१७ जून, २००७
"Normally it is customary around here to denounce fellow bloggers for Untoward Noticing of The Greenwald..."
But Cassandra approves of that thing I did the other day. And I just want to thank her for sending me over to watch "United States of Whatever." I don't usually laugh before 8 in the morning.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
७२ टिप्पण्या:
I try not to be a total doofus, but I hate it when I can't even post a link on a blog. To summarize without the link: Since we're talking of the Puppetmaster (again), it should be noted that Wuzzadem (look it up!), the definitive satirist of the Puppetmaster, is in a foul mood lately and can't be bothered to post much anymore, so additions to the masterful "Greenwald Follies" probably won't be forthcoming.
Well I guess if you're going to lie in your attacks on Greenwald, it shouldn't be surprising that you'd promote some incredibly obsure blogger to say the really nasty stuff.
But dishonest and cowardly is an unseemly combo, nonetheless.
Doyle, I've always wondered: Are you the governor of Wisconsin?
No I'm not, and no relation either. You're lucky; if I were I'd try to have you canned. Don't know if it would even be feasible but it'd be worth a look.
Doyle said: No I'm not, and no relation either. You're lucky; if I were I'd try to have you canned. Don't know if it would even be feasible but it'd be worth a look.
Forget "feasible." It's neither legal nor constitutional. And you lefties accuse Bush of quashing civil rights in the US?
Jeez, okay I disclaim any legal authority to have Ann fired in the event that I become governor of Wisconsin.
Happy, you humorless man?
Just joking!
The old excuse raises its head. How about trying out taken out of context, while you are at it?
*laughs*
Here's a quote from Doyle's blog:
"A few people probably stumble on this site from my Blogger profile, which occasionally people click hoping to answer the question: "Who is this guy who hates Ann Althouse so much?" It's not something I'm especially proud of, but yes, I am probably one of her most prolific trolls. I can't stand her. I just can't, and I want to do my small part to discourage her from blogging, or at least to denigrate her in the eyes of her readers. That may sound sad and petty, but I ask that you withhold judgment unless/until you're familiar with her work, which is truly a force of evil in this world (pretty photos, tho)."
So, he's a little shit who hates me and intends destruction -- by his own admission. We don't have to talk to him.
Well, he does know about "sad" and "petty".
... you humorless man?
The best humor contains a grain of truth, but stops being funny when it contains too much truth. At that point it evokes something else, any of several things, but humor isn't one of them.
It's axiomatic to a fairly well that those tending to right side of the political spectrum in the US conceive of the use of the raw brunt force power of the state as something to be used sparingly, by the police and justice system against criminals, or by the military against America's enemies, whereas those on the left are dismissive of those uses, much preferring to use such power against their critics and/or their political opponents. And the fact that you would do exactly that to Althouse if you could is why it isn't funny.
"Destruction"? Always with the drama. When you write the crap you write, expect people to dislike it. It's pretty simple, really. There's no destruction involved.
And everyone here already knows I can't stand you, so you haven't really brought anything to light with your quote of my non-trafficked, semi-rescuscitated blog.
What I brought to light is your bad faith.
"...her work ... is truly a force of evil in this world"
Nope, no drama there...
That may sound sad and petty
There is doubt?
What do you mean my bad faith? I come here to bury you, not to praise you, and never pretend otherwise.
Do I ever say: "You're a refreshingly moderate voice, Ann! You should keep this up and keep sticking it to the liberals? You and Instapundit rock!"
Of course not. Instead I point out that you've bonded with the lunatic right and are their de facto ally on the most important issues of the day, and that your Democratic past and pro gay-rights stances don't excuse it.
Plus, you're the most dishonest debater on the internets, and I say that in the best possible faith.
"...her work ... is truly a force of evil in this world"
Hmm, why does the phrase "restraining order" spring to mind?
Or perhaps I'm missing that progressive "nuance" and sophistication that folks on the left like to congratulate themselves for.
What was the line?: Republicans in Washington fear their base because the base is angry; Democrats in Washington fear their base because their base is nuts.
Not my line; I'm just passing it on.
Or perhaps I'm missing that progressive "nuance" and sophistication that folks on the left like to congratulate themselves for.
As it happens, you are. It gets called irony but I'm not sure that's right. It's just tongue-in-cheekness or intentional rhetorical overreach.
I thought it was funny, but YMMV.
Despite what blowhard Doyle might say, I was happily surprised to find your post on HWMNBN (aka Greenwald), and after posting my own take, VC's post.
I've always shied away from even mentioning the blowhard (this time, I mean HWMNBN), but your treatment was just perfect. Kudos.
My suggested solution: a lawsuit against HWMNBN for causing you, and me, bouts of ADD. If you're interested, let me know. I promised we'll demand more than the BAR/BRI crowd did, and have a much larger class.
I jest, of course.
H Lime
http://hlime.wordpress.com
Hey Bob. Here's a quick shortcut I use for active links. Just cut & paste:
<*a HREF="URL">Link Description<*/a>
And remove the *
Ann, for my upcoming birthday I want Blogger to upgrade to better software [as seen on other sites]:
1) Ignore feature. Just click on poster's name and click ignore. All future posts from that person show up blank. Just knowing that feature exists tends to make the trolls back off. Most trolls have decent commentary interspersed with their flames, and don't want all their opinions to be ignored. So they settle down.
2) strikeout and underline tags
3) ability to post active links without using html code
Example for bob & others:
<*a HREF="URL">Link Description<*/a>
Becomes:
<*a HREF="http://hlime.wordpress.com">HLime<*/a>
Then remove both *
HLime
Doyle: What do you mean my bad faith? I come here to bury you, not to praise you, and never pretend otherwise.
How can you not reconcile those two sentences?
And I don't understand why anyone would bother to stalk a blogger they don't like. Is your life that meaningless?
You should get a hobby. Preferably something physical to expend all that hatred on. Because its going to eat away at you like a cancer until you do.
BTW, you're not a very good troll to begin with. And your insults are so juvenille that they entertain your targets instead of frustrating them. At best, you're a constant reminder of how the brownshirts on Left would behave if they ever came into power.
"I am probably one of her most prolific trolls"
That's the same as bragging about being "the turd in the punchbowl".
By the way, where o where did Freder go?
Thanks, Fen.
HLime
LOLDOYLE:
IM IN UR BLOG
POOPIN UP UR COMMENTZ
BTW, has anyone else noticed that Doyle thinks it's really 'nasty' to call out a blogger whose idea of a deadly insult is to call someone a faggot. Gee, Doyle, what do you do for a day job: Isaiah Washington's PR flack?
Doyle is as pathetic and wacko as I would expect a Glenn Greenwald fan to be.
It makes it easier to take my Indians dropping 2 of 3 to the Braves this weekend to know that this helped the Braves gain ground on Doyle's slumping Mets. I may even do the unthinkable and root for the Yankees tonight. :o
I share your obsession with baseball, Doyle. And a New Yorker who chooses the Mets over the Evil Empire can't be all bad. But some obsessions are not a healthy use of your time. Whether you ever think about that or not, I'm glad the good Professor (who has generously tolerated you on her blog despite your bad faith)highlighted what you're about so I know to never take you seriously.
I have a headache. Or is that Becket banging my brain?
allens:
In answer to your question, there really are instances where the phrase, "Don't ask. Don't tell." sounds like a supremely good idea.
Thanks, Fen. I'm familiar with using the "a" HTML code to do links, I do them daily, even on my own blog, but for some reason, on a couple of comment pages I use (Goldstein's, mostly, but here now too, apparently) no matter how careful I am to check the coding, it comes out messed up.
*laughs*
Oh dear.
Why is it that so many trolls think the worst insult in the world is "some incredibly obscure blogger"?
Aieeee! Where shall I find a friend to pluck this fatal dagger from my breast???
Glad you enjoyed the "Whatever" link Ann, and thanks for the Untoward Noticing of this humble blogger :p
/back to obscurity with me!
I didn't intend it as the worst insult in the world. But it does show Ann's desire to prolong the beef with any means at her disposal.
Althouse is devastatingly funny as she deftly pricks Glenn's overwrought bubble:
That's certainly a good way to get some linkage here. Between that and your header (no comment, Ann?) I'd say you've got a pretty shewd marketing strategy.
Cassandra: Thanks for participating over here. I liked "Untoward Noticing of The Greenwald"... and don't let the troll bother you.
I'd like to know if you condone this:
http://minx.cc/?post=230298
Freddie: I'm very critical of that in the earlier post.
The earlier post is here:
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2007/06/judging-man-by-his-sexual-orientation.html
Doyle doesn't want to destroy Althouse. He wants to bury her. To the extent that people don't recognize the difference, they are unsophisticated trogs.
What do you mean my bad faith? I come here to bury you, not to praise you, and never pretend otherwise.
Amusingly, "I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him" is the rhetorical trick Anthony uses to draw the crowd in... whereupon he proceeds to praise Caesar and condemn his enemies.
Fen,
"2) strikeout and underline tags"
I'll agree with strikeout, but not underline (the latter is the default way that links are displayed, and even though the style sheet here does it differently, there's no reason to confuse us.)
But what I really miss is blockquotes.
but not underline (the latter is the default way that links are displayed, and even though the style sheet here does it differently, there's no reason to confuse us.)
Good point. I hadn't thought of that.
Does anyone else find Blogger to be cumbersome? Or am I just spoiled by pearl coding? There are alot of handy tools out there for us proles, and I don't understand why Blogger won't upgrade its features.
/sidebar: McCain has dropped to 7% in South Carolina. bye bye
Professor Althouse:
Thank you for directing me to her site. She also sent me here: http://ace.mu.nu/archives/230298.php
You have complained about the nastiness of the left....yet say nothing about the above post. The political blogosphere......it is aspiring to have as much integrity as politicians or used car salespeople. Is it more wrong for liberals or dems to lie, attack, supress, use poor judgment than conservatives or republicans. Of course not.
My wife sometimes uses the term 'hateful' to describe the behavior of some people. Well, the political blogosphere often seems hateful to me....delusional and dishonest as well....and this blog is no exception. The political blogosphere.....I am getting out of this cesspool.....I need to take another shower before I go to work.
Ann, I was reaching a point of acceptance with you, until your post where you lied about Glen Greenwald when you said:
"Greenwald begins with the subject of how sexy and manly Fred Thompson is "
Greenwald never said that. You have lied about his words and, by ignoring this lie (your rebuttal was basically non-responsive), you show yourself as having very poor ethics.
Here is what Glenn Greenwald actually said, from which no reasonable person could conclude what you did:
"I've written a fair amount recently about the media's obsession with the faux-masculinity of GOP candidates in general, and the tough-guy military persona of Fred Thompson in particular,"
To date Annie Ax Grinder has employed her typical approach to criticism, respond by dismissing the point (cut and run) or by attacking her own strawman argument.
So, once again, I'm embarrassed by Ann Althouse coming from my state's flagship public university. I'm embarrassed by her lack of ethics, her pettiness, her inability to response rationally to criticisms and her gullibility for all things Right and hostility to all things left.
The meaningless of tenure, indeed.
I'm sorry. I left off another typical Althousian response to criticism. Don't attack the argument, attack the critic, in the vilest and nastiest ad hominem this side of Rush Limbaugh.
Here's Annie:
"Glenn Greenwald is such an idiot.
* Am I supposed to respond to this foolishness?
* Glenn, you moron, in case you didn't notice, Sullivan is mocking Mormons in general.
* . . . . you disreputable slimeball.
* And your writing is putrid.
* But I do love the pathetic jealousy of your post title."
(Selections from above Greenwald post).
After having discovered Althouse last year or so and witnessed her approach to "dialogue," I have to agree with Greenwald in this post, Ann Althouse is often dishonest. (I will cut her some slack by not saying she's entirely dishonest).
(I'd hate to have her as a professor. Her foggy "arguments," that petty vindictiveness and aversion to logic could sink the best student).
"You have complained about the nastiness of the left...yet say nothing about the above post."
Ha! Good luck getting Ann Althouse to criticize the right wing. She prefers a more slavish approach, seeking traffic from them (witness her fanbase) and holds a blind eye to their misdeeds or, worse, makes excuses for the worst of them.
Ann Althouse: Right Wing Extremist Enabler.
One thing you won't read on the Ann Althouse blog is any criticism of abuses of power by the Bush Administration. Such as the torture at Abu Ghraib and the punishment of General Taguba, appointed to investigate, or how that investigation was blocked from looking up the chain of command.
Friday, we learned of widespread abuse by US intelligence agencies of some of the sweeping police state powers they've been granted. Apparently, they are abusing their spying power. Ann Althouse doesn't care.
Granted, I can't bear to routinely read her blog, but I do try and keep caught up on her posts to see if she ever posts anything critical of the growing police state. I've been disappointed to date.
To sum, I don't share Ann Althouse's authoritarian mindset, which she shares with the hard right. And for which our country is far worse off.
Ann Althouse said...
Freddie: I'm very critical of that in the earlier post.
I would never have known the gratuitious nature of Ace of Spades comments based upon your 'criticism'. It was only after reading his post directly.
Do you function like this outside the blogosphere? If so, it is hard to imagine that you are a trustworthy individual.
Maybe you guys could just give Ann a list of who she should denounce. Include talking points so that her criticism is harsh enough to meet your needs.
I'm still amused that the Left has little brownshirts trolling the net, telling Dems what they are allowed to discuss.
psst! Hey, can you guys make FDL and HuffPo criticise Al Queda for that recently discovered torture manual? Thanks
Fen: Having a disagreement with someone is a tad bit different than participating in a pogrom of historical proportions.
That you can't tell the difference between the two says far more about you than anyone else.
alphaliberal wrote:
To sum, I don't share Ann Althouse's authoritarian mindset, which she shares with the hard right. And for which our country is far worse off.
I do not think it really involves ideology for Ms. Althouse. I have a hunch it may be more personal then that. Indeed, I have not been able to extract a coherent ideology from her comments and posting. I think she has something against the individuals who happen to hold a liberal ideology. Here's why I think that:
From what I have gleaned from Ms. Althouse's blogginghead episodes and some of her postings she has asserted that she supports a good chunk of liberal ideology, however she has strong feelings about maintaining a strong national defense.
My sense from many hard core liberal and conservative bloggers is that their dislike of their opposition is secondary to or seems to flow from their dislike of the opposition's ideology. Firedoglake or Ace of Spades first take exception to the political ideology of their opposition, then they attack them personally.
Since Ms. Althouse claims to share so much of her belief system with liberals, she cannot attack them primarily on the basis of their ideas so she goes after flaws in other areas of their persona or presentation. With Ms. Althouse, it has the flavor of being very very personal. She seems to search for vulnerabilities in the liberal person him or herself.....which appears to me, to be a particularly nasty and malicious form of criticism, because it is so personal. If you are a liberal, she appears to adopt a readiness to view you, the person, as a morally inferior being.....not so much your ideas.
Of course this is all speculation....and if it approximates any truth, I have no idea as to what drives it. I doubt she is the only one in the blogosphere who functions this way....but her activity on the internet seems particularly virulent and destructive.
Yeah, Alpha, dude, you are never here and you hate reading Althouse's site.
Why is it that Althouse has a wide readership (composed, it seems, largely of people who vote differently than she does)? Why is it that you don't? Why is it that no one attaches a single speck of importance to what you say? Why is it that you toil in anonymity -- if you are so right?
It's not something I'm especially proud of, but yes, I am probably one of her most prolific trolls. I can't stand her. I just can't, and I want to do my small part to discourage her from blogging, or at least to denigrate her in the eyes of her readers.
Man... I knew Doyle was a loser, but I never realized he was THAT much of a loser. I'm not sure what's worse -- having goals as pathetic as those, or failing to meet them.
Alpha: Having a disagreement with someone is a tad bit different than participating in a pogrom of historical proportions
But you don't have a "disagreement" with her. You don't like her choice of topics - you [and other Lefties] regularly try to tell her what she can and can't talk about. You all continuously troll her blog and try to shut her down because she doesn't toe the Party Line. Pogrom indeed.
Seven Machos launches a broadside on a strawman:
"Yeah, Alpha, dude, you are never here and you hate reading Althouse's site."
Wrong on both counts. Never said I'm never here, but I scan and visit. Tried to say some nice things about her and the chance to engage the right wing directly.
Now, I'll admit I've been angry today and here's why. Last night I read a good portion of this report from Sy Hirsch in the New Yorker about General Taguba, who conducted the Pentagon investigation of Abu Ghraib. The article discusses some more of what he found, how he was punished for trying to do his duty in this investigation and some of the twisted shit the Cheney Command has our troops doing at Gitmo, Abu Ghraib and God knows where else. (Taguba is one of many generals fired by Cheney-Bush).
They're visiting this torture upon innocent people. I suspect a majority of the people tortured are innocent. This torture I regard as a stain upon our nation's good name. Pisses me off.
Glenn Greenwald looks closely at the torture, the legal rationale used to promote it and the "unitary executive" theory and the people who help the practice continue.
Ann Althouse praises Glenn Instaputz who makes excuses for torture and the Cheney Command that promotes the barbaric practice that we beat hitler and Tojo without.
So when I see Ann Althouse posing as voice of moderation and reason all the while serving the torture movement and attacking it's critics, I get pissed off. She is, effectively, pro-torture.
Like I say, a disgrace for the UW.
Fen, Fen, Fen.
I come and go, depending if she's being an enabler for Bush. Sometimes, I even compliment her, applaud a pretty photo she's published. Or share comment on an inane topic.
Sometimes, not so much.
Alpha: So when I see Ann Althouse posing as voice of moderation and reason all the while serving the torture movement and attacking it's critics, I get pissed off. She is, effectively, pro-torture.
Another self-righteous hyperbolic distortion, as usual. This is how you engage the right wing directly. Anti-torture is something you browbeat your enemies with to feel better about yourself, its not really something you beleive in. You're not looking to understand others or to change minds, you just want a whipping boy - your liberal hatemongerers have you all riled up, and BushHitler is not available. Really, I can't remember the last time you presented a factual civil argument here. Link please?
As for torture, you never answered the question I posed so many weeks ago: would you allow waterboarding of terrorists if the information gained would save your life, your family, your city? There's no right or wrong answer for me, I just haven't found a liberal anti-torture champion willing to sacrifice everything for his proclaimed principles. They want exceptions when its their butt on the line.
would you allow waterboarding of terrorists if the information gained would save your life, your family, your city?
I do not identify myself as primarily liberal or conservative, but I would consider it.
Is there anything that you would not allow your government do to a terrorist if the information gained would save your life, your family, your city?
the barbaric practice that we beat hitler and Tojo without.
Good point. Let's skip the torture and use the tactics that worked so well on Hitler and Tojo. The next time we're attacked by, say, Iranian terrorists, we'll just kill a few million Iranians and nuke Tehran. Oh, and "relocate" or deport all the Muslims in America while we're at it.
Doyle, darlin' :D
You seem to have a habit of saying needling things to try and get under people's skin.
Why is that, I wonder?
Cheers! :)
As for torture, you never answered the question I posed so many weeks ago: would you allow waterboarding of terrorists if the information gained would save your life, your family, your city?
Is the question- would you allow waterboarding of terrorists if (you knew) the information gained would save your life, your family, your city....or is it - would you allow waterboarding of terrorists if (you believed) the information gained would save your life, your family, your city....this, is assuming we can reliably and accurately identify a terrorist of course...and dependably and validly assess an impending threat. What should be the margin of error for false positives and false negatives?
Freddie: I'm very critical of that in the earlier post.
Not really as critical as you shoud've been.
I'm on dial-up and Ace of Spades tends to take a looong time to load, so I didn't read the post you were commented on till just now. I had no idea from your post that it was such an extremely homophobic post!
I guess this is just another example of how the entire political blogosphere is getting more and more f**ked up. Both Glenn Reynolds and Ann Althouse linked to this disgustingly anti-gay hate-post without really taking Ace of Spades to task for his hate. Apparently Glenn Reynolds was perfectly okay with it, and while Althouse disagreed with it she gave no mention to just how hateful Ace's post was. I don't get it. Ace's post was appalling.
But so it goes in the vastly overrated political blogosphere, where the despicable likes of Glenn Greenwald on the left and Michelle Malkin on the right get props from their respective sides, and their scummy tactics continue to be abided.
Loafing: I linked to it because it is a high-traffic blog that talked about me and characterized me as meaning something that I just wouldn't say. I wanted to argue with that. Sorry if you wish I'd slammed Ace harder, but Greenwald himself did essentially use sexual orientation as a slur.
LoafingOaf said...
Freddie: I'm very critical of that in the earlier post.
Not really as critical as you shoud've been.
I'm on dial-up and Ace of Spades tends to take a looong time to load, so I didn't read the post you were commented on till just now. I had no idea from your post that it was such an extremely homophobic post!
In an earlier post, I made a similar point. I experience much of the political blogosphere in a similar fashion. It often seems childish, distorted and disjointed (on both the right and left) that seems to border, at times, on the delusional (I just read Ms. Althouse's defense...equating, and in a sense condoning Ace's post with Greenwald's while she has made such a point of highlighting the meanness of the left side of the blogosphere. What a childish and pernicious defense).
The likes of Reynolds, Althouse, Malkin, and Greenwald et. al. remind me of a book written by Rokeach in the early 1960's entitled "The 3 Christs of Ypsilanti". It was about Rokeach's experiences as a young psychiatrist working at a state psychiatric hospital prior to the wave of di-institutionalization that swept through the system. He brought together three individuals who each maintained a delusion that they were Jesus Christ (they all had received a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia) and described the process of the group. He found that each of the patients was able to accurately point out that the other group members were delusional and not Jesus while still insisting that, they themselves, were Jesus Christ.
What a bunch of bizarre nasty people.
And yet, here you are.
Paco Wové said...
And yet, here you are.
You are correct sir. I want to give it a fair shake and see if there is some responsivity, flexibility, and the capacity to value differing points of view here, particularly from Ms. Althouse. This is her blog and I think she has a profound impact on the atmosphere created here. Will it be hospitable or will it resemble the atmospheric make-up of some outer planet, rendering it unfit for human development (or any form of life for that matter). If it is the latter, fortunately for you, I will not be hanging out here too much longer.
I want to give it a fair shake and see if there is some responsivity, flexibility, and the capacity to value differing points of view here, particularly from Ms. Althouse.
Maybe you should work on developing those personality traits yourself, *then* worry about whether or not other people possess them.
It is particularly silly to list Althouse and Instapundit as examples of people who don't value differing points of view. Glenn and Ann disagree on quite a few subjects, but that didn't stop Glenn from inviting Ann to guest-blog for him.
Revenant said...
Maybe you should work on developing those personality traits yourself, *then* worry about whether or not other people possess them.
Bingo, Revenant. Absolutely outstanding response to my series of posts....and I am not being sarcastic here. I believe your point is, before you pick others apart, first assess yourself. You know, people in glass houses.....
I agree completely. When I watch and listen to politicians and political discourse in print, on television or radio, and on the internet...I look for this characteristic. Can a political party, a politician, a pundit look first at the flaws in his or her own party or in him or herself first, acknowledge them, own them, and work to correct them before looking to criticize others. I realize this is often unrealistic. However, I believe this is healthy and leads to growth. It is especially hard to maintain when others are attacking you. Often, our knee jerk reaction, I think, is to blame or criticize others first and avoid realistic self-appraisal.
Personally, this is a fundamental value for me that I try to embody in my life off and on the internet. It was instilled in me by my mother, beginning as a young child. I often fall short. I can tell you though, It is a constant battle for me to realize this principal in my life, to acknowledge my weaknesses while resisting the urge to put down others. I try to surround myself with people who share this behavior. I have found that when I can discuss my own limitations realistically, often those around me relax and become more open to it and become less accusatory and more investigatory. This is also what I am drawn to in a blogger.
So, your remark succinctly describes what I demand of myself and would like to see more of from others on and off the web. Thank you for putting this into sharp focus.
Mindsteps: I just thought Althouse was oddly soft on Ace's post because Ace was on Instapundit's side. Or maybe she didn't wanna start a fight with Ace. I dunno. I'm more bothered with Instapundit's handling of that post.
To be clear, I don't consider Althouse part of the hyperpartisan blogosphere that has become so tiring and lame. This is a culture blog that I read because Althouse has interesting takes and can write well. I'm not being herded into a political movement by a propagandist here. I have no idea which candidate Althouse will vote for next election.
The demonization of Althouse by half of that political blogosphere is one example of how pathetic it has become.
As for Instapundit, if more political blogs were like his things would be closer to living up to the potential of the blogosphere. I don't find him mean, he engages with people of all persuasions with an open mind if they're in good faith, and he's not a lock-step conformist. It's a lot of the other political bloggers who need to be knocked off their perches. I'm glad that Althouse has a talent for winding many of the worst ones up (see: the onion rings thing). Althouse is one of the good bloggers. But yeah I do think she should've gone after Ace more. Whatever.
Is the question- would you allow waterboarding of terrorists if (you knew) the information gained would save your life, your family, your city...[emp added]
Yes, thats the question. I don't understand why you need to add disqualifiers to it. A simple yes or no will do.
How would you ever know in advance? It's a bogus question. It's like asking where I'd fly if I could fly.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा