirt of a different color another day in support of McCain. I wonder how children who have families who support McCain feel about being left out - what does this do to their self esteem? Politics should be discussed at school but without bias.
Interesting blog, Big!
6 October 2008
at 9:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cthulhu_4_president (Anonymous) says…
People who continue to compare Obama to Hitler (or anyone to Hitler) has a serious lack of understanding of the German power struggle during that time which allowed HItler to rise to power. It is a reference made for pure shock value. Incorrect and ridiculous.
6 October 2008
at 9:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Boston_Corbett (Anonymous) says…
Prospector nailed it at 9:22, chulhu too at 9:34. Ronda expresses the point well, without using Prunes over-the-top hyperbole.
6 October 2008
at 9:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Mr_Nancy_Boy_To_You (Tom Shewmon) says…
I disagree totally about the Hitler reference, only the difference is Hitler was 'propaganda' and Obama is 'counterpropaganda'. The leftist media suppresses the real history of Obama and maniacally focus on the past. This throws off the listening public and they bank on it. The far-left blogosphere drives them. The two, in concert, are hell-bent on seeing him sworn in.
6 October 2008
at 9:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
I challenge anyone—especially Prune and Ronda—to back up any claims about teachers wearing specific shirts to back a presidential candidate.
This is no different than the ol' “Wear Red On Fridays” email that's been going around for three or four years.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/re…
“The times are too serious, the stakes are too high for this same partisan playbook. So let us agree that patriotism has no party. I love this country, and so do you, and so does John McCain. The men and women who serve in our battlefields may be Democrats and Republicans and independents, but they have fought together and bled together and some died together under the same proud flag. They have not served a red America or a blue America they have served the United States of America.”
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/st…
Can somebody show me similar sentiments expressed by McCain… Nader… McKinney… or Barr?
This is a prime example of why this nation is slowly turning “purple,” the unofficial color of the independent voter. Extremism is old, outdate, and weak—just as the political parties that foment such extremism.
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
http://www.independentvoting.org
P.S. Anyone else find it deliciously ironic that the neoconservative forces behind the “Wear Red on Friday” schtick, who claim to be such great patriots… chose the color of the old USSR, and the PRC? roflmao!!!
6 October 2008
at 9:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Potawatomi (Anonymous) says…
“Expect some scary times if Obama gets elected.”
Couldn't be any worse than W screwing this country to death. And McCain is no better. Let's talk about W's approval ratings.
http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Appr…
He's going to leave this country so screwed up that whoever is the next president is going to have his hands full fixing failed redneck republican bible beating policies.
Maybe if Jesus ran for president?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJ1L4e…
6 October 2008
at 10:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
duplenty (Anonymous) says…
Really? Obama=Hitler?
Can you be this stupid?
6 October 2008
at 10:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Mkh (Anonymous) says…
I thought this blog was going to be about the “Obama Truth Squad” in Missouri, which has employed Sheriff departments to suppress any “negative ads” about Obama. This is clearly a fascist move aimed at supressing the 1st Admendment. It's been a big story over in Missouri, however the major media, and apparently the LJW has been silent on the matter.
6 October 2008
at 10:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
madmike (Anonymous) says…
Big Prune's comments are no different than Potawatomi's. Filled with insults and stupidity!
6 October 2008
at 10:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
[sarcasm]
Yeah, Mkh… I can understand why it's such a big story!! The overwhelming number of links to newspaper sites that you've supplied to back up your claims, clearly make it a “big story!”
[/sarcasm]
6 October 2008
at 10:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Potawatomi (Anonymous) says…
madmike… Is this better?
“Expect some scary times if Obama gets elected.”
Couldn't be any worse than W screwing this country to death. And McCain is no better. Let's talk about W's approval ratings.
http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Appr…
He's going to leave this country so screwed up that whoever is the next president is going to have his hands full fixing failed republican policies.
Maybe if Jesus ran for president?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJ1L4e…
6 October 2008
at 10:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Defender (Anonymous) says…
“It's been a big story over in Missouri, however the major media, and apparently the LJW has been silent on the matter.”
Care to share your BS proof?
6 October 2008
at 10:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kidicarus (Anonymous) says…
BigPrune -
I'd say conservative christians are closer to Hitler and co. than any other group.
6 October 2008
at 10:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jonas_opines (Anonymous) says…
Oh for Christ's sakes! As poor a Godwin as I've ever seen. Do you actually think that this will help your cause, or win anyone not previously converted?
6 October 2008
at 10:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Mkh (Anonymous) says…
Well perhaps it hasn't been a “big” story, that's an arbitrary term to begin with, but if you really want to argue I'll try and clear my schedule for the rest of the day.
But the Obama Truth Squad story in Missouri has caused a bit of uproar, so much so as Gov. Blunt made a public speech concerning the matter.
I haven't seen a story on it in the LJW, but I rarely read this rag so prove me wrong if they have done a story on it.
But overall, whats your point….how about we discuss we Obama is using elected officials in the manner? Or do you not want to deal with the actual issue? No wonder you like Obama.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIenDG…
6 October 2008
at 10:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
The_Original_Bob (Anonymous) says…
I don't understand how someone can have enough intelligence to use a computer, but can't figure out that comparing anything to Hitler completely nullifies the argument and in general, makes you look like total moron.
6 October 2008
at 10:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Gareth (Anonymous) says…
First: Proof of anything you're claiming, please. Links? Anything?
Second (since we all know the proof isn't coming):
It's times like this that I think our friends on the Right will have to get used to a phrase that they employed in the months after the stolen election of 2000:
“You Lost — Get Over It.”
6 October 2008
at 10:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kodos (Anonymous) says…
Reductio ad Hitlerum
6 October 2008
at 10:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Defender (Anonymous) says…
Mkh, provide proof, or shut up. You're lying, and we ALL know it.
6 October 2008
at 10:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Mr_Nancy_Boy_To_You (Tom Shewmon) says…
“Extremism is old, outdate, and weak-just as the political parties that foment such extremism.” -Agnostick
Is it? Tell that to the Obama campaign. While you're at it, tell it to the left-wingers in the Dem Party who have re-defined extremism. Don't forget to mention the far-left blogosphere while you're talking to them.
MKH, the thuggery in the Obama campaign has been ignored by the media, you're correct. Here is Obama's campaign threatening the NRA over their advertising: http://www.nra.org/
And what about the ACORN association, Obama's early 'community activist' venue. And what's up wth this Ohio early voting BS? http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world…
Again, the MSM looks the other way. They don't care what's at stake for America. Again, I am voting against Obama.
6 October 2008
at 10:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kodos (Anonymous) says…
“Sugar is bad. Sugar rots your teeth. Sugar makes you hyper. Hitler ate sugar.”
“Be like Hitler. Don't Smoke.”
and of course - http://dilbert.com/fast/2006-10-28/
6 October 2008
at 10:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Mr_Nancy_Boy_To_You (Tom Shewmon) says…
Let me add to my above post. How can Obama afford all this?
Like usual, he said at first he'd take public dollars, then said “NO”. What does this do? Lifts the spending caps. How did he get his money then to record levels?
Besides the internet, after scolding other candidates earlier on about special interest, Obama has been raking in record amounts from unions and special interests.
So much for change”, huh? Yes, so much for change.
Obama makes Bill Clinton look like Abraham 'Honest Abe”Lincoln. Obama is a fraud and a radical and a danger to Americ'a future. His tax plan will drive us into the dirt…..and we will be irretrievably screwed!!
6 October 2008
at 10:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…
And the decline of the LJWorld.com's blog section continues…
6 October 2008
at 11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bad_dog (Anonymous) says…
Mkh-what I got out of your link was that this involved voluntary participation by prosecutors and law enforcement who would enforce Missouri ethics laws in cases of political lies or misleading statements made during the presidential campaign.
Do you have a problem with elected officials enforcing campaign ethics laws? If not them, who? If there wasn't a reason to question the validity of political statements would publicly elected officials even be discussing this topic? If a candidate does not lie to or mislead voters he/she has nothing to be concerned about in Missouri.
Any candidate engaging in such conduct should be similarly treated. It is, however, pathetic that in this country there is even a perceived need for this enforcement activity.
6 October 2008
at 11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Mr_Nancy_Boy_To_You (Tom Shewmon) says…
Why LS04, because the left can not have the monopoly on it? Too friggin' bad.
6 October 2008
at 11:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Mkh (Anonymous) says…
Defender,
Are you serious? Did you even watch the local news story on it that I linked? Jesus Christ I'm not your mother here to hold your hand. Google “Obama Truth Squad in Missouri” if you want a list of links to the story…you do know how to do that, right?
6 October 2008
at 11:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bad_dog (Anonymous) says…
and Mkh, for someone who rarely reads this rag as you put it, you've posted almost 1600 times since 11/06. That's approximately 70 times per month.
6 October 2008
at 11:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Mkh (Anonymous) says…
Alright bad dog,
Finally someone that has graduated the 7th grade. First of all, these elected officials while technically being “volunteers” were asked to do this by the Obama campaign.
This is going well beyond enforcing “campaign ethics rules”, which I admit I'm not familiar with the details of the laws in Missouri. People are being threatened with criminal prosecution by state prosecuters. Libel is a civil matter and the sheriffs and prosecuters have no business trying to police potential libel cases.
The problem here is the way inwhich citizens can get in trouble for expressing views about Obama. They only have to express views which these authorities view as a “lie”…which obviously places the decision of what is fact and lie with those authorities. So where does this authority end? Can a citizen make claims that Obama will raise your taxes? What if the sheriff belives that Obama will lower taxes for 95% of Americans?
Why does only Obama get this special treatment from law enforcement? I dislike Obama just as much as McCain, but I have to call them as I see them as this is amazingly one-sided.
6 October 2008
at 11:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
duplenty (Anonymous) says…
If you do as MkH asks you to, and you Google “Obama Truth Squad in Missouri” - you get a ton of links that lead to blogs - “Hey, somebody typed it so it must be true!!!”
There is one lone link that has a bit of credibility - ABC News (unless you really believe that the MSM is somehow, in defiance of their corporate ownership, in the pocket for Obama - in which case you need to hit the books). What does that link say?
“Republicans — led by the Governor of Missouri and the Republican National Committee — are alleging that there is something untoward about the “Truth Squad” the Obama campaign has set up in the “Show Me” State. The problem, these Republicans say, is that these “Truth Squad” members are prosecutors and sheriffs with law enforcement powers, thus creating an atmosphere where Missourians might be afraid of being prosecuted for criticizing Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.
There is no evidence, however, that these prosecutors are threatening to use their prosecutorial powers in such a way.
And despite GOP complaints that the mere presence of prosecutors on the “Truth Squad” could intimidate Obama's critics, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and his running mate Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin have used prosecutors on their “Truth Squads” too, prompting no complaints from the GOP at the time.”
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpun…
Whoop de do.
'The furor prompted Mills, the KMOV reporter, to post a follow-up on the station's website in which he discounted the Republican critics' claims and noted that McCain has truth squads, too. ”
Post Dispatch there at end.
6 October 2008
at 11:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Mkh (Anonymous) says…
bad dog,
I rarely actually read the paper, however I do use the website to gage the level of ignorance in my community. Therefore the LJW could have printed a story on it and I could have easily missed it. That's for pointing out that very important point to the discussion though.
6 October 2008
at 11:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
I agree, Obama should not be compared to Hitler; the most apt comparison is Mao ZeDong.
6 October 2008
at 11:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kansas778 (Anonymous) says…
duplenty (Anonymous) says:
(unless you really believe that the MSM is somehow, in defiance of their corporate ownership, in the pocket for Obama - in which case you need to hit the books).
****************************************
Corporations gave more money to Obama than to McCain this year. Regardless, making assumptions based on the ownership is incorrect. You need evidence that what goes on the air is or isn't biased.
6 October 2008
at 11:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Mkh (Anonymous) says…
So let me get this straight dupenty.
The MSM are the ones in the media who tell the truth? ABC is a “credible source”?
Hardly, the MSM is in the pocket of the financial elite, who in turn have both Obama and McCain in their pocket.
If you don't believe that these specific sheriffs and prosecuters are doing this than I suggest giving them a call and ask them.
If McCain has “truth squads” with active sheriffs and prosecuters working for him than I would condemn McCain as well for these Fascist tactics. The bottom line is this, the people have a right to say whatever they want about a candidate and its up to the voter to decide. This entire idea that the discource of the campaign needs to be policed is extrememly dangerous and is just another limit on freedom in a long list toward tyranny.
6 October 2008
at 11:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…
“Why LS04, because the left can not have the monopoly on it? Too friggin' bad.”—Tommy Boy
––––––—
How deliciously ironic coming from a parrot who can't type 10 words without including some reference to the “far-left”.
If I thought you were halfway intelligent, I might be insulted.
At any rate, I have no problem with A) the conservative viewpoint, or B) BigPrune's right to express how he feels.
However, having the right to express a point does not make that point intellectually sophisticated. Comparing Obama to Hitler is as weak-minded and as much a waste of time as comparing McCain to Hitler.
I'd love to hear a rational, well thought-out conservative viewpoint. BigPrune's last two blogs amount to little more than him taking 5 minutes to toss out some baseless, partisan garbage.
To make my point, I would include metalheadclassicist's blog “On Abortion” in the group of blogs that are declining the quality of discussion on the LJWorld.com forum. It was from a left-slanted pov, in case you wondered.
6 October 2008
at 11:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Potawatomi (Anonymous) says…
Great job redneck republican bible beaters.
http://www.google.com/search?q=dow+jo…
6 October 2008
at 11:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
duplenty (Anonymous) says…
” You need evidence that what goes on the air is or isn't biased.”
And yet again, I'll wait for any credible indication of MSM bias. You people haven't a clue. The media is just as susceptible to being sued over inaccuracies as anyone else. The idea that the abc, nbc, cbs who have you are out there pulling for one candidate over the other (outside of editorial) is laughable. Again, let's see the proof.
'The MSM are the ones in the media who tell the truth? ABC is a “credible source”?”
Compared to the “blogosphere”, yes.
6 October 2008
at 11:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bad_dog (Anonymous) says…
“First of all, these elected officials while technically being “volunteers” were asked to do this by the Obama campaign.”-Mkh
The offended party is usually the one seeking legal recourse, so I don't see anything wrong with requesting the enforcers of laws to ensure compliance with ethical laws within their jurisdictions. McCain can and has done likewise, so there is also no basis for your complaint Obama is getting special treatment.
“This is going well beyond enforcing “campaign ethics rules”, which I admit I'm not familiar with the details of the laws in Missouri.”
Mkh, these are ethics LAWS, not rules. As stated in your link, the prosecutors are only interested in ads or statements that violate Missouri ethics LAWS. In any event, I haven't heard of anyone being prosecuted yet, have you?
“People are being threatened with criminal prosecution by state prosecuters. Libel is a civil matter and the sheriffs and prosecuters have no business trying to police potential libel cases.”
No, “people” per se are not being threatened with criminal prosecution. Again, as stated in your link, only those ads or statements directly attributable to campaign members or soft money operations need be concerned.
The sheriffs and prosecutors will enforce ethics laws, not libel or slander allegations. As such, there is no basis for your ill-conceived and somewhat hysterical concern that “…citizens can get in trouble for expressing views about Obama. They only have to express views which these authorities view as a “lie”:which obviously places the decision of what is fact and lie with those authorities.”
If the mere expression of misleading or inaccurate views by private citizens were a chargable offense, I'd suggest to you many internet posters would be in big trouble.
As long as your campaign ads and statements tell the truth “…the truth shall make you free”
John 8:32
6 October 2008
at noon
Suggest removal
Permalink
Esq2eB (Anonymous) says…
“Couldn't be any worse than W screwing this country to death. And McCain is no better. Let's talk about W's approval ratings.”
And after that we can talk about the Democratic controlled Congress approval ratings…
6 October 2008
at 12:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bad_dog (Anonymous) says…
“the most apt comparison is Mao ZeDong.”-Godot
Ah, the infamous Chinese adult film star…
6 October 2008
at 12:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
madmike (Anonymous) says…
You need to see “The Obama Youth” in action!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUEQz5…
6 October 2008
at 12:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bad_dog (Anonymous) says…
“I rarely actually read the paper, however I do use the website to gage the level of ignorance in my community.”-Mkh
Why am I not surprised at that comment? It appears you didn't listen to the source you cited above either.
May I suggest you would be better served to use the website to actually read the articles you posted on some 1560 plus times in the last 23 months?
6 October 2008
at 12:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kansas778 (Anonymous) says…
duplenty:
Proof is easy—people are biased. The media is made up of people. Therefore they must be biased. Some to the left, some to the right. Pretending otherwise is naive.
It doesn't really matter though, let them have whatever bias they want. I'm sure you listen to conservative commentators with a grain of salt, and don't take their word as fact without some support. That's fine, skepticism is good. My problem is with people who claim to not be biased. Everyone's biased, everyone who votes has some personal interest in seeing that candidate win. Why do they try to hide it?
6 October 2008
at 12:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Comparisons of Barack Hussein Obama to Adolf Hitler are misplaced.
A much more apt comparison would be that of Barack Hussein Obama to Hugo Chavez.
Or that of Barack Hussein Obama to Fidel Castro.
6 October 2008
at 12:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bad_dog (Anonymous) says…
“Proof is easy-people are biased. The media is made up of people. Therefore they must be biased. Some to the left, some to the right. Pretending otherwise is naive.”ks778
Wow, a non-sequitor, begging the question and post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Three fallacies of logic all rolled into one paragraph.
6 October 2008
at 12:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
And on the Barack Hussein Obama/Hugo Chavez comparison note:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.ph…
“Laptop links Obama, Chavez, Colombian revolutionaries
Narco-rebels say Venezuela aiding them, more help coming from Democrat president
Posted: March 05, 2008
8:40 am Eastern
WorldNetDaily
Hugo Chavez
washington a laptop computer captured in the possession of a slain Colombian revolutionary provides tangible evidence Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is aiding the narco-rebels and that they see more help coming next year if Barack Obama becomes president.
The laptop was seized Saturday after a raid by Colombian government forces on commandos of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC. Some 23 rebels were killed in the raid, including Raul Reyes, their leader. The files on the computer provide details and context to what the Colombian government claims is Chavez's effort to subvert the U.S. ally.
Venezuela says the documents are lies. Obama's campaign has not commented on the allusions to a relationship between the Democratic presidential candidate and the Chavez-backed, drug lords of FARC.
The files reveal correspondence between the most prominent members and leaders of FARC:
Reyes, the FARC's foreign minister and public face;
Manuel Marulanda, the rebels' 77-year-old supreme leader;
Jorge Briceno, their much-feared field marshal;
Ivan Marquez, the insurgents' apparent go-between with Chavez. Marquez is believed to live in Venezuela.
Copies of 13 documents were sent to reporters yesterday by Colombia's national police chief, Gen. Oscar Naranjo. They suggest Chavez, seeking to raise the FARC's stature, is conspiring with Venezuela to topple Colombia's president, Alvaro Uribe.
In one note, Briceno discusses a desire to undermine Uribe by making him cede a safe haven to the rebels for talks on a prisoner swap.
“Uribe will become more isolated, together with his boss from the North,” a clear reference to President Bush, whose government provides Colombia with some $600 million a year in military aid.
Writing two days before his death, Reyes tells his secretariat comrades that “the gringos,” working through Ecuador's government, are interested “in talking to us on various issues.”
“They say the new president of their country will be (Barack) Obama,” noting that Obama rejects both the Bush administration's free trade agreement with Colombia and the current military aid program.
Reyes said the response he relayed is that the U.S. would have to publicly express that desire.
Another message, to Reyes from a lower-ranking commander and dated Feb. 16, includes mention of a possible purchase of 50 kilos 110 pounds of uranium.
Uribe's government has claimed that means the FARC was seeking to build a dirty bomb. But the message discusses a different motive: selling the uranium at a profit.”
6 October 2008
at 12:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kansas778 (Anonymous) says…
bad_dog, wrong
1. begging the question—my assumption is that people are biased. This is an assumption, but do you argue that it is false? Otherwise, this is just throwing words around.
2. non-sequitor—my logic is If A=C, and B=A, then B=C. It's pretty simple logic,and quite obvious, so you are just throwing words around.
3. post hoc, ergo propter hoc—nothing follows anything, there isn't a correlation here, so you are just throwing words around.
6 October 2008
at 12:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BABBOY (Anonymous) says…
I was reading the blog wondering what it had to do with a brown shirt, then I saw it was BigPrune who posted this crap. Is brown your color prune? That would match the color of the substance materials of your posts.
6 October 2008
at 12:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Mkh (Anonymous) says…
bad dog I'm starting to regret praising you for having completed the 7th grade.
Which part of the Missouri campaign ethic “LAWS” are these sheriffs and prosecuters protecting? There is nothing in the laws which regulates freedom of speech by individual citizens. And if there was, it would be regulated by the Missouri Election Commision.
http://www.moethics.mo.gov/ethics/Gen…
If you see no problem with these “truth squads” then I don't know what to tell you, other than 'wake up'! We have serious issues to deal with at the present time and this discussion is not even scratching the service, we are currently under real threat from martial law as the our nation is being taken hostage by the criminal banking cartel. Fascism is alive and well and being handed to us by both major parties.
I don't suscribe to the LJW, I read national and international newspapers for the most part. I obviously read some LJW online to keep up with local news, and I read the articles I comment on, but honestly I haven't even wanted to comment on most of the stuff on here lately because its become all pointless partisan dribble. You all need to get out of your false left/right ideologies and stop bickering over two sides of the same coin. McCain and Obama are one of the same, they are teammates with identical bosses. Neither one repesents any “change” coming to Washington. Once you figure that out perhaps we can have a real discussion about geting back our Constitutional Republic.
6 October 2008
at 1:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
duplenty (Anonymous) says…
“Proof is easy-people are biased. The media is made up of people. Therefore they must be biased. Some to the left, some to the right. Pretending otherwise is naive.”
You go look up the definition of “proof” friend, and get back to me, because what you just posted ain't it.
6 October 2008
at 1:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Mixolydian (Anonymous) says…
kodos (Anonymous) says:
Reductio ad Hitlerum
================================
Ha! That's great. I have to remember that one.
Skim away all the hysteria and hype and Obama compares favorably to McGovern, except McGovern had far more experience. McCain compares favorably to Eisenhower.
6 October 2008
at 1:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jaywalker (Anonymous) says…
Saw a couple 'Godwin' references in here, can anyone explain the context for me? Don't know the story.
6 October 2008
at 1:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kansas778 (Anonymous) says…
duplenty, what a cowardly response. To paraphase: na-uh!
6 October 2008
at 1:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
jaywalker:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin_Law
6 October 2008
at 1:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Barack Hussein Obama/Che Guevera?
http://politica2008.files.wordpress.c…
6 October 2008
at 1:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bad_dog (Anonymous) says…
ks778
You began by assuming ALL people are biased, therefore the entire media is biased. Having an opinion does not necessarily equate to bias unless the opinion reflects a particular tendency or inclination. Reporting news or political issues doesn't necessarily equate to biased reporting unless you can demonstrate a particular tendency or inclination (in your case bias media wide), therefore, I don't accept your hypothesis.
No, I don't believe the entire media or for that matter most of the media is bias free, but I believe there are certain outlets attempting to achieve objectivity, despite the charges/countercharges and spin promulgated by all the interested parties. I believe there can also be degrees of bias, i.e. by certain reporters/anchors, subjects or outlets. I listen to and read a wide ranging variety of sources, including conservative radio talk shows, Fox, CNN, NPR, think tanks, neutral research organizations and public television sources. I believe what I perceive to be accurate. I'm sure you do as well. I have my opinions, again as do you, but that does not necessarily equate to inherent bias. We have to make a decision as to veracity and reliability of sources at some point. Having said that, deciding I support a given candidate does not close my mind in perpetuity.
As I'm sure you recall, many posters were up in arms about Ifill's purported bias as moderator for the VP debates just last week. How did that play out? In retrospect was that a supportable allegation?
As for the non-sequitor aspect, you again assume (to cut to the chase) that the media is biased because it consists of people you also allege are inherently biased. Given I rejected your hypothesis, I cannot accept your conclusion.
You also committed the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy (“after this, therefore because of this”) i.e. by inferring that because the media consists of biased people, everything emanating from the media is biased.
6 October 2008
at 1:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…
How many Amendments in the Bill of Rights would survive an Obama Presidency?
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-an…
6 October 2008
at 1:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
duplenty (Anonymous) says…
“duplenty, what a cowardly response. To paraphase: na-uh!”
“Cowardly”? Your statement is so ridiculous as to not deserve a response. Firstly, your statement is unsupportable: Media are people, people are biased, ergo Media is biased. That, my friend, is third grade thinking.
I don't have the energy to engage you if that's the level of discourse that you're able to have.
Are you under the impression that no human beings are able to put aside their bias and do their job? Tell me, if humans are biased, how does one go about quantifying this bias in the media? Is it measurable? Ownership and economic interest bear absolutely no influence on media and reporting, not to mention laws regarding what can be reported about a person, place or thing? Howsabout professional standing?
Try again.
6 October 2008
at 1:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bennyoates (Anonymous) says…
The only thing people have to be scared of is the fear expressed by people like you, BigPrune.
Your constant comparisons of Barack Obama to a man who murdered millions of people is an insult to every American, and particularly to every Jewish American. I wonder what people who lost family members in the Holocaust think of your trivializing that event by saying that Obama's supporters and Hitler's are one and the same?
You are no different from someone you undoubtedly hate, the late Johnnie Cochran, who compared Mark Furhman to Hitler. Obama and his followers disgust you, that is fine. But your analogies are not fine. They are dangerous and downright stupid.
Why don't you DO something to help your candidate get elected? Call voters in swing states, for example. If you're for McCain (and why on earth would he want the support of someone like you), get involved! You obviously have plenty of time to engage in hysterics on the internet—why not take some of that time, drive to Missouri where the race is close, and help your ticket?
6 October 2008
at 1:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
beatrice (Anonymous) says…
They appear as real headlines, and you discover only after clicking on the story's link that it is an LJWorld “blog,” this time written by the mental giant who goes by the name “Big Prune.”
I'm sure some readers won't recognize what it is and will believe this to be a real story by a professional commentator, since the headline appears along with those of actual and credible news stories.
The LJWorld is making a mockery of journalism with their pathetic bloggers, many of whom have comments regularly removed for their offensive and insipid comments on other stories. Sometimes, as in the case of Marion Lynn, he has comments removed on his own blogging stories.
People in Lawrence — tell the companies and business owners who advertise with LJWorld what they are trying to pass off as news. Perhaps after some pressure from advertisers will these ridiculous “blogs” stop.
Bring back the real news!
6 October 2008
at 1:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
blissfulwitch (Anonymous) says…
Why someone would listen to a blogger who makes claims without proof (Teacher's union wants teachers to wear blue to support Obama) and then compares someone to Hitler is beyond me. This person obviously has the intelligence of a wooden pole. If you are going to make claims, back them up with evidence. And you don't go throwing around a Hitler reference.
6 October 2008
at 1:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Found this one; I like it:
http://gloriamundi.blogsome.com/image…
6 October 2008
at 1:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
camper (Anonymous) says…
Be prepared to pay more taxes if McCain gets elected. He plans to have empolyee health benefits treated as taxable income. This is a convenient way of making 140 million taxpayers pay more taxes without raising the rate…he will just treat more of your income as being taxable. Nice.
I agree with Big Prune on his point here (but probably not politically). I remember being in the 3rd grade and telling my speech teacher that I liked Ford. I must have been repeating something my parents said. All I can remeber now is a terrible scowl my teacher gave me. Oh well I got over it.
6 October 2008
at 1:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kansas778 (Anonymous) says…
What I find so interesting is that people have no problem finding bias if there is money involved. If someone stands to profit financially, no further explanation is needed. When it comes to political ideals though, apparantly people can just toss those aside.
6 October 2008
at 1:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…
“Why someone would listen to a blogger who makes claims without proof (Teacher's union wants teachers to wear blue to support Obama)”
How's this for proof?http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/02/teachers-union-e-mail-touting-obama-draws-backlash/
6 October 2008
at 2 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Che Guevara posters on the walls of Obama campaign offices:
http://www.moonbattery.com/barack_oba…
http://www.moonbattery.com/barack_oba…
6 October 2008
at 2:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
blissfulwitch (Anonymous) says…
So show your proof in your argument, otherwise you just look like an uneducated bigot who is only interested in bashing someone without cause. State that it was ONE teacher's union that did this and show your source. (Hmm…wonder how many individuals or small groups have done something improper on the McCain side of things?) And the comparison to Hitler was unwarranted and seems like something you scream to get attention when you have nothing else to say. I can give you all the reasons I can't stand John McCain, I don't need to resort to calling him names (especially one as inappropriate as Hitler).
6 October 2008
at 2:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Gareth (Anonymous) says…
Marion — that wasn't an Obama campaign office — it was the private office of some volunteer:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/…
Even Fox News admitted it, saying that “The office featured in this video is funded by volunteers of the Barack Obama Campaign and is not an official headquarters for his campaign.”
6 October 2008
at 2:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
camper (Anonymous) says…
I do not vote with my checkbook and I tossed no ideals aside. My point is that we should be careful about what our politicians say and do.
6 October 2008
at 2:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
beatrice (Anonymous) says:
They appear as real headlines, and you discover only after clicking on the story's link that it is an LJWorld “blog,” this time written by the mental giant who goes by the name “Big Prune.”
____________________________________________________
Question for you, bea: How do you get to LJWorld.com? What URL are you using, specifically?
It sounds like you *might* be using the main entrance to the site. I abandoned that a long time ago, in favor of this link, instead:
http://www2.ljworld.com/popular/discu…
The only downside to that list of the “most popular discussions,” is that I've noticed in the past year or so, that the LJWorld folks seem to have a bit of a fix in on things. If you were to look at that URL 18-24 months ago, you would simply see the top 15 or so articles, editorials etc. that were generating the most discussion. I'm honestly not sure if they gauge that by total number of responses… the most recent responses push things to the top of the list… or some weird algorithm that accounts for both factors.
What changed?
About 18-24 months ago, there was a gradual uptick in the number of OTS questions, polls, and the like. Slowly, the “Top 15” morphed into the “Top 30”; then, starting last year, more blogs were put into the mix. I say “put” because I think the editors intentionally fixed this; instead of the “top 30” stories, you now have a page that incorporates the “top 15 news items” and then the “top 15 Web 2.0 pages.” Sometimes, it's a bit more than that.
As I type this, I've just reloaded the “popular” page in another window: Of the 30 links presented, 11 of them are blogs… 8 of them are “polls” or “OTS questions”… and the other 11 are what we would consider “traditional news,” whether those be locally-generated articles, AP stories, columnists/editorials, or “Letters To The Editor.”
Seems to me that at any given moment, 24/7… you'll never see less than 15 “Web 2.0” items on the “Most Popular Discussions” page… even if that very bottom, #30 item got its last response two weeks ago. They'll push that Web 2.0 stuff, no matter what.
So… what does all this blathering mean for you?
The good thing is that on the “Most Popular Discussions” page, blogs, OTS, polls etc. are clearly labeled as such. When you see a Weblog, just gently roll your cursor over the link, then look down in the lower-left corner of your browser window, and the full link will be displayed, telling you whose blog you're about to visit. I've found this especially helpful in avoiding the occasional drunk that gets on here to prattle on about their dictator fetish. ;)
Give it a try… I'll go so far as to say that it's the best way to access the material you want, and avoid the wasted bandwidth you don't!
—Ag
6 October 2008
at 2:32 p.m.
Suggest removal