I would like to request that the readers of Newsbusters read this article from American Thinker. After reading can you please tell me if you agree with the following statement from Jer in the Tom Blumer's blog on Anita Dunn:
Jer stated "No one can read that and reasonably claim it to be an objective presentation and analysis."
Please respond and tell me if you agree with Jer and that the list is biased as Jer claimed it was in another post.
<Edit> What I am specifically asking you to look at are the thumbnails of the people listed.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Scuba...
October 19, 2009 - 00:54 ET by JerI certainly don't object to focusing on the thumbnails, but one can't simply ignore the opening paragraphs when commenting on the bias or lack of same regarding the article.
Jer
I am letting the other
October 19, 2009 - 01:00 ET by Scuba DudeI am letting the other posters on NB weigh in on this. The thumbnails are the meat and potatoes of the article. Let the chips fall where they may.
The Obama Administration: THE most fiscally irresponsible Administration EVER
Understood, but we're
October 19, 2009 - 02:48 ET by JerUnderstood, but we're talking about motives here, and one can't simply ignore the lead-in when making that determination, nor the ideological slant, if any, of the footnoted sources for the list.
Jer
edit. BTW, I'm trying to see how many times I can use the phrase "and one can't simply ignore" in a single thread.
When I write an article about blimps....
October 19, 2009 - 07:50 ET by JWF....I will use the word big in the opening paragraph.
Sorry if I don't use some objective phrasing just in case the captain of the USS Ronald Reagan should happen upon my article.
Okay, let's forget about the blimp.
October 19, 2009 - 08:54 ET by JerOkay, let's forget about the blimp. How do you vote regarding the objectivity of the American Thinker piece. Yes (it was objective)or No (it was not objective).
Jer
Let's get it off me. Anything but me.
October 19, 2009 - 09:11 ET by JWFAnd ignore the bird on my shoulder too.
Brrraaaaack. Rush is a hater. Squawk. Carl Rove. Braaackkk.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
I'm going to mark you down
October 19, 2009 - 09:15 ET by JerI'm going to mark you down as "undecided".
You may go now. Your blimp is double parked.
Jer
Hello, Jer here. I missed something. My brain hurts.
October 19, 2009 - 09:18 ET by JWFBraaaackkk. Maybe it was the calling a spade a spade thing. Squawk.
It is called a metaphor.
October 19, 2009 - 09:28 ET by JWFSee my article stands in for the American Thinker piece. The blimp description stands in for the bulk of article. The Captain of the USS Carl Vinson is an example of a biased reader. He is in charge of a VERY VERY VERY VERY LARGE SHIP. Much much much larger than a blimp. He will see my description of big as slightly ludicrous as his ship is MUCH MUCH MUCH LARGER.
Now we have everyone else who will see my description of big as a fairly normal statement. The truth even. Jer however, being the Captain of the USS Clueless misses the entire friggin point again.
The article in the American Thinker called a spade a spade, Skipper.
Well, JWF..
October 19, 2009 - 09:38 ET by JerSometimes the far horizons of ultimate truth are obscured. By a big friggin' blimp.
Jer
Of course it's not
October 19, 2009 - 01:51 ET by donaldborschjrOf course it's not objective, why should it be?
It's about time Conservatives stopped pussyfooting about and looking to be all mamby-pamby with these progressive liberal America-haters and called them what they really are.
This list by Fuller is spot-on and unashamedly so. Who needs objectivity but a bunch of liberals who are getting thir feelings hurt by the truth about who's who in Obama's "brain trust"? They need to face some less than tolerant criticism and exposure these days to get them to understand that America isn't fooled.
Brilliant and brutally truthful aricle by Mac Fuller on American Thinker.
Long Live the Republic.
Citizen Commentators Unite!
http://www.political...
http://www.pelicanma...
donald...
October 19, 2009 - 02:46 ET by JerI've noted this before, but it bears repeating. I heard the same complaints from my fellow Democrats and liberals during the 90's when every time the radio was turned on they were getting hammered relentlessly and unmercifully by conservative talkers. Then when the progrtessive/left blogosphere became more prevalent during Bush's presidency, and there was a good deal of partisan invective directed at him in particular and conservatives in general, the latter started screaming about the outrageoos hatred and incivility exhibited by libs.
Personally, I think we would all be better off if the toxic, overheated rhetoric was toned way down by both sides.
Jer
Mr. Jer, Perhaps I didn't
October 19, 2009 - 09:11 ET by donaldborschjrMr. Jer,
Perhaps I didn't make myself as clear as I wanted to. I apologize.
The time for "reaching across the aisle", and liberals hugging Conservatives and all of us finding some common-goal is over.
I am a Conservative because I detest, loathe, and otherwise am repulsed by liberalism. I have no desire nor inclination to extend any sort of hand of fellowship to liberalistic disciples because I firmly believe it is liberalism that is destroying my Nation. When I was younger I did have the "can't we all just get along" mentality, but as the years have added to my spirit, I no longer espouse such youthful ignorance.
You cite the 90's wherein those mean-spirited talk show folks were railing against Clinton. Big deal. Typical liberal rhetoric, pulling out the "well, you guys used to do_____________, as well, so we're even." At any minute I expect you to label me a racist, a TEA bagger, a domestic terrorist, or any other such manufactured childish name that your liberalistic media whores have produced.
I don't know if you have noticed, but neither Bush, nor Clinton, are the President right now. Let's stay focused on today's history as it is being made, not history from over 10 years ago.
Your liberal progressive America-destroying machine has thrown down a gauntlet. Fine. No more civility, no more empty compliments or head-nodding. This article from Mac at American Thinker is nothing short of verifiable fact. Verifiable.
And that's a heck of a lot more than your media can say about Rush Limbaugh.
Nothing personal, Jer. I simply love my country as it was intended to be and not bastardized and molested by your liberal crazies in power. The time for niceties is over. And since I am sure you voted for this 'hope and change', then you are culpable in my mind.
Like I said, nothing personal, Jer.
Citizen Commentators Unite!
http://www.political...
http://www.pelicanma...
donald...
October 19, 2009 - 09:33 ET by JerWell, here's a thought: I love my country, too. So do my very conservative parents. And so do my center/left brother and sister. And so does each and every liberal friend I have, as does each and evey one of my conservative friends. It just seems that many here frame the collision of ideological views in terms of good vs. evil and right vs. wrong rather than competing philosophies sharing the same ultimate goals.
You may focus on the here and now, and I'm not suggesting that's inappropriate, but if you have read a fair number of comments here over the past year or so, I think you would find that many justify their current "take no prisoners" attitude by pointing to the nastiness of the anti-Bush left over the previous eight years.
Jer
Mr. Jer, You said: It
October 19, 2009 - 09:53 ET by donaldborschjrMr. Jer,
You said: It just seems that many here frame the collision of ideological views
in terms of good vs. evil and right vs. wrong rather than competing
philosophies sharing the same ultimate goals.
Um,..you are joking, right? What ultimate goals do Conservatives and liberals have in common? You didn't hear a thing I said.
Well, back to my bunker. I don't want to hug you or align myself with liberalism in any fashion, Mr. Jer. We have two different Americas, it seems. We most assuredly do not have the same goals.
And I most certainly will not presume to speak or understand the thoughts and writings of others on this site. So people were anti-Bush...and? So what. Again, you cite the actions of others to prove what, exactly?
Long Live the Republic.
Citizen Commentators Unite!
http://www.political...
http://www.pelicanma...
On the contrary, I heard
October 19, 2009 - 10:01 ET by JerOn the contrary, I heard everything you said. You loathe liberalism. Liberals are anti-American and are intent on destroying the country you love. You're mad as hell and aren't going to take it any more. Doesn't that just about sum it up?
Jer
Mr. Jer, Wow. Yeah.
October 19, 2009 - 10:08 ET by donaldborschjrMr. Jer,
Wow. Yeah. Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. It would appear that we do agree on something, Mr. Jer. Color me shocked!
However, we are now going off on a tangent from the original Topic, so...I think we have nothing really left to chat about.
Thanks for the iron-sharpens-iron moment. Be well, Mr. Jer.
Citizen Commentators Unite!
http://www.political...
http://www.pelicanma...
I read the artical SD
October 19, 2009 - 08:00 ET by general companyAnd asked Jer to point out the points of contention. He hasnt bothered. Instead he is just like the srm, ridicules the messenger, in hopes the message is lost in the noise.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
I too also asked him to
October 19, 2009 - 09:39 ET by Scuba DudeI too also asked him to show where in the thumbnails there was any falsehoods. Like Candance I do not expect an immediate answer, and if he does I can only imagine how much spin and such will be put into it. It will be a non-answer answer.
The Obama Administration: THE most fiscally irresponsible Administration EVER
Oh please, Scuba...
October 19, 2009 - 09:48 ET by JerI've seen stuff summarily rejected and laughed off the boards here even when it was accompanied by videos and verbatim transcripts merely because it was a MediaMatters link.
There is not a single objective source cited in that entire piece from beginning to end with the possible exception of the WSJ and even the WSJ is conservative.
Furthermore, it's apparent you have already prejudged any answer I might give on the merits.
Jer
That still does not answer
October 19, 2009 - 09:58 ET by Scuba DudeThat still does not answer my original questions.
Are they smears if they are true? In the thumbnails what do you think
is a smear? Is the writer stating anything that is false?
They are simple questions. Nothing in your response above is answering them.
The Obama Administration: THE most fiscally irresponsible Administration EVER
I could had wrote
October 19, 2009 - 12:04 ET by general companyJer's response to you, he so preditable. And yea, I could write he reply to this one also.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Funny Jer
October 19, 2009 - 12:09 ET by general companyFurthermore, it's apparent you have already prejudged any answer I might give on the merits.
Funny you should mention this on a site that promotes debate. Hard to believe youv been here so long. Also I find it stunning the hoops you continue to leap through, just to keep from answering a simple question. Liberism is a b!tch aint it?
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Jer fails to call a spade a spade.
October 19, 2009 - 08:05 ET by JWFOr should we call it a friggin shovel? Hole digging device? The body burier? The flat pointy thing with the long handle? Diggy dig dig digger? Dirt scooping device? Teh manual excavator! A very large hand trowel? The earth shifter?
Jer: I certainly don't object to focusing on the thumbnails, but one can't simply ignore the opening paragraphs when commenting on the bias or lack of same regarding the article.
Is there another name for the truth? That seems to be Jer's issue nowadays. He can't see it.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
JWF, that does appear to be
October 19, 2009 - 09:48 ET by Scuba DudeJWF, that does appear to be his modus operandi. Do not give a straight forward answer. Instead respond by zeroing in on a detail that can be used to throw the thread off on a different tangent. One that has nothing to do with the topic or question asked. I think it must be the lawyer in him. Such a tactic would be used to confuse the jury so reasonable doubt can be attached. Another tactic he appears to be using is the "oh I am being attacked and my feelings are hurt". To that I would have to say tough toenails. If you cannot take the response to your posts then you should refrain from doing so lest someone respond and disagree with you.
The Obama Administration: THE most fiscally irresponsible Administration EVER
Why are you derailing the
October 19, 2009 - 09:53 ET by JerWhy are you derailing the thread with behind the back attacks on me personally. I thought the purpose of this forum was a single issue: Whether or not the American Thinker article was objective?
Jer
Oops, double post
October 19, 2009 - 10:03 ET by Scuba Dudedelete
I am responding to
October 19, 2009 - 10:02 ET by Scuba DudeI am responding to someone. I am not derailing.
Please answer the questions.
I will be offline for a few hours. Will continue later.
The Obama Administration: THE most fiscally irresponsible Administration EVER
Then, I'll do so on the
October 19, 2009 - 10:15 ET by JerThen, I'll do so on the other thread.* This one is a waste of time. Because no one seems inclined to address the only issue you presented.
Jer
*Subject to this condition: In the future, if I post information from a blatantly leftist website you will only address the veracity of the information without commenting on objectivity, bias, or ideological slant of the authors or source e.g. DU, dKos, MoveOn, snopes, factcheck, MediaMatters, Wikipedia, The Nation, etc.
Do do shut up you freakin whiner.
October 19, 2009 - 14:13 ET by JWFEvery single blog post from every single author on this site concerns bias. It is the entire point of this entire site.
When an author see liberal bias, he points out said liberal bias, and how said liberal bias is deviating from the truth.
Not a single author has ever pointed to some show and said, look they are not objective - discuss.
You think someoneone lied, point it out.
Nice deflection. It
October 19, 2009 - 15:43 ET by Scuba DudeNice deflection.
It appears the only time being wasted is ours waiting for a straight forward answer from you. And as I posted before I have no control or influence upon the folks posting on NB and the content of their posts.
Why should your answer be contingent on conditions? I say you are throwing this out there because you cannot answer the questions. Are you going to going to request a condition upon Candance before you answer her question? Just answer the question.
The Obama Administration: THE most fiscally irresponsible Administration EVER
Again.
October 19, 2009 - 10:08 ET by JWFWhere is the bias in telling the truth. If something in the article is not true, point it out.
That is all we want, the truth. Instead, Jer focuses on the author's bias. If there is an untruth, point it out. You are so good at pointing out the happenings of 1876 elections. Try 2009.
Braaaackkk. Watch him make the subject the 2000 election.
October 19, 2009 - 10:10 ET by JWFSquawk. That is the low hanging fruit. Braaaackkk. Ignore the topic.
The issue of this
October 19, 2009 - 10:20 ET by JerThe issue of this forum--Scuba's forum--is freakin' BIAS. I thought that was clearly settled by the 2000 election.
Jer
I am asking others if they
October 19, 2009 - 12:01 ET by Scuba DudeI am asking others if they agree with your comment that the article, especially the thumbnails are biased. I have no control or influence of their responses.
From your responses the only conclusion I can reach is that you stopped reading after the 2nd or 3rd paragraph and did not read any of the thumbnail sketches of the people.
No where in my post have I mentioned the 2000 elections, so why bring that up?
The Obama Administration: THE most fiscally irresponsible Administration EVER
It was a joke in response
October 19, 2009 - 16:09 ET by JerIt was a joke in response to JWF bringing it up, Geez.
Jer
It is just amazing how often the alleged liberal sourcing of an item is scoffed at and used as a reason not to address an issue or simply dismiss it altogether, but you demand an answer to items from a flagrantly biased right-wing site which makes no effort to conceal the utter contempt it holds for its target.
How many posts has JWF made on this thread already and has yet to give a simple yes or no vote--which is all that was called for. Talk about dodge, deflection, and parry.
But I will answer on the appropriate thread when I return home.
What, are you playing a game of keeping the idiot busy?
October 19, 2009 - 17:21 ET by JWFThis is your game now? How do you keep an idiot busy? I will answer on the appropriate thread when I return home.
How many posts has JWF made on this thread already and has yet to give a simple yes or no vote--which is all that was called for. Talk about dodge, deflection, and parry. Did you or did you not read the line, posts, paragraphs, life stories where I said, again and again and again - THE AMERICAN THINKER CALLED A SPADE A SPADE. English your second language? Huh, Dork that bought Uncle Jer's account?
So what is your question? How do you vote regarding the objectivity of the American Thinker piece. Yes (it was objective)or No (it was not objective).
Wikipedia: To "call a spade a spade" is to speak honestly and directly about a topic, specifically topics that others may avoid speaking about due to their sensitivity or embarrassing nature.
objective - 3 a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.
Let's see honesty=facts directly=without distortion --- sounds like I made my point.
All right. You can't understand common english phrases. How did you miss this? Is there another name for the truth? AMERICAN THINKER TOLD THE TRUTH. What, do I have to point out the definition of truth now?
So let me make this perfectly clear. The American Thinker piece was honest, factual and FOR THE LOVE OF GOD ALMIGHTY ON HIGH YES YES YES YES YES YES YES IT WAS FREAKING OBJECTIVE WITH A FREAKING BULLET YOU ROCK DENSE LITTLE MAN.
Now back it up. Where are the lies in the AT piece?
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
JWF, forget it
October 19, 2009 - 17:32 ET by general companyJer cant point them out, they dont exsist. Saying so proves him a fraud.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Braaaaackk. Told ya. Squawk.
October 19, 2009 - 14:15 ET by JWFBraaaackkk. Where is the lies? Show us the lies. Feed me. Braaaackkk.
Jer - it would be nice if you
October 19, 2009 - 12:36 ET by BO STINKScommented on the content of the thumbnail bios in the article. The more you avoid doing so, the more you lose your credibility. Let's say you do some research and find bios at any website that refutes these bios: the posters would at least respect your efforts. As it is, you gain no respect when you simply talk about your feelings being hurt or focus on a tiny gnat and ignore the elephant. Even if your efforts include liberally biased sites, at least you seem to take an issue seriously.
"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!" Sam Adams
Bo... Read post above...I
October 19, 2009 - 16:16 ET by JerBo...
Read post above...I will answer on the other thread when I return, but there is a lot of rank hypocrisy going on here. By the way, my feelings aren't hurt. I simply objected to Shy calling me "an enemy within" on the other thread, which is code for communist subversion. It is a lie and it is defamatory, but it is what I have come to expect from him over the past several months, when he announced he hated liberals, was no longer Mr. Nice Guy, and commenced unrelenting personal attacks, including at least implicit attacks on my late father. I've tried my best to get along with him. It's hopeless.
Jer
TVDC
October 19, 2009 - 16:25 ET by Free StinkerTrollbuster Volunteer Defense Co-op: 18
Jer: 0
Just sayin'
"President Obama is learning on the job and it shows." --Boris Epshteyn
And how do you vote, FS...
October 19, 2009 - 18:03 ET by JerAnd how do you vote, FS...
Yes or no on objectivitiy. That was the single issue of this forum. Or are you just trolling and derailing, too?
Just sayin'...
Jer
No it was not little man.
October 19, 2009 - 18:22 ET by JWFYou said the piece was biased. Show us the bias. Or own up that you lied.
Jer
October 19, 2009 - 18:29 ET by Free StinkerScoob gives me special dispensation to comment as I feel free on his Forum threads.
You're excuse then. Jer
October 19, 2009 - 19:44 ET by JerYou're excuse then.
Jer
→ Of course it's biased
October 19, 2009 - 18:38 ET by Cool ArrowThe thumbnails focus entirely on conservative hotbutton points.
Did none of them ever do anything good? Wouldn't know it from the article.
Maybe it is filled with facts, but it's filled with facts the author wants us to know.
I rather enjoyed the article, but I'm absolutely sure I could tell you, from the opening, or from any of the thumbnails, they were written to address a conservative audience.
Recognizing the intent of the author should be second nature to us by now.
Give me immortality, or give me death - firesign
Cool...
October 19, 2009 - 19:34 ET by JerThank you. Thank you. Thank you.
I will respond to the thumbnails as soon as my computer guru finishes with my new networking setup. He is momentarily upstairs.
Jer
What does that have to do with you punking on us?
October 19, 2009 - 19:47 ET by JWFThisNThat took it a little over the edge. You called him and got sticky with his language. And then completely ignored everyone elses evidence that indeed there are socialists, communists, and midgets in the Obama Admin. Deciding instead to play word games and complain that somebody used language you didn't like in their articles.
So now we are supposed to be all happy and hunky dory because someone finally said something to your liking?
No.
Take a hike you furry little lying word parsing tiny man of a troll. Hope you enjoyed your little game while you torched every last bridge to anyone that respected you.
I said I would respond on
October 19, 2009 - 20:43 ET by JerI said I would respond on the other thread when time permits, imbecile. I'm trying to get a networking system set up at my house. Your respect means absolutely zilch to me. I've showed you every courrtesy and more respect than you deserve, but you can now move on flamer. I've had it with you and your zany antics.
Jer
Yea, it's me idinit it.
October 19, 2009 - 21:27 ET by JWFIt's not the parsing word game playing little whiner that points out the slighest little insult rather than taking on the substance of a topic. No, it's me. I am a little flamer because I can't wait for pi314 to finish lunch before i discredit his whiny little posts.
Yea, it is me the flaming zany crazy wild guy. I go to a site and post antithetical word playing posts to get a rise out of the normal people there.
Yea, it's me. Mr. Zany! I have never shown the courtesy of actually honoring the truth. Oops. No. That is the avowed sticky viscous jerk. No, it is me, I lie. I parse. I digress. I think this will confuse people and get them believe my partisan bull.
So thanks but no thanks with all of your false courrtesy and respect. I will take the trolls any day.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Jer, on the internet there is NO OBJECTIVITY!
October 19, 2009 - 18:41 ET by MightyMouthNo one is here to have their mind changed!
"The bureaucracy is growing to meet the needs of the growing bureaucracy"
Jer Obfuscates.
October 19, 2009 - 19:31 ET by JWFHis pacemaker keeps shorting out and denying oxygen to his brain. As usual, I will sum up -
Jer's big big challenge: List the current, current only, meaning people that get a paycheck, current current current, not fired, not resigned, see you are are you en tee, current advisors that are look at me quote, quote "avowed communists" and/or "avowed socialists", or have declared Mao to be their "hero" unquote unquote unquote.
MrShy: This, this, this, to start.
Jer: I will ignore your evidence and dis on your personal opinion of me. LahLahLahlah.
MrShy: Here is a list of names ~~~~~
Scuba Dude: Van Jones is the Communist for those who can't google for themselves and the Socialist would be Carol Browner. The others may be to varying degrees socialists/marxists/leftists.
Jer: I posted on a public forum, viewable by the world. I will now only answer to the one person I made the challenge. I will ignore all evidence from any of you. Nah Nah Nah.
Arguing back and forth
Jer: Look. Look at all the people that are NOT socialists. Some of the people in the Obama administration are NOT socialist.
Candance: Please show me anyone in his administration who is avowed to the free market system America has enjoyed for 200 years, or who says that John Adams is their hero.
Jer:
MrShy: Seriously, answer candance's question.
Jer: I can't. People are picking on me
Candance: here is a list of people in his cabinet that are up to no good. These are not even advisors.
Jer: My computer is bro en. Loo . The ey is not wor ing. Gotta go. Carl Rove just noc ed on the door.
Candance: I'm out of here. They don't pay me enough to deal with this Jerk.
Jer: Ahah! Fooled you all. See. I said avowed. That means gay. Now look up the word parsed!Q!!Q!!!! suckaz!!!!!! Carl Rove!
The parrot on Jer's shoulder: Evil Carl Rove! Squawk!
ThisnThat: Check here, Jer. Evidence Evidence Evidence.
Jer:
david999: Look at this AT piece.
Jer: The rules are this. I can play word games with all of you. I don't have to look at anything I deem biased because it is all about me losing what little respect I used to have.
Crosstalk
Jer: It is all about me. Understand? Me and my word games. Now I don't want to admit there is any nastiness in the Obama Administration no matter what anyone says. I will now make it all about me reading something that might have a disagreeable opinion in it. Got it? Punks. Got it now? See this 24 karat gold chain around my neck. It says AVOWED. This is all that matters is me getting something over on all of you. ME ME ME.
Let's see, JWF... Now how
October 19, 2009 - 19:39 ET by JerLet's see, JWF...
Now how many posts have you made without addressing the issue? I've lost count.
Jer
Thats funny
October 19, 2009 - 19:41 ET by general companyComing from you
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
How about it general
October 19, 2009 - 19:43 ET by JerHow about it general company, do you want to address the issue of Scuba's forum, or would you rather just troll?
Jer
Troll eh
October 19, 2009 - 19:51 ET by general companyThats also funny coming from you, : ]
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
JWF
October 19, 2009 - 20:28 ET by MrShyYou're doing a yeoman's job, however potentially futile. You really should be paid.
At this point, this is really less for and about Jer (sorry PJ) and more/mostly a lesson for liberals out there browsing NB.
And yes, many of us took a lot of time (yesterday, especially) giving him links and lists, etc., and he came back with playground snark and diversion. One wonders, with the way he doesn't seem to want to learn and have any openness to changing, why a) he's a member here to begin with, and b) why oh WHY he wisely left twice only to return and be even more of a hardheaded pain his second and third go-around.
At some point it's remotely possible he'll finally concede that, hey, with all the evidence here and his admitted constant failure to refute things, that looking back now he just talked out of his *** calling out and discrediting American Thinker and labeling it's article biased. That would take someone who's honest with themselves and not all hung up their pride. I doubt we'll see this from Jer.
Thanks MrShy.
October 19, 2009 - 21:13 ET by JWFHe is such an avowed viscous sticky Jerk, he did not even notice I unbuddied him 5 days ago when he came out with his Oh yea, maybe the quotes on Rush floating out there ain't true but you know, he is such a hater...
I know, I was probably the last one. It is the military man in me, you go to bat for your buddies. Jer has now reached the stage where he wishes he could get figuratively fragged once we get in country. The reality is, he would disappear from the ship on the way over. He is now that hated here with his parsing word games.
I never characterized
October 19, 2009 - 22:00 ET by JerI never characterized Rush's quotes in that manner, puddinhead. I did say that with Rush, politics and ideology trumps race, and that he hates Democrats and liberals, and any hatred of blacks is merely inferential in that the majority of blacks vote Democratic. Frankly, I think he has made that abundantly clear.
I appreciate the unspeakably vile comments in your second paragraph. Very revealing, very threatening, for all here to see.
Jer
Oh dear. Well let me correct the record.
October 19, 2009 - 22:28 ET by JWFJer did not say Rush hates Blacks. Oh wait....
Sniff. Sniif. Should I apologise now for my unspeakably figurative words. Or maybe the revealing part is the liberal jertroll jumping to claim insult not matter how slight or imagined.
You are already off the buddy list. I can't throw you off the buddy list ship again. Whiner. Braaaackkkkk. Apologise. Apologise now.
shudders
October 19, 2009 - 22:35 ET by shawn228Teh Lib Shawn brand wants to stay on Teh Vets buddy list, The shawn brand iz scared of teh Vet getting torqued at deh lib.
"I think we're kindred spirits."~Mr Shy to Sergeant ROCK
"Whats wrong with a little sodomy between friends?"~Sergeant ROCK to Mr Shy.
I know I am not supposed to do it.
October 19, 2009 - 22:56 ET by JWFBut I have loved and respected the first 227 Shawn's. I will love and respect the next 200 or so Shawns.
There I did it. Now for the double down postings!~
It's Easy
October 19, 2009 - 23:01 ET by Free StinkerShawn228 - Good
Bizarro Shawn - Bad
;-)
Shy...
October 19, 2009 - 21:38 ET by JerBoth you and JWF are beyond pathetic. Two of the most immature human beings I've ever run across. Shy, why don't you take another swipe at my dad, before you slink away. It is so reflective of your true character. At one time I thought you had class. You've proved beyond any doubt you have none.
Please, both of you, just leave me alone.
Jer
Sniff. Snifff. Whine. I is not a troll.
October 19, 2009 - 21:58 ET by JWFThe Captain of the USS Clueless tells people on a PUBLIC FORUM to leave him alone.
Aye Aye Skipper. We will block the entire world's ip address from reaching you and your network fixit guy so you can get on with the smoochy-smoochies.
Shy. Shy. Shy, Shy. Shy.
October 19, 2009 - 22:02 ET by JWFQuick. What is the swipe at his dad? Maybe I can bring it up some of my future zany antics.
Please check your PM. The
October 19, 2009 - 22:09 ET by Scuba DudePlease check your PM.
The Obama Administration: THE most fiscally irresponsible Administration EVER
JWF
October 19, 2009 - 22:13 ET by MrShyIn an argument over some leftist article that had their facts wrong, Jer defended the newspaper and it's decision to run it (or something) by mentioning his dad who was once a newspaper man. I countered that, "with all due respect" he must not have been all that great at what he did if he were to allow that article to go to print. (Not verbatim, but the gist... it's somewhere but I'm not an obsessive NB linker.)
Yes, I carefully began with "With all due respect"... and knew nothing about Jer's family or past, and that his dad was deceased.
He immediately went off on me. No, I'm not making this up.
The guy pulling the dad card (unreal, when you think about it, exploiting his own late father) to score sympathy points is lecturing me on class.
How ya' like them apples?
With all due respect, Shy,
October 19, 2009 - 23:33 ET by JerWith all due respect, Shy, you are an idiot if you don't see any problem with your behavior.
See, I carefully began with "With all due respect", so that makes what I said perfectly fine. Right, Shy?
You may recall Shy that several months ago with no justification or provocation whatsoever on my part, you began repeatedly calling me "intellectually dishonest". My offense: Despite frequently praising George Bush, and expressing my admiration for him and his family, I dared to criticize his pre-9/11 policies [even though I supported his actions on that date and afterwards regarding the WOT including enhanced interrogation techniques]. But because I was critical at all, you accused me of being a Bush hater, as well as a fraud who concealed my far-left views behind a mask of false centrism. You chased me from thread to thread repeating your lies and insults, annoying others with your childish "See what Jer's doing....see, I told you", and constantly repeating your intellectual dishonesty accusations and claims of fraud.
So, forgive me if the "with all due respect" phrase rang just a little bit hollow, coming on the heels of incessant personal insults. I have always said it ws a "qualified" attack on my father, but it was highly offensive nevertheless.
You're a real piece of work, pal.
Jer
Sniff. Sniff. I is begging you. Please leave me alones!
October 19, 2009 - 23:52 ET by JWFDon't talk to me on a public forums! Meany!
Hey, wrap plug boy, I started calling you dishonest 2 days ago. Noticing a trend? Oh, no no no no. It is just me. I is all teh zanies. Yea, wrap plug boy, you just thought you had a problem with MrShy.
You done torqued the naked zany unemployed vet with nothing but time on his hands for pulling crazy antics on loopy dishonest viscous sticky Jerks.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
The 3 Dimensions of Jer
October 20, 2009 - 11:26 ET by MrShy1... 2... 3...
Don't go there! It is inferential! Apologise. Apologise now!
October 20, 2009 - 11:58 ET by JWFYou can't say that you hate Jer and/or Jerks, any hatred of babies is merely inferential in that the majority of babies resemble Jer.
Jer: ...that he hates Democrats and liberals, and any hatred of blacks is merely inferential in that the majority of blacks vote Democratic.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
JWF
October 20, 2009 - 22:12 ET by MrShyTo Jer, you and me are the Michigan Fight Song.
Cute kid. But, I was
October 20, 2009 - 22:30 ET by JerCute kid. But, I was cuter.
Jer
Sorry Scuba Dude. No swiping of dads was taken.
October 19, 2009 - 22:52 ET by JWFIt was Jer playing the overly sensitive card so he can be Mr. Aggrieved. Dishonest to the core.
Jer: Second, my father was a newspaper publisher for almost all of his adult life. I grew up in the business. So I'm reasonably familiar with the scope of journalistic responsibilities. I promise not to lecture you about the music business, if you won't lecture me about the newspaper business. Fair enough?
MrShy: I'm now, in your jurisdiction, within my rights to lecture you. *** EDIT: Wait, I would be anyway, as you are neither a newspaper businessman OR a journalist... your father was. ***
Anyway, on to playing your little game and responding:
If your father advocated that journalists pick and choose, from story to story as it develops, what basic/key facts that remain relevant are added or omitted, then with all due respect he was a shoddy newspaper publisher.
Jer: I don't appreciate the negative remarks about my father--whom I miss dearly every single day of my life--even if your description was qualified.
old cro: Did you miss the "with all due respect" preamble by Mr Shy? For a guy who tries to sound educated you surely are lacking in common sense.....and your skin is thin, too.
Jer: Have you read the related articles I suggested Shy check out? If not, then take your head out of your a$$ and go do so. Then I'll discuss it with you.
Yea. Between the affrontery and shock from MrShy's statement, Jer still had time to insult the next poster. Mr. Aggrieved, the Captain of the USS Clueless is in danger of having his own crew mutiny.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Why don't you go
October 19, 2009 - 23:34 ET by JerWhy don't you go "figuratively frag" someone else soldier boy.
Jer
It was funny.
October 19, 2009 - 22:13 ET by JWFremoved at request of scuba dude.
JWF
October 19, 2009 - 23:03 ET by cajun2Remember nwahs accusations against you regarding his mother? Almost the same as Jer and his dad. Am I missing something here? Sorry I was looking over you guys shoulders eavesdropping. Back to the hallway.
cajun2
October 19, 2009 - 23:17 ET by MrShy"Am I missing something here?"
If you don't hang around libs long enough, you'll always miss some of the juiciest make-it-personal tricks they dig out from their sneaky lib bags. :)
Yes. I remember it.
October 19, 2009 - 23:20 ET by JWFIt was a story that moved my heart. You might remember, MrShy thought of Jer when nwahs pulled that.
Nah. You are not missing nothing. Just Jer burning bridges to anyone left that respects him.
Wait. I think I know what you are talking about. My missing post?
It was about Jer and the networking fixit guy and how Jer was putting his wrap plug into the fixit guys token ring.
Memories
October 19, 2009 - 23:32 ET by cajun2Ah yes, I got it. Sorry, Im trying to learn all of the characters in this theater and am still a newbie. BTW, I did not report you that was just to get your attention. I never speak to the hall monitors since 1st grade.
Added to the list ------
October 19, 2009 - 20:11 ET by JWFViscous sticky internet turd trolls and Branding
Jer the Avowed Sticky Viscous Jerk
Well, here we have it.
October 19, 2009 - 23:44 ET by RESTLESS 1This article is definitely biased. Biased against socialism, the stripping of our rights, and the collapse of our economy.
Jer, for you to claim that No one can read that and reasonably claim it to be an objective presentation and analysis. just proves that you either did not read the article in it's entirety, or you are suffeing from a willing disbelief of the facts.
This reminds me of that poll that has been talked about today, on Rush as well, that says that conservatives are on the outside looking in. "Separated" from the rest of America, to paraphrase.
It said that our opposition to the 0 is based on our beliefs, and not racism. It said, again paraphrasing: That conservatives want him to fail is an ethical requirement based on where they believe he is leading the country. So, is this biased? Or is it merely holding on to our ideals?
In this context, the article is biased, as well it should be. And you, Jer, should probably take back you statement, or prove that what is written in the article is untrue.
"If the man, with the power, can't keep it under control...some heads are gonna roll." -Judas Priest
Did you see the Hot Air article on Mr. Limbaugh.
October 20, 2009 - 00:04 ET by JWFAnother little sumtin sumtin for the Jertroll to denounce without reading. Particulary since he joined the pile on.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Valerie Jarrett
October 21, 2009 - 11:59 ET by katainkentAmerican Thinker Article Bio - sourced.
Obama Senior Advisor and Assistant to the President for Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs. Ms. Jarrett, a product of two decades in rough-and-tumble "Chicago way" politics, and a 17-year friend of the Obama's, is described as "the other side of Barack Obama's brain." Born in Iran, Jarrett, who speaks Persian, moved to the United States as a child. A product of an elite, private, New England boarding school, she is a graduate of the University of Michigan Law School.
Jarrett served in the administration of Chicago Mayor Harold Washington (who, prior to his election, failed to file income tax returns for 19 years and during it maintained dubious Socialist ties) as well as in the scandal-ridden, current Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley. Her step-father, Vernon Jarrett was associated with Frank Marshall Davis, the youthful Barack Obama's mentor from age 10 until college ["Frank" - Chapter 5-6 & 8]- a Chicago Communist Party (USA) member [FBI file PDF - redacted] who moved to Hawaii from Chicago.
According to the Washington Post, Ms. Jarrett was for many years both Michelle and Barack Obama's "tutor." Virtually every mainstream media outlet has not only done an over-the-top puff piece on Valerie Jarrett (as they repeatedly have with Mr. Obama and his wife), but all agree that neither the President not Mrs. Obama makes a move without first consulting Ms. Jarrett. Ms. Jarrett was personally responsible for bringing self-described Communist Van Jones into the White House as President Obama's environmental "Green Czar."
Patrick Gaspard
October 21, 2009 - 15:45 ET by katainkentAmerican Thinker Article Bio - sourced
2. Patrick Gaspard -- White House Political Director (this is the position Karl Rove held in the Bush Administration). Prior to coming on board as President Obama's right-hand man, Mr. Gaspard was a registered federal lobbyist for the SEIU - the union members (thugs?) called-in by the Administration to run interference (sometimes violent - [video language warning]) between Democrat members of Congress who support ObamaCare and their own constituents. Prior to that, Gaspard worked for ACORN [he actually worked for WFP - a spinoff of ACORN) - the community organizing front which Barack Obama worked for as a trainer, represented as a lawyer [found the court doc but I aint payin for it!], helped as a politician, and funneled money to as a presidential candidate.
The President Obama is as much a product of ACORN as it is of him. He worked closely with the "community organizing" group for many years, represented them in court, and was a member of the board of Chicago's Woods Fund at the time it funneled $200,000 to an ACORN affiliate. Mr. Obama praised the organization extravagantly both during and after his election, and his campaign "donated" over $800,000 to an offshoot group controlled by ACORN (Citizens Services, Inc.) - to "get out the vote." [most of this is a repeat of above. I won't relink. Kurtz & others filed a FOIA requests to get this information from UIC]
Gaspard worked directly for now-ACORN chief Bertha Lewis as her political director for the main ACORN office which is located in New York. [anon source via redstate.com] ACORN is mired in long-standing as well as new and growing allegations of fraud, voter-registration fraud, corruption, and massive embezzlement of funds - ACORN operative organizations have received tens of millions of dollars in federal grants. ACORN pledged $35,000,000 for voter registration drives in the 2008 election cycle.
In 2004, Patrick Gaspard served as National Field Director for America Coming Together (ACT), a group which was later fined $775,000 in civil penalties by the federal government. ACT hired felons - some convicted of sex offenses, assault and burglary - to conduct door-to-door voter registration drives in Missouri and at least two other swing states, and also employed felons as voter canvassers in major metropolitan areas in Missouri, Florida, Ohio.