This is the second Jeff Bezos media property to slander me with fake news in one day. In 48 hours I have been called by "journalists" a holocaust denier, a Men's Rights Advocate, ALT-RIGHT, racist, "former cartoonist" and now . . . pro-rape? Watch carefully how this works. https://t.co/xyyQSxxa6q— Scott Adams (@ScottAdamsSays) April 24, 2018
I like the discussion under that tweet:
पोस्ट्स
३३९ टिप्पण्या:
339 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»Ah, Scott "I no longer care about the fucking law" Adams.
For Althouse readers more interested in Scott Adams; be sure to check out his Periscope in which he suggests that the chlorine gas attack in Syria was logically a "hoax."
"Ah, Scott "I no longer care about the fucking law" Adams."
Well, clearly you are not a lawyer or you would have understood his law joke. I thought it was accessible to educated nonlawyers, but maybe that only works if you're not befogged by wanting to hate Scott Adams.
Adams always keeps it interesting. Bezos is dull, like most billionaires. His vanity paper is even worse than his mail order company.
Someone likes Trump.
Chuck's knee jerks.
By the way, Althouse; in whatever media world Scott Adams exists, I could not find the specific places where those allegations were made against him.
I saw that Tweet from Adams yesterday, and I wanted to read the allegations referenced by Adams because I like to read criticism and exposees of Scott Adams. And I couldn't find it. Not saying that they don't exist. But because I don't believe Scott Adams, I found it hard to accept that Adams had been the subject of such accusations by anybody who was formally connected to a professional media outlet. (As opposed to some schmuck in front of his computer, like Scott Adams.) Maybe those allegations were made; I don't know. It is just -- to me -- such a weird way to communicate; Twitter and videos. If Adams thinks he's been defamed, he ought to say so clearly.
The left always does what plays well with women.
Know your audience.
Befogged and beclowned is no way to go through life son!
Just kidding Chuck, when I think of a joke, I have to write it.
I cannot tell from the Tweets which Bezos property slandered Adams how. Id like to see the context in his assertion.
Adams had been the subject of such accusations by anybody who was formally connected to a professional media outlet. (As opposed to some schmuck in front of his computer, like Scott Adams.)
I don’t know about you, but I started reading Dilbert when it was printed in actual, dead-tree newspapers. I am pretty sure it still is, though I don’t buy them anymore.
Scott Adams has a lot of controversies, so called, that he won't comment on, he says, because it would get him in trouble.
It's amount of trouble vs entertainment value, in his view. You have to weigh it.
I side with entertainment pretty heavily.
There is no truth but socialist truth.
Progressive brown-shirts.
I assume that one of the Bezos organs referred to is the WaPo? If so, then probably 90% of the commenters here, as well as our hostess, would be described by that rag as holocaust deniers, Men's Rights Advocates, ALT-RIGHT, racists, and pro-rape -- everything except former cartoonist. Wear the slander with pride!
"I no longer care about the fucking law"
Andrew McCabe issuing stand-down orders to people looking into Hillary's e-mail.
Comey deciding on his own that Hillary didn't have intention, before he even talked to her or completed gathering evidence.
Lynch meeting with Bill on the tarmac and then failing to recuse herself.
Clapper unmasking US citizens caught up in wiretaps.
Rosenstein signing off on a FISA warrant based on a compromised source who was no longer being used.
And so on, and so on.
But yeah, it's Scott Adams who we're really worried about. Let's make post after post about Scott Adams.
Scott Adams is another stable genius. The Global shadow government is losing it. They are in a panic, because they cannot destroy him, nor DJT because of their use of social media internet that is a direct access to truth.
Adams,Trump, and now West are all three great communicators of messages. Their messages are now destroying the Disinformation narratives of the past 50 years.
Chuck thinks he can ridicule their messages by merely saying, "Look, they are not repeating the media narrative."
Glad you noticed, Chuck. As West says, we are free to think the truth now.
He is a significant danger to the left - a liberal who is willing to acknowledge that Trump is doing the right things in a number of areas. Even worse are the cracks that are starting to appear in the wall of black support.
Ah, I see Chuck and I had the same instinct, to check the source, and he was also likewise frustrated in his search.
For that specific reason, allusions to content that cannot be found through the story links, I rate this a Poor Post, Althouse.
It's like he is being goaded into running for President. And he is much more articulate and effective at Tweeting than Trump will ever be. And the liberals really dig political humor as their source of information. Scott Adams 2020?
That was no joke from Adams, Althouse. Adams was as enraged as a middle-aged millionaire pot smoker, safe in his northern California mansion, can get.
It was a completely unhinged rant, in which Adams gave his "permission" to Trump to "fire everybody; fire 'em all" in connection with the application for, and execution of, the federal search warrant on Michael Cohen. As if Adams thought that a magistrate judge assigned by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York -- and who signed the warrant -- could be "fired" by the President.
It gave me such pleasure to see Adams so wound up and so freaked out. Made me look forward to the rest of the investigation.
I like to read criticism and exposees of Scott Adams.
That's an interesting hobby.
Are you collecting them in a series of color-coded notebooks, with highlights and cross-references, that you can share if people ever accept your invitations to visit?
Pro-tip: there are occasional political messages in Dilbert, if you turn the strip upside down and read right to left.
"This is the second Jeff Bezos media property to slander me with fake news in one day"
Ah, Scott Adams, drama queen? Must be an inference from this Theory of Everything.
Anyway, I don't think Jeff Bezos has given a thought to Scott Adams recently. But Jeff Bezos-owned properties would be better if he did.
Althouse Blog Comment Section:
BCE Before Chuck Entry
CE Chuck Egoism
I much prefer the former.
Chuck at 9:14 AM
... be sure to check out his Periscope in which he suggests that the chlorine gas attack in Syria was logically a "hoax."
I think it was a hoax.
The entire left narrative flexes to attack Scott Adams as a means of distraction from the information leaking out regarding the institutional players at the center of setting Trump and campaign up for fake charges of collusion.
Once again, as always, LLR Chuck "accidentally" is in perfect, and I mean absolutely perfect, harmony with the far left talking points of the day.
Without fail.
100% correlation.
But only 100%.
And only every day. Every single day.
You should feel free to draw obvious conclusions.
And remember, LLR Chuck often takes time out of his busy day advancing lefty narratives 24/7 to deny he is advancing lefty narratives.
Chuck is concerned that it is but a short step from "I no longer care about the fucking law" to "I no longer care about fucking lawyers."
LLR Chuck: " But because I don't believe Scott Adams..."
LLR Chuck: "I believe Dick Durbin"
LLR Chuck: "I believe (Dem Senator) Blumenthal"
LLR Chuck: "brilliant" Maddow; "magnificent" obama; "professional" John Harwood (who is actually a complete hack)
You should feel very very free to draw obvious and inescapable conclusions.
"It is just -- to me -- such a weird way to communicate; Twitter and videos. If Adams thinks he's been defamed, he ought to say so clearly."
Twitter is "a weird way to communicate"? Get with it.
Adams needs to be clearer than using the word "slander"?
And how about answering what I said to you above instead of desperately grabbing at new topics? I call bullshit.
If Adams thinks the gas attack by the supposed Gas Killing Animal was a hoax, does that make him anti-Trump?
Char Char Binks: "If Adams thinks the gas attack by the supposed Gas Killing Animal was a hoax, does that make him anti-Trump?"
You'll know if LLR Chuck thinks that makes Adam's anti-Trump if you see the left wing talking points say it first.
Just peruse Media Matters or the DNC websites and you'll always be slightly ahead of where LLR Chuck will be in terms of perspective.
But only every single time.
That's what makes LLR Chuck such a great "lifelong republican" and "true conservative"...his perfect alignment with lefty talking points...every day.
Sorry I participated in make this all about Chuck.
That is not a good way for the comments to go and it happens far too often.
Please keep the comments alive by not just getting into a back and forth with Chuck. He has a way of demanding that other people answer his questions that makes you want to react, but it's a game that works to switch the topic to him and when you see yourself caught up in it, you want to write a post like the one I'm writing now, complaining about it. It's a vicious cycle. I'm not going to do it again, but maybe my talking about it openly can help others resist becoming agents of the overpromotion of Chuck. Please normalize him.
Chuck is lazy. That’s my only problem with his comments. He’s a lazy thinker and definitely a lazy reader.
Well, clearly you are not a lawyer or you would have understood his law joke. I thought it was accessible to educated nonlawyers, but maybe that only works if you're not befogged by wanting to hate Scott Adams.
Damn!
Chuck has sunk so far in his Trump hatred that he's been roundly smacked down by our hostess.
Maybe it's time for some self-reflection, Chuck?
I just skip chuck's comments. It's easier that way.
The gas attack in Syria was suspicious and, I assume, that is why Trump and the military took several days to decide if to respond.
They finally did, probably just to avoid the Obama comparison.
"There is no truth but socialist truth."
Who's the socialist here? Jeff Bezos? Hahahahaha!
It gave me such pleasure to see Adams so wound up and so freaked out. Made me look forward to the rest of the investigation.
You're happy that a person is angry about the way a president is being treated. And you can't see that you have a problem?
Get help, Chuck.
The gas attacks in Syria are curious on multiple levels:
1) The "rebels" who are fighting Assad have themselves used gas to attack civilians in the past
2) Assad has been gaining the upper hand against the rebels for sometime without the use of chemical weapons
3) The last 2 instances where attribution for gas attacks have been leveled at Assad have come at the very moments when the Assad govt strategic position would only be weakened by the use of chemical weapons (as the results have shown) AND result in decisions/actions by western powers that undermine Assad's position
These are facts and are not in dispute, therefore, with the many, many players involved in Syria and the fact that none, and I mean none, of the competing factions are what you and I would call "humanitarian", a question inevitably rises:
Why does Assad continue to use chemical weapons at PRECISELY the moments of maximum damage to his strategic plans when he doesnt even need to use them to win?
And why would the Russians let him given the fact that obama gave Syria to the Russians and the best way for the Russians to get what they want is NOT to use chemical weapons and give the US and western powers an excuse to stick around longer in Syria?
The cold hard truth is this: from a military/political strategic perspective, the ONLY parties that benefit from the accusation of Assad using chemical weapons are those parties that are fighting Assad and want the western powers to stay.
The military strategist in one forces one to ask the question: why are so many parties operating in their own worst strategic interests?
"Chuck at 9:14 AM
'... be sure to check out his Periscope in which he suggests that the chlorine gas attack in Syria was logically a "hoax."'
"I think it was a hoax."
Yep, it pretty much appears to have been a hoax.
Trump's USA, England, and France missile and Air attacks in Syria were a bold action. But it was not made on Assad's stuff. It was made on the CIA's Gas Weapons development installation and Warehouses. There was no Russian reaction to that. They wanted it to be done too. John McCain hardest hit.
Who's the socialist here? Jeff Bezos? Hahahahaha!
I'm sure Chairman Mao would think Bernie Sanders is a right winger, too...
Chuck’s presence here proves that an echo chamber is no good. He is the non-echo. Much as I have contempt for everything he writes, he (and Inga) are the flints that spark the dry tinder. I used to comment on Conservative Treehouse but the enforced cheerleading of Trump eventually got me banned (my sin .... correctly predicting both Rex Tillerson and H. R. McMaster’s departures).
Conflict is good. America was built on it.
Robert Cook: "Yep, it pretty much appears to have been a hoax"
The gas attack occurred.
The western intelligence agencies assert that intel conclusively shows the attack came from Assad's forces.
The Assad regime/Russians assert the attack did not come from their side
The rebels have used gas in attacks themselves in the past
It is in the strategic interests of both Assad and Russia to NOT use chemical weapons in order to achieve one of their key long-term objectives: getting the other Western powers out of Syria
So, then, why use chemical weapons if you are Assad? It makes zero strategic sense...and it would have to have been approved by the Russians (obviously) and it makes zero sense from the Russian point of view.
So, then, again, why use chemical weapons if you are Assad?
"Please keep the comments alive by not just getting into a back and forth with ..."
i'm sorry Prof; no more comments from me about him
To follow up my previous comment, Chuck, you’re wrong about everything. Even when you’re right (which is never), you’re wrong. You were born wrong. The first words out of your mother’s mouth when they handed you to her were, “This is so wrong.” If you were a multiple choice question the answer would be “None of the above.” If you were a True/false question the answer would be “Wrong.” If you were a fill-in-the-blank nobody would fill in the blank. Because you.
Plus you have a bad personality.
Conflict is good. America was built on it.
I agree, but he's become so predictable. If there is ANY issue that is Trump related, or related to one of his followers, and there can be an advantage gained by trashing that person, Chuck is here doing it. It's old.
As for the rest of the left-leaning commenters, I'm still waiting for some to engage without hyperbole and ad-hominem. Right now, the exception to that is Robert Cook, who I almost never agree with, but mostly makes points without being personal, snotty or condescending. I enjoy reading his comments.
As a wise person once said: "Lefties, up your game!"
"Chuck said...
It gave me such pleasure to see Adams so wound up and so freaked out."
Almost as much as titty twisting, eh?
M Jordan at 9:58 AM
... he [Chuck] (and Inga) are the flints that spark the dry tinder. I used to comment on Conservative Treehouse but the enforced cheerleading of Trump eventually got me banned
I too am happy that Chuck and Inga comment here.
Conservative Treehouse is an informative website, but it is rather intolerant of commenters who express opinions outside a limited range. That website seems to lack resident nay-sayers like Chuck and Inga.
I saw that Tweet from Adams yesterday, and I wanted to read the allegations referenced by Adams because I like to read criticism and exposes of Scott Adams. And I couldn't find it. Not saying that they don't exist. But because I don't believe Scott Adams, I found it hard to accept that Adams had been the subject of such accusations by anybody who was formally connected to a professional media outlet.
Again, I am with Chuck on this. I can't find a "2nd Bezos source" that slandered Adams. Commenters often check the original in order to comment intelligently. Sure I could participate in the "was it a real chlorine attack" side-discussion, but I was quite interested in exploring what Althouse posted.
This was a frustrating topic for that reason. Mocking Chuck for his derisive tone about Twitter, doesn't quite answer the question: In what Bezos property was Adams slandered for the second time? I'm more for clarity than agreement, but we can't get either going here.
I like that Chuck doesn’t like Trump and supports the Country Club Republican view. Over the last 30 years, about half of Country Club Republicans became Country Club Democrats.
We need a Country Club Democrat viewpoint here. A Crony Capitalist Dem who sends his kids to private school and is immune from the damages the Dem policies cause.
We also need a Millionaire Socialist viewpoint here. Someone like Liz Warren who wants to Stick it to the Man when she’s not teaching rich kids at Harvard Law for a half million a year or vacationing on The Vineyard.
Chuck does a good job of giving us a view of the Country Club Republican. He’s indispensable here.
Drago said...
LLR Chuck: " But because I don't believe Scott Adams..."
That's right. I don't believe Scott Adams. And Althouse is right; I hate Scott Adams.
LLR Chuck: "I believe Dick Durbin"
I believe Senator Durbin, when he says that Trump used the phrase "shithole countries." Because others -- Republicans -- confirmed it, and no one apart from Trump apparatchiks denied it. That is what I wrote. You're misquoting me.
LLR Chuck: "I believe (Dem Senator) Blumenthal"
I believed Senator Blumenthal's reporting on his private meeting with then-Judge Gorsuch, wherein Gorsuch told Blumenthal that Gorsuch found Trump's comments about federal judges "disheartening" and "demoralizing." Because later, while under oath at his confirmation hearing, Gorsuch used the same words. So again you are misquoting me.
LLR Chuck: "brilliant" Maddow;
I said that exactly one Maddow interview was "brilliant." It was her interview with Kellyanne Conway, in which I congratulated Maddow's questioning, and Conway's game attempts to make sense out of Trump (ultimately a failure); an interview which then won Maddow the Enmmy for best news interview of the year. Months after my comments here. Again, you are misquoting me and misleading these readers about me.
"magnificent" obama;
I don't recall writing that, and you have never supplied a link to the context in which I wrote it, if I did. Your record of other misquotes of me makes me suspect that this too is a misquote. I never once voted for Obama, as Althouse says she did. If I ever thought that one single thing about Obama or related to Obama was magnificent, it was never enough to get me to support him in any way.
"professional" John Harwood (who is actually a complete hack)
Ditto. You, and "Full Moon" have a habit of misquoting me. I don't remember this context, and unless you can provide it, I presume that this is another lie from you.
When I first saw the post my first thought was of Chuck.
He has been hammering Scot Adams for a while in a way I view as very lawyerly. Basically you find one wrong thing a person/ side / entity said / did (discovery is great for this), and use it to frame the other side as evil, law breaking, incompetent, etc. it’s a lawyers job to win, and this is a tool they use. They just need to establish doubt. And with the cost of litigation, most will settle. Alinsky rules are used for this, freeze the persons perception by the public.
Unfortunately I don’t see this method as good for Justice, but I don’t see a way to fix it.
On Scott Adams I would rate him 80% makes sense and insightful, which is way ahead of most people.
The campaign against him for being seen as pro Trump is a sad symptom of the time. Very tribal. Your either with us, or against us. And if your against us, your evil.
Curious George said...
"Chuck said...
It gave me such pleasure to see Adams so wound up and so freaked out."
Almost as much as titty twisting, eh?
See; this is more trashtalk "clutter."
I never said anything about "titty twisting." Never. Not ever. Commenter "Full Moon" made that up about me, and admitted to same.
An example, of the sort of nasty freak that Althouse comments pages have (partly) attracted in the era of Trump.
And I want to resist generalizing as much as many of you do. There are some great comments and commenters here. A lot of great comments, in truth.
And too much trashtalking "clutter."
Scott Adams is too precious for this world.
If they all died violently in a Godly natural disaster, I would be OK with that, because I'll be at the river.
Oui, nous nous rassemblerons à la rivière
La magnifique, magnifique rivière
Rassemblez vous avec les Saints à la rivière
qui coule près du trône de Dieu
Conservative Treehouse is an informative website, but it is rather intolerant of commenters who express opinions outside a limited range. That website seems to lack resident nay-sayers like Chuck and Inga.
I read the posts but ignore the comments pretty much.
I notice that NRO has changed their comments system which was 99% leftist trolls last time I looked.
"The gas attack occurred."
Others dispute this.
"The western intelligence agencies assert that intel conclusively shows the attack came from Assad's forces."
Experience teaches us that "the western intelligence agencies" lie readily and profusely to promote desired agendas. There "assertions" are worthless unless backed by irrefutable documentary proof.
I'm actually pleasantly surprised that Adams hasn't been pilloried, fired, boycotted or sued by the Left.
It's either a venal or mortal sin to support Trump in the entertainment/arts industry.
Adams is an astute observer of the common man and how the gears of society grind. I think he definitely adds to the national debate, so it's no big surprise that the LOSERS of the national debate (i.e., the Left and effete neverTrump GOP) seek to shut Adams down.
I agree with Drago about the gas attack. It certainly all seems a bit suspicious, but I simply don't know enough about what's actually going on on the ground in Syria to comment intelligently about it beyond that.
Ahem..."their" assertions...etc.
Apparently Adams mentioned the evident fact that men are innately prone to raping. When women say this, it is a powerful feminist assertion; "Every man is a potential rapist"! But when a man says it, it is, at best, mansplaining, and can easily shade into excusing rape, mainstreaming rape, or even celebrating rape. It's the singer, not the song (which I suppose is why Jagger can get away with celbrating whipping black women).
OK, Althouse, you taught me how to make a little blue link. Now you can learn how to cut and paste;
https://jezebel.com/5813290/dilbert-creator-scott-adams-weighs-in-on-rape-now
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/20/dilbert-creator-scott-adams-on-rape_n_880590.html
It's the usual suspects. Not sure why he's pissed at Bezos. I mean, besides Bezos sucks.
"Well, clearly you are not a lawyer or you would have understood his law joke."
The joke I refer to is the "fix whatever gaps" riposte by Adams (when a commenter said he should sue if it's really "slander").
I do agree that if it can be shown a gas attack of some kind actually occurred, it was more likely an act by the anti-Assad rebels seeking to spur Western intervention, than by Assad, who has everything to lose and nothing to gain by using poison gas.
On the gas attack, there was a loop hole that Assad was using.
Chlorine gas under Obama’s rules was seen as acceptable because it had civilian uses. Not like nerve gas (basically insecticide) or mustard gas. So the older nerve gas and mustard gas were destroyed.
My guess is the gas attacks happened and it was meant as a giant middle finger by Syria and Russia to the US. Adams misses the culture when saying the gas attack was not logical. The Middle East is all about tribes in the Arab areas. It was meant as a terror attack. And it worked, Assad now controls that area.
And Trump understood the culture and responded in a measured manner sending a strong signal that was received world wide.
"A Crony Capitalist Dem who sends his kids to private school and is immune from the damages the Dem policies cause."
You mean like all Democratic politicians?
Experience teaches us that "the western intelligence agencies" lie readily and profusely to promote desired agendas. There "assertions" are worthless unless backed by irrefutable documentary proof.
This is something I've heard from leftists and libertarians for years, and although I've been around enough military people, I still can't figure out what "desired agendas" these would be. And that aside - we all know that there will be plenty of doubters of any documentary proof, so the argument will continue no matter what. We still get people who think the moon landing happened in a stage somewhere in California.
M Jordan said...
To follow up my previous comment, Chuck, you’re wrong about everything. Even when you’re right (which is never), you’re wrong. You were born wrong. The first words out of your mother’s mouth when they handed you to her were, “This is so wrong.” If you were a multiple choice question the answer would be “None of the above.” If you were a True/false question the answer would be “Wrong.” If you were a fill-in-the-blank nobody would fill in the blank. Because you.
Plus you have a bad personality.
LOL. I say again (and Althouse knows this to be true); I was a relatively unknown, unremarkable commenter here for years, pre-Trump. I was just another Republican Midwestern lawyer, spending a small amount of time in the Regent Street neighborhood; interested in Althouse's "Law" blog posts and appreciative of her remarkable coverage of events in Wisconsin and with Governor Walker.
If I had a severe personality defect, it never showed, pre-Trump. And even now; I continue to support Walker, Snyder, Kasich and all of the things they represent. What is new and different, is Trump, and the cultish atmosphere that surrounds him.
I remember the first time I tried to explain, to two fairly intelligent women, that rape is a good reproductive strategy for males, that certainly every Y chromosome on Earth has been passed on multiple times by rape, and that therefore rape is evolved behavior. I think they finally managed to comprehend what I was saying, and even to grasp the force of the argument, but they were not happy about it. They want to live in a world where men don't rape. Can't we pass a law or something?
"Experience teaches us that "the western intelligence agencies" lie readily and profusely to promote desired agendas."
ALL intelligence services lie readily to promote their agendas.
What we have seen in the west over the last 60 years or so is a developing and profound divergence with the expressed will of the populace in the western nations with the views and desires of those who people our govt institutions.
This has been going on a long time with CIA/NSA folks undermining Reagan (to a significant extent), W Bush (to some extent) and now Trump (to a very very large extent).
We see the same thing in Britain where Brexit will die the death of a thousand administrative cuts.
Again, Assad might very well have used chemical weapons on his rebellious factions, it just doesn't make sense given what he really wants.
Michael K at 10:19 AM
I read the [Conservative Treehouse] posts but ignore the comments pretty much.
Many of the comments at CTH are very informative, but there are so many comments that I can only scan through them looking for the informative ones.
The intolerance of dissenting opinions comes largely from Sundance himself and from his moderators. This problem became significantly worse after Trump entered the election race in mid-2015.
I am very careful when I comment there -- which now is very rarely -- because I don't want to get banned.
However, it's a very informative website, and I look at it several times a day.
"Lifelong" "he who shall not be named": "If I had a severe personality defect, it never showed, pre-Trump."
LOL
So, to summarize the last 24 hours for "he who shall not be named": He only attacked Althouse because I (in his own words) "gulled" him into it.
Further, "he who shall not be named" has a severe personality defect but that is Trump's fault.
I cannot imagine a more lefty-aligned philosophical outlook on one's own deficiencies than that.
You should feel very very free to draw inescapable and obvious conclusions.
Adams is being boycotted. His speakership have gone way down. It basically ended his speaking career, about 40% of hiis income.
http://www.philly.com/philly/entertainment/Dilbert-cartoonist-says-he-lost-income-and-jobs-after-saying-Trump-would-win.html?mobi=true
Robert Cook at 10:24 AM
... if it can be shown a gas attack of some kind actually occurred, it was more likely an act by the anti-Assad rebels seeking to spur Western intervention ...
You and I agree about that.
People interested in this subject should read the Moon of Alabama website.
http://www.moonofalabama.org/
"I've been around enough military people, I still can't figure out what "desired agendas" these would be."
To justify US military intervention...whether it be in Iraq 15 years ago or Syria now, and maybe Iran in the future. We're not in the Middle East to defend ourselves or to help innocents there; we're there because we want to be there. We are trying to assert our political domination in the region, and also place our military forces close enough to Russia to be able to be able to strike against them quickly if the need or desire should arise. Our global power is in decline, and China is ascendant, (with Russia as an ally). Everything we're doing is an attempt to hang on to our position of global political and economic dominance. It's a futile undertaking.
Gahrie said...
Keep looking for those strawberries Chuckles!
It is really quite pathetic when people like Chuckles and ARM prefer to call our leaders liars and would rather believe the murderous thugs who are the enemy of everything we stand for.
I call Trump a liar. I do not call Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, Rex Tillerson, James Mattis, Chief Justice Roberts, Jeff Sessions, Betsy DeVos or Governors Walker/Kasich/Snyder liars. I try to be careful about using the word "liar," but I end up using it a lot, because there's an awful lot of lying.
I'm curious; who are the "murderous thugs who are the enemy of everything we stand for"? You are saying that I prefer their credibility. (Prefer, to what?)
"ALL intelligence services lie readily to promote their agendas."
Of course, that goes without saying; I was responding to your comment about the "western intelligence agencies." Perhaps I didn't perceive an irony intended by you?
Ray: "My guess is the gas attacks happened and it was meant as a giant middle finger by Syria and Russia to the US."
Again, it's possible and perhaps it was a test of Trump to see what would happen.
But I don't think there is any confusion about Trump in either Damascus or Moscow. They both know that an act such as that was absolutely certain to trigger a bigger response. Hell, Trump is probably glad to be able to say they did it so he could punch them in the nose and then say "hey North Korea and Iran, are you guys paying attention here?..."
Which is precisely why the attack, if carried out by Assad forces, makes no sense either tactically, politically or strategically.
That's a whole lotta "not makin' sense" by a whole lotta players who are not exactly known for making stupid strategic moves....
Robert Cook: "Of course, that goes without saying; I was responding to your comment about the "western intelligence agencies." Perhaps I didn't perceive an irony intended by you?"
Not irony. I was simply being precise. The Western agencies, we have been told, say Assad did this.
I am making no value judgement, just noting it.
"Lifelong" "he who shall not be named": "I do not call...."
....any democrats or lefty hack "journalists" liars.
Ever.
For any reason.
Especially when the dems/lefties are obviously lying.
Everyone should feel very very free to draw inescapable and obvious conclusions.
Shorter Chuck: Before my jealousy made me dishonest, I wasn’t dishonest.
"I am making no value judgement, just noting it."
I do make judgments: unless supported by irrefutable proof, I assume anything said by the intelligence agencies to be lies, half-truths, or distortions.
Mike Sylvester; you're a routinely reasonable person and I understand how hard it is to figure out "motive" in the Syrian gas attack. I wish I knew what it was; I truly don't.
What made it relevant for me, was Scott Adams' own fucking it all up in his own inimitable fashion.
Let's review, with some delicious coffee, shall we?
Adams didn't really say (until later, I don't know) that there was a gas attack that was executed and a mis-direction play by Assad opponents. Adams really did suggest that it was a "hoax." That was Adams' word. He did of course talk about how it made no sense as a Syrian military operation. But he called it a "hoax," too.
And if some articulate, trained, experienced, disciplined foreign policy expert wanted to talk about Syria, and raise the possibility of such a mis-direction play, it would be fine with me. Might be interesting.
The reason that I wanted to make a big deal out of it was because the Trump messaging was that it was indeed a brutal attack by the Assad regime, that required punishment. Trump ("brutal attack"), versus Scott Adams ("hoax").
The last two people I want making Syrian policy, are Donald Trump and Scott Adams. And when the two of them can't even et their stories straight, I want to ridicule it. And them.
Chuck: If Adams thinks he's been defamed, he ought to say so clearly.
He did. In fact, Adams wrote a whole book about it. If you don't know this, then perhaps you should refrain from commenting on things for which you are ignorant. And no, professing your lack of talent in using search engines isn't an excuse to opine on subjects for which you remain ignorant. I am sympathetic to those with handicaps, so here's an Althouse approved link to the book. Buy it, read it, and do so via the link to send some money Althouse's way.
After you read the book, click the link in Adams' tweet, that goes to another tweet which links to the WaPo article. Amazingly enough, you can then read there the allegations made by WaPo about Scott Adams. In fact, you can click on a link within the WaPo article that goes to a HuffPo article that tries to justify the slander by quoting Adams, which when you read the quotes, it is clear that Adams didn't write what HuffPo claims he did. In fact, to make the claim, HuffPo needed to take two completely different paragraphs, ignore complete sentences that undermined their description, toss a few word salads, and write a quote attributed to Adams that was never written by Adams. I won't provide these links, because Althouse already did, and you claimed to have used them and failed. Don't be a failure.
"The Plot Against Scott Adams."
Just let that chosen headline sink in, a little.
"Lifelong" "He who shall not be named": "I call Trump a liar. I do not call Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, Rex Tillerson, James Mattis, Chief Justice Roberts, Jeff Sessions, Betsy DeVos or Governors Walker/Kasich/Snyder liars."
I have perused Media Matters, DNC and other lefty websites and none of those websites are spending any time attacking any of those the LLR has noted.
Therefore, LLR Chuck is not attacking them.
However, Scott Adams, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, Ingraham etc are being attacked all over the place and right at the very moment that the results are coming out of Horowitz' investigation that shows what the lefty coup players were doing.
And if one were to go back over the last several weeks, one would see that LLR Chuck has attacked and demeaned each of those entities that are in the cross-hairs of the lefties...all the while avoiding ALL of the same topics that the lefties avoid.
As noted in previous days, LLR Chuck's daily narrative is 100% correlated and aligned with his lefty operational allies.
But only every single day.
“Ah, I see Chuck and I had the same instinct, to check the source, and he was also likewise frustrated in his search.
For that specific reason, allusions to content that cannot be found through the story links, I rate this a Poor Post, Althouse.”
Yes. Where is the evidence that Scott Adams is being maligned and ostracized by Jeff Bezos? Exact quotes and sources, otherwise he sounds like he’s just another celebrity trying to stay relevant. To many of us, he was never relevant.
Drago can you not EVER STFU about Chuck? So tiresome.
Does Bezos write or even edit the stuff his writers put out, Cookie? In any event, there have been plenty of capitalists willing to finance their own undoing. Besides, my comment was aimed at subtler, cannier intellects than yours.
Lefty Inga at 10:56 ought to read Leland at 10:52.
But, just like her operational ally Chuck, that's apparently a bit too difficult.
The last two people I want making Syrian policy, are Donald Trump and Scott Adams.
Unlike admitted and denied Hillary supporters, I can think of someone I wanted less than Donald Trump to make Syrian policy.
Things LLR Chuck has never written: I don't want obama making foreign policy. I don't want Pelosi or Schumer influencing foreign policy.
Feel free to draw obvious and inescapable conclusions.
Inga: "Drago can you not EVER STFU about Chuck? So tiresome"
Inga can you not EVER STFU about rushing to the defense of your little lefty ally duckling Chuck? So tiresome,
Really.
Inga said...
“Ah, I see Chuck and I had the same instinct, to check the source, and he was also likewise frustrated in his search.
For that specific reason, allusions to content that cannot be found through the story links, I rate this a Poor Post, Althouse.”
Yes. Where is the evidence that Scott Adams is being maligned and ostracized by Jeff Bezos? Exact quotes and sources, otherwise he sounds like he’s just another celebrity trying to stay relevant. To many of us, he was never relevant.
After that, Inga, and if there really are any major-media defamations against Scott Adams, then the next question will go to Althouse: "What is the nature of the 'plot' against Scott Adams?" "Plot" was the word she used in her post-title.
So I'm led to believe that this isn't just some stray, individuals' libel of Adams; this is a PLOT to libel Adams! A conspiracy; an organized effort; "a plan made in secret by a group of people to do something illegal or harmful."
Drago can you not EVER STFU about Chuck? So tiresome.
I find Chuck to be rather tedious.
Inga said...
"Where is the evidence that Scott Adams is being maligned and ostracized by Jeff Bezos? Exact quotes and sources, otherwise he sounds like he’s just another celebrity trying to stay relevant."
I posted a couple links upthread. Just google "scott adams pro-rape". I think he's probably mistaken about Bezos, this sounds more like a typical feminist bitchfest. He said something about rape, and the only thing men are allowed to say about rape is "I am now going to kill myself".
Sorry to treat you like a human being, Inga, but your comment was actually fairly reasonable. Stopped clock effect, I guess.
One of the tweets in the Kanye West thread was cute and oh so apropos, it showed a fast food worker giving someone their order, the caption was “Here’s that attention you ordered.”
This is Chuck's best friend on MSNBC:
Bill Kristol predicting Democrats will sweep to control of both houses in 2018 with help from traitorous country club republicans.
They are democrats now. They have always hated actual republican voters. Before they were stabbing us in the back.
Trump just removed the mask. Now they have to face us face to face.
We will absorb many people who actually exist who listen to Kayne West.
Nobody will Miss the 20 or 30 losers who listen to Billy Kristol.
Losers like Chuck.
Inga said...
Drago can you not EVER STFU about Chuck? So tiresome.
Stalinist wants people she disagrees with to shut up.
News at 11...
"The last two people I want making Syrian policy, are Donald Trump and Scott Adams."
Meaning you want them to have the final say? I would agree that that is appropriate for President Trump, not so sure about Adams, although his insights tend to be much more accurate than those of liberal analysts.
Inga said...
Yes. Where is the evidence that Scott Adams is being maligned and ostracized by Jeff Bezos? Exact quotes and sources, otherwise he sounds like he’s just another celebrity trying to stay relevant. To many of us, he was never relevant.
4 minutes before you typed your usual idiocy:
Leland said...
Chuck: If Adams thinks he's been defamed, he ought to say so clearly.
He did. In fact, Adams wrote a whole book about it. If you don't know this, then perhaps you should refrain from commenting on things for which you are ignorant. And no, professing your lack of talent in using search engines isn't an excuse to opine on subjects for which you remain ignorant. I am sympathetic to those with handicaps, so here's an Althouse approved link to the book. Buy it, read it, and do so via the link to send some money Althouse's way.
After you read the book, click the link in Adams' tweet, that goes to another tweet which links to the WaPo article. Amazingly enough, you can then read there the allegations made by WaPo about Scott Adams. In fact, you can click on a link within the WaPo article that goes to a HuffPo article that tries to justify the slander by quoting Adams, which when you read the quotes, it is clear that Adams didn't write what HuffPo claims he did. In fact, to make the claim, HuffPo needed to take two completely different paragraphs, ignore complete sentences that undermined their description, toss a few word salads, and write a quote attributed to Adams that was never written by Adams. I won't provide these links, because Althouse already did, and you claimed to have used them and failed. Don't be a failure.
Look Inga and Chuck are wrong together.
Again.
Unexpectedly.
@Cook - I remain unconvinced that Russia and China are allies. I would think more that they share, to sone extent, the same enemies, most prominently us. Read an article this morning that suggested that China was the real target of Russia’s publication of new nuclear delivery systems. They share a long border, Russia picked up the Chinese part of Siberia during a period of Chinese weakness, Siberia has the natural resources that China so lacks, China has the manpower that Russia lacks for a ground war, and the only thing keeping China out of Siberia is Russian’s nuclear arsenal. And it makes sense - we really don’t worry overmuch about Russian delivery systems, since the big deterrent there is, as it has long been, MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction). We still have plenty of nuclear weapons targeted at Russia, or easily retargetable there, that if they launch a nuclear strike at the US, they won’t survive it (and neither will we, of course). Yes, Russia does not like, one bit, how close NATO has gotten to its big cities. Or that they aren’t that far from losing their warm water ports. But I doubt that that keeps them up late at night worrying, near as much as does the sizable Chinese army encamped just south of their Siberian border.
Chuck at 10:50 AM
... The last two people I want making Syrian policy, are Donald Trump and Scott Adams. And when the two of them can't even get their stories straight, I want to ridicule it.
I am appalled that President Trump has been bombing Syria in response to chemical-bomb incidents.
I always have considered Trump to be a buffoon (even though I supported him because of his immigration positions), and I consider his buffoonery in relation to Syria to be dangerous.
However, President Trump is being told by our Intelligence Community that the Syrian Government has been using chemical bombs.
The combination of our Intelligence Community's foolishness and President Trump's buffoonery is very dangerous.
I say that as someone who served happily and proudly as a USAF Intelligence officer for 14 years and who voted for Trump in November 2016.
Althouse said...
“Sorry I participated in make this all about Chuck.
That is not a good way for the comments to go and it happens far too often.
Please keep the comments alive by not just getting into a back and forth with Chuck.”
——————————
Achilles said...
“Stalinist wants people she disagrees with to shut up.
News at 11...”
I don't have the patience for sifting through the DNA of the Bezos empire to find out if this media outlet is part of his holdings (i.e, Nash Holdings) or if this article is just a rehash of someone else's content - in this day and age it is hard to tell what is original content and what is someone else echoing the original content.
Why is Kanye West Promoting Far-Right Dilbert Creator Scott Adams?
On the Holocaust Denier point: Adams even appeared to defend Holocaust deniers over a decade ago.
“Is it the sort of number that is so well-documented with actual names and perhaps a Nazi paper trail that no historian could doubt its accuracy, give or take ten thousand,” Adams wrote in a now-deleted post from 2006. “No reasonable person doubts that the Holocaust happened, but wouldn’t you like to know how the exact number was calculated, just for context?”
On the Men's Rights Advocacy points: as the author of the famous office-themed comic strip is known for promoting odd theories on behavioral science and supporting the so-called men’s rights movement.
In one post on Adams’ blog that has since been deleted, the comic writer wrote, “The reality is that women are treated differently by society for exactly the same reason that children and the mentally handicapped are treated differently. It’s just easier this way for everyone.”
Have not yet found the "former cartoonist", pro-rape, racist, and ALT-Right points yet - but I assume that the references to others (Alex Jones, Paul Watson, Jack Posobeic) might be an inference that Scott Adams guilty by association of being ALT-Right.
The combination of our Intelligence Community's foolishness and President Trump's buffoonery is very dangerous.
The Syrian thing was probably considered and perfomed under limits; like not targeting Russians.
Why so "dangerous?"
I feel like I should apologize to Althouse for my continued mocking of our resident human measle - I think the phenomenon of “inferior elites” (embodied both in very public Democrats like Harvey Weinstein, and local, less-prominent losers that can’t get past their infantile jealousy of Trump) is an important aspect of most of these topics.
I have no problem acknowledging Trump’s very obvious, and very material, flaws. But the smug (and expliciltly dishonest) worst-case interpretation of anything Trump and Adams say or do just reinforces many otherwise-hesitant Trump supporters’ belief that the undeserving elite don’t give a damn about them.
FWIW, attempting to out-snark Scott Adams feels like time wasted. He buys snark by the barrel.
"You've got the bigger balds"
Calling AC/DC...a timely re-write is in order
The Daily Beast story has some of the same elements (re: Scott Adams) as the MediaIte article linked above.
How Kanye West Became a Far-Right Media Hero
The missile attack on Syrian installations seemed like a theatrical event.
Telegraphed for days, if there were any useful things, or even chemical weapons and related equipment, in the locations that were attacked, I would be very surprised.
The Russians certainly were very careful to stay out of the way, and they knew very well what to stay away from.
Any half-intelligent Syrian/Russian officer would know to keep any such material deep in some populated area, to deter exactly this sort of reprisal. Even Saddam Hussein had the wit to hide as much of his military as he could manage among civilians.
So I'm led to believe that this isn't just some stray, individuals' libel of Adams; this is a PLOT to libel Adams! A conspiracy; an organized effort; "a plan made in secret by a group of people to do something illegal or harmful."
Because journolist never happened right?
Leland: LOL. Adams' book is subtitled, "Persuasion in a world where facts don't matter." So that's a guy who worries about being libeled?
I'm not really going to try too hard to figure out how a book that was published last year, addresses a supposed defamation that occurred this week.
Scott Adams, whose "persuasion master" hero is Donald Trump, is going to consider a libel action? I want to introduce Scott Adams to Tim O'Brien, who defended himself against Trump's laughable 3-year-long libel action which was eventually thrown out of court.
We can suspect all kinds of things, but it is not at all unusual for US administrations to tell public lies. Sometimes in convenient coordination with allies. And sometimes even in coordination with enemies, when the lie is convenient to both.
Truth, if it ever comes, usually has to wait for a historian, and often it is decades later.
US Presidents are not any sort of intelligence analysts nor, if they want to stay sane, experts in military minutiae. But they are essential elements in public communication and public diplomacy. If it is convenient to enemies and allies alike to pretend to punish the Syrians, then the President must publicly approve.
Mike said...
I cannot tell from the Tweets which Bezos property slandered Adams how. Id like to see the context in his assertion.
I believe the two properties are:
The Washington Post, which said he proclaimed rape is a natural instinct, and
Business Insider, which called him a right-wing provocateur. ( He also said they called him a former cartoonist. The article does not call him that now, and there is no note about a correct being made, but it is entirely possible that the article has been changed. )
The missile attack on Syrian installations seemed like a theatrical event.
Yes, it was to show that Trump is not Obama and that was enough.
I don't know that we want to get rid of Assad, as evil as he is. I assume the Israelis have heavy input into our policy as they are the ones most affected and with the best intelligence.
Bruce Hayden: "@Cook - I remain unconvinced that Russia and China are allies."
I agree and there will come a day when one or the other decides to rectify some old grudges.
It would appear at this point that the rectifier of past "wrongs", in my opinion, will be China.
Thanks in no small measure to the astonishing transfer of technology under the dems to the Chinese.
You will note that with all of the lefties and their LLR allies hysteria about Russia and their collusion lies that China escapes unscathed despite their widespread hacking operations targeting the US govt, its data and technology.
It's a good thing from the Chinese perspective to have "invested" so wisely in the dems over the last 30 years. It was a very good investment indeed.
Despite all the links and quotes that supposedly prove that Jeff Bezos is out to get Scott Adams... no haven’t seen any evidence yet. There is no Plot.
Inga: "Despite all the links and quotes that supposedly prove that Jeff Bezos is out to get Scott Adams... no haven’t seen any evidence yet."
Shorter Inga and Chuck: If I close my eyes I don't have to see what is there...
Inga has enough to worry about with the new leaks that Andrew McCabe literally gave "stand down" orders on both the Hillary email "investigation" (LOL-whitewash) AND the Clinton Foundation "Investigation" (LOL-whitewash).
Tsk tsk.
So very very professional of McCabe to have done that...and leave behind the evidence for it.
I hope that $700k payoff to McCabe and his wife by Hillary's pals is sufficient compensation for what's coming.
Michael K said...
I don't know that we want to get rid of Assad, as evil as he is. I assume the Israelis have heavy input into our policy as they are the ones most affected and with the best intelligence.
The Saudi/Israeli alliance and the work Kushner is doing in the ME is really shaking things up.
The Iranian regime is in the same place as as Billy Kristol.
"So that's a guy who worries about being libeled?"
If facts don't matter, then being libeled matters a lot more, as there is no real defense other than a counterattack in the same vein.
Adams is right, in the sphere of public relations facts are not very important compared to the story, and completely irrelevant if the story is controlled by the fellows with the megaphone. The best way to lie (though this is marginal) is to select facts, out of context, as your ammunition.
It is all pure conflict, weapons clashing, and the weapons are words. The nature of the words matters little. Facts are used in the same way as lies.
This is not a legal case, it is a war.
“Business Insider, which called him a right-wing provocateur. ( He also said they called him a former cartoonist. The article does not call him that now, and there is no note about a correct being made, but it is entirely possible that the article has been changed. )”
Business insider isn’t owned by Jeff Bezos. It’s owned by Axel Springer. Seems like there are more people who think Scott Adams is a charlatan. Why shouldn’t people express their doubts about Scott Adams?
Inga said...
Despite all the links and quotes that supposedly prove that Jeff Bezos is out to get Scott Adams... no haven’t seen any evidence yet. There is no Plot.
Chuck said...
I'm not really going to try too hard to figure out how a book that was published last year, addresses a supposed defamation that occurred this week.
Ideological and intellectual allies.
According to Piaget, when reality sends you some piece of information or stimulus that disagrees with your paradigm you either bend that information to conform to your paradigm or you change your paradigm to adjust to the new information.
In this case the two democrats stick their thumbs in their ears and stick their tongues out at reality.
buwaya: "Adams is right, in the sphere of public relations facts are not very important compared to the story...."
Indeed.
LLR Chuck's and Inga's collusion fever dreams over the past 2 years are a perfect example of that.
"proclaimed rape is a natural instinct"
It is. Conquerors rape. Bandits rape. Slave-owners rape. This is so common in every such situation throughout history that its absurd to say that it isn't "natural".
Murder and assault are also natural, and similarly demonstrable.
That point above, indisputable as it is, is used in a rhetorical attack with a slight twist. Which is a lie. Which is ammunition in the propaganda war.
buwaya: "It is. Conquerors rape. Bandits rape. Slave-owners rape."
UN "peacekeepers" and UN staff personnel are some of the biggest rapers on the planet.
And the left loooooooooves them.
Inga said...
Business insider isn’t owned by Jeff Bezos.
According to Wikipedia, Bezos owns about 3%.
That's enough that MarketWatch includes it as part of Bezo's Empire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse_by_UN_peacekeepers
Between the UN rape gangs and the islamist rape gangs (which, in Great Britain, the lefty authorities explicitly knew about and purposely covered up), the left is doing terrific.
"... no haven’t seen any evidence yet. There is no Plot."
On these matters you will never have "evidence", short of internal communications, which will never be seen unless the conspirators are complete incompetents.
Such as Podesta and the DNC and HRC and various persons in the FBI, as we have seen.
IIB: "According to Wikipedia, Bezos owns about 3%."
Shhhhh.
That doesn't count.
The percentage that would count must, alas, remain a secret so that the lefties and their LLR allies can continue to pretend that what is before their eyes is not really there.
alan markus at 11:37 AM
Adams even appeared to defend Holocaust deniers over a decade ago ... in a now-deleted post from 2006. “No reasonable person doubts that the Holocaust happened, but wouldn’t you like to know how the exact number was calculated, just for context?”
Wondering in 2006 how the number was calculated is supposed to be denounced as Holocaust denial now.
And just in case it's not already obvious, just because something can be categorized as "natural" doesn't mean it's moral or civilized or useful. Civilization itself could be considered one giant unnatural state for us as a species.
LLR Chuck advancing the lefty media narratives.
I. Did. Not. See. That. Coming.
buwaya said...
It is.
Whether it is or is not, Adams neither said nor implied that statement.
3%. So that gives Bezos the leverage to tell Business Insider to go after Scott Adams? LOL.
And the fact is that Adams principal point is correct. Facts don't persuade.
I like arguing with facts as my field consists, at core, of arguing with nature. Nature is utterly incorruptible and cares only about facts. But people don't.
One must make peace with this situation and adapt. To do otherwise is Quixotic - and I am, indeed, Quixotic. Adams is, also, underneath it all.
People are persuaded by lies that evoke feelings - fear, greed, resentment, belonging, envy, love, whatever suits.
Drago said...
buwaya: "Adams is right, in the sphere of public relations facts are not very important compared to the story...."
Indeed.
LLR Chuck's and Inga's collusion fever dreams over the past 2 years are a perfect example of that.
You relentlessly dumb fuck head.
As for "collusion," what I have said is that I haven't seen any good evidence. And that I'd be surprised if we ever did see any good evidence.
I doubted that we'd ever see Trump's term in office early. I'd be happy to see such an end to Trump's time, of course. But I said that I would just wait patiently for the prosecutors to finish their work. And, I have always added: if Trump is run out of office for matters of illegality, I want that evidence to be so solid, that even the monkey-butler Sean Hannity can't deny it.
What I hope to never see, is Trump becoming some sort of martyr to his fans.
I don't think I would say that rape is a natural instinct. The sex drive certainly is, and rape is one way of satisfying that drive. But I don't think most men would rape if they had a wide range of consensual sex available to them. I assume some still would.
Axel Springer AG is the largest digital publisher in Europe.
The largest digital distributor in the Europe, and the world, is Amazon.
Make your own connections.
"UN "peacekeepers" and UN staff personnel"
Conquerors and slave-owners of course. The men with guns who must be obeyed, and propitiated.
LLR Chuck: "As for "collusion," what I have said is that I haven't seen any good evidence. And that I'd be surprised if we ever did see any good evidence."
"But I said that I would just wait patiently for the prosecutors to finish their work."
Golden Showers/Fake dossier/I want Trump impeached boy attempts in vain to rewrite history.
Well, given where things stand now its not surprising.
LOL
“What I hope to never see, is Trump becoming some sort of martyr to his fans.”
This is exactly what Scott Adams is trying to do, turn himself into a martyr. And some here are falling for it again...no surprise. He’s a hypnotist and master persuader after all, or so he says. Why are people here so susceptible to charlatans?
Inga: "3%. So that gives Bezos the leverage to tell Business Insider to go after Scott Adams? LOL"
Ah yes. The inevitable moving of the goal posts by Inga and LLR Chuck.
Yeah, what possible influence could Bezos have over the inner workings of publications in which he is part owner?
And what possible influence could obama have over the inner workings of the lefty/LLR hacks at the IRS in targeting conservatives?
"Un-possible"!
LOL
Inga: "Why are people here so susceptible to charlatans?"
Behold, the party of Clinton speaks.
Inga: "This is exactly what Scott Adams is trying to do, turn himself into a martyr. And some here are falling for it again...no surprise. "
Behold, the party of Clinton continues to speak....
"But I don't think most men would rape if they had a wide range of consensual sex available to them."
Men rarely have a wide range of consensual sex available to them. There is a battle of the sexes after all. Women and men have divergent interests.
Certainly not in extreme situations. And there is a range of personalities among "men". Some are more prone to override their internal control mechanisms under certain circumstances, and yet these are "normal". Unsafe, but normal.
Drago said...
buwaya: "It is. Conquerors rape. Bandits rape. Slave-owners rape."
UN "peacekeepers" and UN staff personnel are some of the biggest rapers on the planet.
Criminals are overwhelmingly democrats.
Most "conquerors" are/were statists and ideologically mirror democrats.
Slave owners were all democrats.
The UN and the left are perfectly aligned.
A large percentage of democrat leaders are credibly accused rapists.
A pattern emerges.
Chuck: I'm not really going to try too hard to figure out how a book that was published last year, addresses a supposed defamation that occurred this week.
We've noticed. Actually, what you claim is "too hard" seems rather insignificant levels of effort to most of us. Seriously, the links you need are available to you thanks to Althouse. If you tried even with a little effort, you would know the WaPo slander links back to a HuffPo article from 2011. The defamation didn't occur this week. It happened almost 7 years ago, and WaPo is just repeating it without even calling Adams to check the accuracy.
This is why you fail, Chuck. Don't be a failure.
"This is exactly what Scott Adams is trying to do, turn himself into a martyr."
All's fair in war and persuasion. There really aren't any rules.
Or rather, rules are yet more rhetorical ammunition.
Strip every illusion away and all anyone really cares about is who, whom.
Why are people here so susceptible to charlatans?
“Behold, the party of Clinton speaks.”
Behold a Trump Voter and supporter speaks, lol.
How come democrats don't complain about money in politics anymore?
Oh. Well then...
Inga; "Behold a Trump Voter and supporter speaks, lol."
I voted in hopes that Trump would govern conservatively.
Last year was the most conservative year in governance in the last 60 years.
Meanwhile, McCabe giving stand down orders, Comey lying about his shady arrangements over the last year with Daniel Richman and Fitzpatrick, Hillary's campaign literally laundering $84 Million dollars to avoid campaign limits, the russian pumping $150 Billion dollars into the Clintons for 20% of our uranium, etc.
I think I'll take the former.
LLR Chuck and Inga hardest hit.
Here is a good recent Moon of Alabama article about the hoax of chemical bombing in Syria.
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/04/syria-who-holds-up-the-opcw-investigation-in-douma.html
Inga said...
Why are people here so susceptible to charlatans?
“Behold, the party of Clinton speaks.”
Behold a Trump Voter and supporter speaks, lol.
The problem with this discussion is Inga is too stupid to understand why her comment is dumb.
And most amazing of all, we are now finding out that literally zero vetted intelligence of any sort was used to launch the fake counterintelligence (actual "frame Trump") "investigation".
I wonder how LLR Chuck will explain that one away?
I'll have to watch Maddow first to see which way Chuck will go.
I always find it a bit odd that Althouse reliably jumps in on the anti-Chuck side of these little squabbles. Chuck is the commenter who's opinions most closely parallel the real views of our hostess.
ARM: "Chuck is the commenter who's opinions most closely parallel the real views of our hostess."
LOL
Chuck condescends to and lectures Althouse every day and ARM graces us with assertions about what Althouse's "real views" are.
I cannot think of a more appropriate triumvirate of smug and like-mindedness than ARM/LLR Chuck and we'll throw Inga in there just for fun.
Here is the original blog post they are referring to if you want to review and consider that.
Huffington Post apparently tied together his comment on 'natural insticts' as referring to rape and WaPo is going with that. But the HuffPo piece linking to his blog post was broken I had to search for it.
Pegs and Holes
Also note this is from mid-2011 long before Trump running for Pres, #MeToo, etc. not as a response to any of that. Hugh Hefner is the example he cites.
Inga is never fun.
That's like throwing in herpes when the broad gave you the clap and AIDS.
Leland, it was an Opinion column in the Washington Post. Not WaPo reporting. And the link to HuffPo, which I have now read at your urging; tell me what is the defamatory content there?
Adams' own, published writing is quoted, in context.
Libel is an untrue statement that is published and which causes harm to the subject. What untrue statement has anyone published about Scott Adams?
I think Adams is a dick, and a freak, and an unreliable crackpot. That's my opinion. I might (I actually don't, but let's just say...) also think that he is an anti-Semite, and a holocaust denier, and a misogynist. Again, my opinion. It's not actionable libel. I am not asserting untrue facts about him.
Is Scott Adams making up his own elements of libel law now? Is Althouse making up "Plots" to defame Adams?
Maybe that's the whole problem here! Scott Adams is so divorced from "facts" at this point that he is unclear about how a libel case must be premised upon an allegation of an untrue assertion of fact. The guy who wrote a book about "a world where facts don't matter." A guy who "no longer care[s] about the fucking law," but who wants to avail himself of at least the notion of "defamation."
By the way; Scott Adams isn't suing anybody. Count on it. He doesn't have a case, or a hope of a case. Not even close. Not even worth talking about, unless you are a Master Persuader, for whom "facts" don't matter and wherein you no longer care about the law.
Chuck said... [hush][hide comment]
Ah, Scott "I no longer care about the fucking law" Adams.
Funny how Chuck has latched on to that one thing. Yet hyper ventilates when any commenter mentions his threats to give Greta van Sustern a good titty twist. SAD!
Or his delight in calling a twelve year old boy autistic.
Robert Cook is 1000% right As is Scott Adams. This fraudulent false flag gassing is so obviously a "raping Belgian Nuns" fabrication by the Deep State that only idiots are fooled. Or pretend to be fooled to protect their sinecures.
Look at the Timeline.
The God Emperor says it is time to bring the boys home from Syria and to leave it to the regional actors like the combination of Saudi, Israel and the Egyptians to do what they have to do.
That is what Assad and Putin dearly desire. America out so they can take their chances with the others who they do not fear.
So they kill a few peasants and stage an "atrocity." Just like they did with the raping of Belgian Nuns before World War 1 a hundred years ago.
God only knows what they will come up with to sabotage the settlement in Korea to prevent the God Emperor from bringing our boys home from South Korea.
The following day, he tweeted nine videos from Scott Adams, who gained his fame first for creating the cartoon “Dilbert” and second for proclaiming that rape is a “natural instinct” of men and society a “virtual prison for men’s natural desires.”
-- Molly Roberts (WaPo)
That's one Bezos media property and journolist.
“Here is the original blog post they are referring to if you want to review and consider that.
Huffington Post apparently tied together his comment on 'natural insticts' as referring to rape and WaPo is going with that. But the HuffPo piece linking to his blog post was broken I had to search for it.”
From the linked Adams blogpost...
“Maybe you say the zebra should have chosen a safer watering hole. But in the end, you probably conclude that both animals acted according to their natures, so no one is to blame.
The part that interests me is that society is organized in such a way that the natural instincts of men are shameful and criminal while the natural instincts of women are mostly legal and acceptable. In other words, men are born as round pegs in a society full of square holes. Whose fault is that? Do you blame the baby who didn’t ask to be born male? Or do you blame the society that brought him into the world, all round-pegged and turgid, and said, “Here’s your square hole”?
The way society is organized at the moment, we have no choice but to blame men for bad behavior. If we allowed men to act like unrestrained horny animals, all hell would break loose. All I’m saying is that society has evolved to keep males in a state of continuous unfulfilled urges, more commonly known as unhappiness. No one planned it that way. Things just drifted in that direction.”
So he’s blaming society for men’s bad behavior. He asserts men cannot control themselves and their natural instinct is to rape. Boom, there it is. So how is the pushback to Scott Adams ridiculous notions persecuting him?
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
I always find it a bit odd that Althouse reliably jumps in on the anti-Chuck side of these little squabbles. Chuck is the commenter who's opinions most closely parallel the real views of our hostess.
I know you are a little slow so I will help you out. Above I posted about Piaget's theory about how people react to stimulus and information.
Mrs. Althouse accepts new information and analyzes it from a detached perspective of a retired professor who will not really be materially affected. She has no ideological positions she holds above reality even if long held beliefs are falling.
Chuck is a bitter GOPe traitor who hates republican voters and whose tribe is now defunct. They seek comfort from their ideological allies in the democrat party who were always more like them anyways and they all really wanted the same things. Just because democrats treat him like shit is ok because they are the cool kids.
Thus Chuck accepts new information from the perspective of a banished outcast who always hated republican voters anyways.
Ignorance is Bliss said...
"Whether it is or is not, Adams neither said nor implied that statement."
I think he implied it. But hat's beside the point. The idea that men are naturally rapists is known, accepted and even trumpeted by the feminazis. I remember, back in the 90's, a full-page ad in the Oregon Emerald headed "All Men Are Potential Rapists". It's just that men aren't allowed to say that. Only women are allowed to say that.
Coincidentally, the day after that ad ran, I woke up to the sound of a woman screaming in the parking lot outside my apartment. I staggered out in the darkness, still half asleep, and made some asshole give her back her purse, which he was in the process of dumping all over the lot. He thought he was going to hit me, but it turned out he wasn't. She scooped up her stuff and ran off before I had time to rape her.
Communists, socialists, fascists, and other minority regimes, operate to consolidate capital and control under monopoly conditions, and redistribute to maintain stability and curry political favor.
Just as Drago has so aptly put it....Chuck is that crazed Japanese soldier left alone on the island long after his cause was lost.
Lee Marvin needs to put him out of his misery.
There is nothing funnier than watching Inga attempt to "understand" and frame the thoughts of people much, much, much smarter than she.
You might as well have your terrier explain astrophysics to you!
LOL
I always find it a bit odd that Althouse reliably jumps in on the anti-Chuck side of these little squabbles. Chuck is the commenter who's opinions most closely parallel the real views of our hostess.
Speaking for myself and not for Althouse in anyway...----->.because Chuck is an annoying supercilious twit who presumes to lecture others as if he is your narcissistic Daddy, or something.
Lecture, harangue, tell you what to think, what you should be posting (get your own blog asshole), how to be correct (in his view) and rarely discusses a topic in any intellectual depth. Takes weird logical twists, turns without any real evidence of self awareness.
Oh...and did I mention. Constantly telling others what they should be doing.
Just my 2 pennies.
Chuck just likes to mansplain what the Professor is thinking. As does the Beloved Douchebag Reasonable Man.
I am sure she really appreciates it when he does that.
I know when Meade tried it once she hit him with the waffle iron.
He never did that again.
Drago said...
Chuck condescends to and lectures Althouse every day and ARM graces us with assertions about what Althouse's "real views" are.
I cannot think of a more appropriate triumvirate of smug and like-mindedness than ARM/LLR Chuck and we'll throw Inga in there just for fun.
Democrats condescending towards any woman or minority who steps off the group think plantation?
Shocking.
Kayne West 2024. #KAG
Every time a colorful, genetically unique clump of cells... an offspring ("fetus") is conceived, a woman is raped... or is it rape-raped?
Dust Bunny Queen said...
because Chuck is an annoying supercilious twit ....
Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?
As the old Leftist dictum goes, "The issue is never the issue." You could expand that to "The target is never the target." The Hive ultimately has bigger fish to fry than Scott Adams.
"Criminals are overwhelmingly democrats.
"Most 'conquerors' are/were statists and ideologically mirror democrats."
Someone has really gone off the rails, it seems.
The gas attack in Syria was suspicious and, I assume, that is why Trump and the military took several days to decide if to respond.
At this point I trust Trump’s military advisors over the CIA or FBI. But let’s play what if …
What if Trump had announced that it was impossible to be sure of who was to blame and therefore the American military was going to stand down? Any guesses as to the reaction from the Left, the Democrats, the turncoat eGOP Congress, the MSM and assorted NeverTrumpers?
Would doing nothing have encouraged more chemical attacks?
And what about our coalition partners? Were the French and British intelligence services also wrong?
So, then, again, why use chemical weapons if you are Assad?
Perhaps Putin underestimated the level of the combined intelligence of America, France and GB and was counting on it being too difficult to for them to assess just who the actual actors were that carried out the attack.
I think Trump’s tweet a few days before the attack of the imminent withdrawal of all American troops from Syria could have triggered the attack. It is just a stray thought because we can never be sure.
Also, I am not sure that Putin actually wants American troops withdrawn. Long-term, it might benefit Putin and hurt Trump for America to be embroiled in a war in Syria. Putin doesn’t have to worry about daily body counts and accusations of a military quagmire like an American POTUS. Putin may want to engineer a confrontation between America and Iran in Syria.
… "assertions" are worthless unless backed by irrefutable documentary proof.
Most intelligence is guesswork. But to ignore it invites disaster. And we do not know what “proof” was offered to Trump, France and GB.
I read all the way down to here. I am so depressed.
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
"I always find it a bit odd that Althouse reliably jumps in on the anti-Chuck side of these little squabbles. Chuck is the commenter who's opinions most closely parallel the real views of our hostess."
I think it would be more accurate to say that Althouse somewhat reluctantly expressed a desire that her commenters not turn Yet Another Thread into a discussion of what Big-Dick-In-Mouth said. And it's "whose", ARM.
Scott said...
I read all the way down to here. I am so depressed.
We require more information to adequately assess this statement. Did you start out suicidal or were you in a relatively upbeat mood?
Robert Cook said...
"Someone has really gone off the rails, it seems."
Another one rides the bus?
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
I always find it a bit odd that Althouse reliably jumps in on the anti-Chuck side of these little squabbles. Chuck is the commenter who's opinions most closely parallel the real views of our hostess.
I can tell you; when it comes to Althouse's "Law" posts, I am in agreement with her 99% of the time, and respectful of her 99.99% of the time.
But Althouse liked the series of rulings in Lawrence, Windsor, and Obergefell so much, she even uncharacteristically taunted her readership, saying something like, "You lost. Get over it." And I disagree with everything about those decisions. I have asked her, respectfully, how she would even teach those cases to First- and Second-year students. Because as Justice Scalia (and later Chief Justice Roberts) said, the Kennedy/majority opinions, popular though they may have been, "laid waste" to previous SCOTUS decision-making on due process and equal protection questions. Althouse never answered. I said that I would pay, to simply sit in the back of a classroom and listen to an Althouse class on due process and equal protection.
Taste-wise, Althouse and I are both subscribers to The New Yorker; no doubt we both have similar feelings about the partisan tilt of the magazine now, which can only be described as "extreme." And probably, similar memories of the magazine when it was still being edited by William Shawn, and how different it was back then.
Still further taste-wise, I almost always like Althouse's non-law, non-politics posts.
As I say, before Trump, I was an unremarkable Althouse Acolyte. And it is only Trump that has changed things.
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
Scott said...
I read all the way down to here. I am so depressed.
We require more information to adequately assess this statement. Did you start out suicidal or were you in a relatively upbeat mood?
4/25/18, 1:37 PM
Not bad! BTW liking Ken M.
Even a racist like you can be right occasionally.
LLR Chuck: "As I say, before Trump, I was an unremarkable Althouse Acolyte. And it is only Trump that has changed things."
It's Trump's fault that LLR Chuck is what he is.
And it's my fault Chuck attacked Althouse yesterday.
And it's Trump's fault that LLR Chuck rumor mongers about children.
And it's Corey Lewandowski's fault LLR Chuck threatened Greta Van Susteren.
I don't know about you, but I'm definitely discerning a pattern.
Why won't all these people stop making Chuck do stupid things?
Trump in Syria I would give a grade of B to date.
Obama I would give an F.
Syria is a horrible situation that I am surprised Trump is doing as well as he is.
There was a comment above about the US wanting to have bases in the Middle East, as a way to stage an attack against Russia. The US only picks on countries that are not a threat to it. So if you have nukes, and Russia has them, the US leaves you alone. Libya proved that point. Historically, the only reason the US has such as huge presence in the Middle East is oil, it's been historically too important to the US economy.
Afghanistan is an exception to this, and that is because of 9-11. Afghanistan (and neighbors) is another mess and from what I can see, I would give Trump a grade of C on it. But, may be there is something I am not seeing.
Iran is another huge mess, and it has it's fingers in Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, Gaza Strip, and Afghanistan and is very anti US. US oil exports are having a huge negative impact on it.
The situation that seems to be ignored is Venezuela. Nicaragua seems to be another time bomb. For some reason the US is not focused much on Central and South America under Trump, but neither did Obama. But with North Korea and the Middle East using up a lot of bandwidth, this makes sense.
“I always find it a bit odd that Althouse reliably jumps in on the anti-Chuck side of these little squabbles. ”
That makes zero sense as a characterization of what I did here. I am the second commenter on this thread.
But as to your larger question, my problem with Chuck is based on form, not viewpoint. I want more variety of viewpoint and don’t care whether people agree with me.
My form problem with Chuck is that he’s involved in personal back and forth. I engaged with him and the regretted it because of the way he played a devious game after getting a response. He gets you invested, then is aggravatingly evasive. That makes him a central figure in idiotic back and forth clutter that drives out good commenting.
Since he knows I have this problem yet continues, he is in bad faith, which means he is hostile to this blog project. He is abusing this platform and I ask others to help me keep this place working.
Robert Cook said...
"Criminals are overwhelmingly democrats.
"Most 'conquerors' are/were statists and ideologically mirror democrats."
Someone has really gone off the rails, it seems.
See, when reality slaps a leftist in the face they react by calling person who espoused the evident truth crazy.
It is crazy how there are exactly 0 conquerors throughout history who wanted to take over other countries and install a government that supported freedom, low regulations and taxes, and liberty.
Why do the vast majority of conquering despots lean towards more government control of the economy and peoples lives?
It is a total mystery.
FullMoon said...
Chuck said... [hush][hide comment]
Ah, Scott "I no longer care about the fucking law" Adams.
Funny how Chuck has latched on to that one thing. Yet hyper ventilates when any commenter mentions his threats to give Greta van Sustern a good titty twist. SAD!
Or his delight in calling a twelve year old boy autistic.
You disingenuous troll. YOU made up the "titty twister" phrase. YOU imagined that it was something that I wrote, before admitting that you -- not me -- first wrote it on these pages.
And no; I did NOT call Barron Trump autistic. I wrote that the Trump family lawyers (the same firm that represented Hulk Hogan in the Gawker civil trial) have said that Barron Trump is not autistic. What I have said is that if Barron Trump really were autistic, and if Donald Trump somehow had it in his furtive mind that such a thing should never happen to a Trump and it must be somebody's fault, it would go a very long way in explaining why it is that Trump has made so many bizarre pronouncements on the subject autism's purported relation to childhood vaccines.
Like these.
Scott said...
I read all the way down to here. I am so depressed.
That is because you are a head of broccoli.
You would be more popular if you were a cucumber.
With the women at least.
LLR Chuck blames Trump lawyers who are fighting Chuck's allies with their autism lies about a child for his very own rumor mongering about the same child.
That tells you all you need to know about why LLR Chuck is so comfortable with his lefty operational allies.
As usual, the left thought they had a "fun" way to hurt the Trump family and so the stories about Barron were ginned up.
Naturally, LLR Chuck did not hesitate, even for a moment, not even for a moment, to traffic in those rumors.
Because that's what "true conservatives" do.
Well, that and vote for Hillary. Just ask "true conservative" Bill Kristol.
For some reason the US is not focused much on Central and South America under Trump, but neither did Obama.
That may be because the nations in Central and South America are not perceived to be a substantial military/nuclear threat. If a nation state has nuclear capability, and it's state controlled media regularly hosts anti American propaganda, and chants like "Death to America" are regularly chanted in public forums, that tends to get Americans concerned.
Althouse said...
“Since he knows I have this problem yet continues, he is in bad faith, which means he is hostile to this blog project. He is abusing this platform and I ask others to help me keep this place working.”
Just mere minutes later...
Blogger Drago said...
“LLR Chuck blames Trump lawyers who are fighting Chuck's allies with their autism lies about a child for his very own rumor mongering about the same child.
That tells you all you need to know about why LLR Chuck is so comfortable with his lefty operational allies.”
Mike Sylwester said...
I am appalled that President Trump has been bombing Syria in response to chemical-bomb incidents.
I always have considered Trump to be a buffoon (even though I supported him because of his immigration positions), and I consider his buffoonery in relation to Syria to be dangerous.
However, President Trump is being told by our Intelligence Community that the Syrian Government has been using chemical bombs.
The combination of our Intelligence Community's foolishness and President Trump's buffoonery is very dangerous.
I say that as someone who served happily and proudly as a USAF Intelligence officer for 14 years and who voted for Trump in November 2016.
Looking at how the Trump administration has handled foreign policy up to date this is an interesting statement.
In his short tenure Trump has been amazingly effective from the perspective of US Americans first interests.
I would like to know what Trump should have done different.
Nobody ever says what he should do differently. Just these vapid assertions he is a buffoon.
You know why the threads turn into a “Chuck thread”? ( or an Inga thread) Because Drago, that’s why. He attacks any commenter personally for every single opinion he disagrees with. This is never ending with this guy. Then the person who he has attacked personally,repeatedly is put in the position of having to defend himself.
Inga said...
Althouse said...
“Since he knows I have this problem yet continues, he is in bad faith, which means he is hostile to this blog project. He is abusing this platform and I ask others to help me keep this place working.”
Just mere minutes later...
Minutes later Drago points out another vicious unfounded smear the left promulgated and Chuck picked up. The left has been smearing their political opponents in the most personal and degenerate way for decades.
Just like pointing out that Inga has called every republican candidate for president racist, fascist, and evil at some point.
Every. Single. One.
Romney was literally Hitler. Mitt Romney.
Leftists hate it when their decades of slimy tactics are highlighted and pointed out.
Inga said...
You know why the threads turn into a “Chuck thread”? ( or an Inga thread) Because Drago, that’s why. He attacks any commenter personally for every single opinion he disagrees with. This is never ending with this guy. Then the person who he has attacked personally,repeatedly is put in the position of having to defend himself.
If you weren't slime balls you wouldn't have to defend yourselves. Drago is just pointing out things Chuck has said and done in a clearly effective way.
But it wouldn't be a discussion without our local stalinist trying to get a higher authority to ban her political opponents.
Notice we never call for you or Chuck to be banned. We are perfectly comfortable engaging you.
"You would be more popular if you were a cucumber."
Crocodiles are even better. But mine is a fake crocodile, they are scarce in this country, so I had to make do with an alligator.
All sorts of worthy animals are available though.
What about a good Roe deer ? Fairly Scottish.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा