And now for something completely disgusting…
The March issue of Gentlemen’s Quarterly contained a rather lengthy article by correspondent Wil Hylton detailing the reasons why Vice President Dick Cheney should be impeached.
I kid you not.
Here’s the disgraceful introduction (emphasis mine throughout): “Over the past six years, as the country has spiraled into military misadventure, fiscal madness, and environmental meltdown, the vice president has not merely been wrong about the issues; he has been duplicitous, deceitful, and deliberately destructive to the American democracy.”
Nice, huh? The author despicably continued:
These things can no longer be denied by rational minds:
That in the buildup to war in Iraq, the vice president, lacking confidence in the true casus belli, conspired to invent additional ones, misrepresenting the available intelligence, crafting new “intelligence,” and then spreading these falsehoods to the public, perverting the democratic process that he is sworn to uphold.
That as the war devolved into occupation, the vice president again sabotaged the democratic system, developing back channels into the Coalition Provisional Authority, a body not under his purview, to remove some of the most effective staff and replace them with his own loyal supplicants—undercutting America’s best effort at war in order to expand his own power.
That in his domestic capacity, the vice president has been equally reckless with the trust of his office, converting the vice presidency into a de facto prime ministership, conducting secret meetings with secret policy boards to determine national policy and then refusing to share the details of those meetings with the other branches of government.
Finally, that the vice president has repeatedly promoted the interests of a corporation, Halliburton, over the interests of the nation, causing untold harm to American economic, military, and public health.
For these and other offenses against the nation, Vice President Cheney, clearly, is guilty of crimes against the state.
The author then actually had the unmitigated audacity to cast journalists as a fourth branch of government:
Herewith, in the absence of action for the past six years by a timid Republican Congress and a refusal to act by the new Democratic leadership, we, the Fourth Estate, take the mantle of indictment unto ourselves and present these Articles of Impeachment, to be adopted by the United States House of Representatives and voted upon by the United States Senate, at their earliest possible leisure:
Resolved
That Richard B. Cheney, vice president of the United States, be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors; that the evidence hereinafter set out sustains six articles of impeachment justifying immediate removal from office; that said articles shall be adopted by the House of Representatives; and that the same shall be endorsed by the Senate, to wit.
What followed were the six articles. I'll let those who can stand it click on the link if they so choose to subjugate themselves to more of this tripe.
Shame on you, GQ, for publishing such nonsense. This isn't journalism -- this is activism.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Noel, had a little trouble reading past this sentence:
February 22, 2007 - 09:56 ET by acaiguanaNoel, had a little trouble reading past this sentence:
"These things can no longer be denied by rational minds:"
But I really took note of the lack of an author's name?
What is that all about. A collaborative effort on GQ masthead? Or just a coward?
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
ACA
February 22, 2007 - 09:58 ET by Noel SheppardACA,
It's on the last page. ns
non starter
February 22, 2007 - 10:05 ET by cvgbuckeyeThe inconsequential squeakings of a little inconsequential magazine published by unconsequential little people and read by even smaller minded people.
Yawn, yawn!
Methinks that all of this bashing has become fasionable to these little inconsequentials; much like their pulling of their hair up and putting wax on it and their vulgar little tattoos.
In time it will all look even sillier than it does now.
Ah, my bad. And I looked too. :^
February 22, 2007 - 10:05 ET by acaiguanaAh, my bad. And I looked too. :^<( ACA
"Wil S. Hylton is a GQ correspondent."
That was what, my ∞ mistake this year?
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
Gay Quarterly
February 22, 2007 - 10:05 ET by BBallleaperI make it a point never to take advice from flaming metrosexuals and flaming gay journals. The guy on the cover should tell you all you need to know about how NOT to dress, NOT to appear, and how not to end up.<p>
I'm sure their 2 subscribers loved the article. Let's move along people. Nothing to see here except splattered brain excrement!
I didn't realize that a but
February 22, 2007 - 13:48 ET by Rupert CadellI didn't realize that a button-down white dress shirt, conservative haircut, and a little stubble was such an offensive look! And while I don't like the actor very much, I'd bet he makes more money than the two of us combined, so I'm not sure what you mean by not wanting to end up there.
This is already like the discussion of the ex-Edwards Blogger. Homophobia and misogyny seem to pop up at the oddest times.
Besides, this is all ideological. If GQ had endorsed Clinton's impeachment in 1998, I'm certain you wouldn't have been up-in-arms about how out of line they were.
Besides, this is all ideolo
February 22, 2007 - 13:55 ET by Jack BauerBesides, this is all ideological. If GQ had endorsed Clinton's impeachment in 1998, I'm certain you wouldn't have been up-in-arms about how out of line they were.
Hey thanks for the immense insight.
So, if I'm reading you right, the subtext of what you're saying is that when "people" read something with which they agree, they "tend" to find favor with that "publication."
Whereas, when they "read" something with which they "disagree," they seem to look with "disfavor" at the "publication."
Wow. You really are breaking new ground with your analysis. Keep it up.
Right, but the premise of M
February 22, 2007 - 14:01 ET by Rupert CadellRight, but the premise of Mr. Shepherd's story, and most of the comments about it, is that a fashion/lifestyle magazine shouldn't be engaging in this sort of critique at all because it's beyond the scope of their expertise. Fair enough. But it seems pretty obvious to me that the real beef is that the article picks on a Republican, not that it addresses politics at all.
So, got an obnoxiously patronizing reply for that, Mr. SutherlandMcTerroristKiller?
So, got an obnoxiously patr
February 22, 2007 - 14:18 ET by Jack BauerSo, got an obnoxiously patronizing reply for that, Mr. SutherlandMcTerroristKiller?
No, my last answer was good enough. Thanks for asking though.
rupert didn't realize
February 22, 2007 - 13:58 ET by tumbler_2007So? Now you realize this getup is wacked-out. That's enough to make it offensive. I venture to guess we have a number of characters right here in NB who daily cavort in the same kinds of rags, same stubble and non-combed do. It's trashy and it's a "statement". haha ! ! ! To say so makes one homopharbic? (Sniff! I knew it!)
Any self-respecting gay should know better. As for the misogymy; we call it a straw-dog. I married a woman not an ogym. To hell with ogyms; particularly the Marcottes of this society. Don't go away, Rupert. Learn.
Tumbler, it's hard to learn
February 22, 2007 - 14:07 ET by Rupert CadellTumbler, it's hard to learn from someone who writes like a dyslexic on acid.
In what context is misogy[n]y a straw dog?
Why is the get-up "wacked-out" and "offensive"?
The
"homopharbia" is in the suggestion that because a publication has a
wide homosexual readership, it's devoid of political insight and
shouldn't even bother.
What the hell is an "ogym"?
Seriously Tumbler, I want to learn.
maybe you can learn
February 22, 2007 - 15:46 ET by tumbler_2007Rupert,
I latched on your segue: "I didn't realize that a button-down white dress shirt, conservative haircut, and a little stubble was such an offensive look!" --and:
Homophobia and misogyny seem to pop up at the oddest times." --You received an answer. I'm not dyslexic or on acid. I took ogym out of your misogymy complaint; to explain we don't have a thing against women. Over-sensitive Rupert's nerves grated by such dismissals of your deep pain? Why are you unwilling to grant anybody poetic license? Always the pedant!
I've never cracked the cover of GQ; just because they mainly feature gross narcissists like Jake. You apparently take the magazine seriously. You and your gravitas.
Interesting concept- a stea
February 22, 2007 - 10:05 ET by Tim the EnchanterInteresting concept- a steak dinner with no meat. Same old talking points- yada, yada, haliburton, yada, yada, personal power, yada, yada. Joseph Gobbels school of journalism stuff. I think they should stick to their metrosexual "sissy boy" stuff and leave politics to the adults.
"Face trials of piles with smiles."
...anon. hemorrhoid sufferer
You know what? We should im
February 22, 2007 - 10:07 ET by King of the BritonsYou know what? We should impeach the vice-president based on the 'solid case' laid out by the magazine that profiles the really, really hot guy - Jake G. I mean a magazine that profiles a guy who wears such "comfy - but stylish-comfy" clothes - "plush gray Ralph Lauren sweater, cool jeans, and high-top Converse All Stars that are so pristinely white that they might have been purchased moments ago in the lobby of this hotel" - is probably where we should be taking our cues when it comes to the impeachment of the Vice-President of the United States. I am sure that the articles of impreachment will include such high crimes and misdemeanors as bad hair, wrong tie, ugly glasses, etc. GQ - the hard hitting political guide for really hot and fashionable guys.
It is a never-ending, self-perpetuating avalanche of idiocy and hatred that comes from the left. As a libertarian, I am no great fan of this administration, but it should not be mistaken for being a fan of the left. I will not be surprised if this ends up as a Dem talking point and on the nightly "news."
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!´´
--Patrick Henry
King of the who?The Britons
February 22, 2007 - 10:20 ET by Tim the EnchanterKing of the who?
The Britons!
Who are the Britons?
We all are. We are all Britons. And I am your King.
Well, I didn't vote for you!
How do you know 'e's the king
February 22, 2007 - 10:32 ET by kathleenirishHow do you know 'e's the king?
He hasn't got shit all over 'im!
"He who has a thousand friends has not a friend to spare, and he who has one enemy will meet him everywhere" -Ali ibn-Abi-Talib, 4th Islamic Caliph
I wield supreme executive po
February 22, 2007 - 10:38 ET by King of the BritonsI wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at me. You should watch out, or I will repress you. It's the violence inherent in the system, you know.
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!´´
--Patrick Henry
yes
February 22, 2007 - 10:45 ET by cvgbuckeyeLet it be death.
Come and see the violence tha
February 22, 2007 - 10:49 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveCome and see the violence that's inherent in the system!
Come and see the violence that's inherent in the system!
Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
BTW, where's Roger the Shrubber?
Gun Safety Tip #8: No matter how responsible he seems, never give your gun to a monkey. (www.imao.us)
At the risk of bandwidth - Monty Python:
February 22, 2007 - 10:45 ET by acaiguanaAt the risk of bandwidth - Monty Python:
WOMAN: King of the who?
ARTHUR: The Britons.
WOMAN: Who are the Britons?
ARTHUR: Well, we all are. we're all Britons and I am your king.
WOMAN: I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective.
DENNIS: You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship. A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--
WOMAN: Oh there you go, bringing class into it again.
DENNIS: That's what it's all about if only people would--
ARTHUR: Please, please good people. I am in haste. Who lives in that castle?
WOMAN: No one live there.
ARTHUR: Then who is your lord?
WOMAN: We don't have a lord.
ARTHUR: What?
DENNIS: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.
ARTHUR: Yes.
DENNIS: But all the decision of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting.
ARTHUR: Yes, I see.
DENNIS: By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,--
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: --but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more--
ARTHUR: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
WOMAN: Order, eh -- who does he think he is?
ARTHUR: I am your king!
WOMAN: Well, I didn't vote for you.
ARTHUR: You don't vote for kings.
WOMAN: Well, 'ow did you become king then?
ARTHUR: The Lady of the Lake,
[angels sing]
<continued>
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
ah yes! The great antics o
February 22, 2007 - 10:53 ET by Eric Turnerah yes! The great antics of Monty Python. I love that part of the movie.
Many times the best humor is British humor.
Cheney As Boogy Man Once Again
February 22, 2007 - 10:10 ET by emjem24I just love how GQ thinks it's a laudable news source like oh, I don't know, AP. This article is nothing but slander, innuendo, misrepresentations, everything that has been aired about the Vice President by dems and their liberal blogosphere buddies. GQ, and other "publications" like them, are yet another arm of the left-wing nuttery. Where is the proof? Where are the sources? This article is nothing but an editorial...very convenient not one journalist has been linked to penning this piece of trash. Only the magazine as a whole. This magazine is just another "publication" posing as actual news and information for egocentric and condescending liberal men. The gloves have been off since 2000 and it's only going to get worse because "journalists" can say whatever the hell they want unless they're sued for slander. I hope VP Cheney sues this magazine for all they're worth...beats the hell out of letting them get away with it.
The difficult we do immediately; the impossible takes a little longer. Air Force Motto
emjem says: When your brain's stuck on liberalism it self-destructs.
Chency and GQ
February 22, 2007 - 15:28 ET by Rick BlaneThe man is so smart and communicates with such forthright candor that they can't handle it. For Libs, everything is about nuances, grey areas, not black and white or right and wrong. And nuanced, he certainly is not. From his smackdown of Edwards in the '04 VP debate to yesterday's forthright condemnation of Pelosi and Murtha on Iraq, he tells it like it is. If only more Republicans stuck to their guns like Cheney, we might still be in power...
Thanks Noel, that was great f
February 22, 2007 - 10:15 ET by S PThanks Noel, that was great for a good laugh and lifted my morning spirits.
Libs just CANNOT get off of this Cheney/Halliburton thing. If Halliburton is the ONLY company capable of doing what DoD needs done in certain cases and therefore gets "no bid" contracts because there are "no competitors" then what the hell is the problem? Oh wait, that's where the conspiracy theory about all this invented and manipulated intelligence comes in.
Are these people sane? (Don't answer that)
Thanks Noel, that was great f
February 22, 2007 - 10:15 ET by S PThanks Noel, that was great for a good laugh and lifted my morning spirits.
Libs just CANNOT get off of this Cheney/Halliburton thing. If Halliburton is the ONLY company capable of doing what DoD needs done in certain cases and therefore gets "no bid" contracts because there are "no competitors" then what the hell is the problem? Oh wait, that's where the conspiracy theory about all this invented and manipulated intelligence comes in.
Are these people sane? (Don't answer that)
I'm gonna beat a horse here, Wil S. Hylton - can't find a thing.
February 22, 2007 - 10:16 ET by acaiguanaI'm gonna beat a horse here, Wil S. Hylton - can't find a thing.
About the guy personally. I did a number of google searches too. No biography data available even in Wikipedia. (I know)
So, he's written about Abu Ghraib; Colin Powell; American Prisons; etc. but no personal information about this guy other than he is a stringer for GQ.
I'd like to know who he is? Any help out there among the crowd?
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
I Stand Corrected Noel
February 22, 2007 - 10:23 ET by emjem24Wow, someone actually tied their name to this article. I stand corrected, Noel. This article is just another idiotic piece of trash written by an idiotic journalist.
The difficult we do immediately; the impossible takes a little longer. Air Force Motto
emjem says: When your brain's stuck on liberalism it self-destructs.
GQ's liberal bias
February 22, 2007 - 10:44 ET by MobiusStripOK, let me get this straight: GQ, the Cosmopolitan for metrosexuals, is in your eyes part of the liberal MSM bias? Last I understood, it was a target-demographic feature magazine, not a media outlet purporting to be a purveyor of news, aka Fox. (Although Fox does have some equally tasty women-in-lingerie segments!) Is it now called GQ News? Must have missed that memo... in fact, I am missing quite a bit lately. For a blogsite whose mission is to expose liberal bias in the MSM, your last ten "issues" contain perhaps one or two items in which such an observation may possibly be made. The others deal with, um: where a journalist will be seated; a cryptic Egyptian political cartoon; sniping on the Democratic campaign trail- numerous and guite gossipy in tone; and a couple that are editorial opinion pieces that have nothing to do with journalistic bias. The RI Gay marriage and the LA Times pieces, I'll give you those, but pretty marginal stories there.
I would think that a blog whose raison d'etre is to provide a crucial, republic-saving service by exposing the relentless, monolithic and hegemonistic control of the media by Liberals could do a little better than this. Ain't got no more meat on them bones? Frankly, Noel, a pathetic grasping at straws such as these does more to further your opposition's points than your own: Now that we've looked together, there really isn't a Monster under the bed, now is there, honey? I would recommend one of three things for you. First, understand what journalism is, and isn't. Second, check out your opposite numbers over at mediamatters.com. -they got it right. And third, send some of your opinion pieces to GQ- that's the venue in which they belong.
Mobius
February 22, 2007 - 11:13 ET by Noel SheppardMobius,
Thank you for the chuckle so early in the morning.
It really is hysterical someone chastising a media analyst for choice of press outlets whilst praising an organization that spends most of its time carping and whining about known conservative radio hosts making conservative statements.
That said, in the future, you’ll need to demonstrate a far greater understanding of media analysis as well as a room-temperature intelligence quotient if you expect a response to your drivel.
Have fun getting some more ideas to post here from DK, DU, TP, and MMA with the expressed intent of angering conservatives. However, please be advised that your motives are extraordinarily transparent, and, as such, laughable.
Warmest regards, ns
MobiusStrip (one of my favorite thingys) thanks for lingerie plu
February 22, 2007 - 11:23 ET by acaiguanaMobiusStrip (one of my favorite thingys) thanks for lingerie plug.
In keeping with the level of high dudgeon and intellect (by the way the intellectual analysis of your opinion of this site was most enlightening) I just want to say, my Helen Thomas line of Lingerie is doing just fine thanks.
FYI:
dudgeon \DUH-juhn\, noun:
A state or fit of intense indignation; resentment; ill humor -- often used in the phrase "in high dudgeon."
So, when you get bored with bashing the site; how about that Hillary/Barack fight?
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
"Exposing and Combatin
February 22, 2007 - 11:32 ET by Tim the Enchanter"Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias". That's what it says. Radio, television, print, periodicals, etc. are all media; a means of communication. Magazines are a part of the media, don't you think? GQ may be the Cosmopolitan of the Metrosexual, as you put it, but they can still (and do) have a political bias. I understand that they are not supposed to be a political journal of opinion, such as NR, Human Events, the American Spectator, the New Republic, Mother Jones, et. al. , so why are they meddling in politics? Do you purchase GQ specifically for political articles? This actually fits in perfectly with what I understand to be part of the mission of NB- exposing the politicalization of practically everything in life. We're surrounded by left-wing pap everywhere. Entertainment, sports venues, comic books, you name it. One can't watch, listen to, or read without being exposed to some sanctimonious hypocrite lecturing about this or that. When I watch a cartoon, for example, I do it to get a few yucks, no to listen to a sermon.
Most of the focus here is on news venues, because they are supposed to be based on fact and truth. But, to not report something that may reflect negatively on "the cause", or to omit damaging facts, or to over-emphasize events that reflect positively on "the cause", or to speculate on "what if", or "this MAY happen", et. al.- that's not news, it's propaganda, but it's being presented as news. That's just plain dishonest.
well put, but
February 22, 2007 - 12:00 ET by MobiusStripthe responses to this article are hysterical: charges should be made, Cheney should sue, let's look the traitor up, blah, blah, blah. So while Noel finds humor in a "media analyst" kind of condescending manner, his readers here are apparently too thick to understand that this is not news. Nor would GQ- which I don't read, by the way- consider it as such. It is copy, filler, something they thought might be thought provoking and which they could sell.
When you take on a bias in media, isn't it relevant that you take on something that is non-fictional- that reports itself as fact based? What about the numerous conservative "news" outlets that call themselves journalism but are political mouthpieces only? Would novels be fair game? Any you want to not see in the libraries, perhaps- some are quite, quite inflammatory to the government. Any particular authors bothering you lately?
"Nor would GQ- which I
February 22, 2007 - 12:11 ET by MightyMouth"Nor would GQ- which I don't read, by the way- consider it as such. It
is copy, filler, something they thought might be thought provoking and
which they could sell."
And you base this statement on your intimate knowledge of GQ's motives? Or are you providing us with additional "copy" and "filler"?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Mobius...GQ has the right to
February 22, 2007 - 12:17 ET by Clear thinkerMobius...
GQ has the right to print trash if it so chooses, and we have the right to call it trash, so calm down and get a grip.
MS,I think Tim clearly answer
February 22, 2007 - 12:17 ET by steviep831MS,
I think Tim clearly answered your concerns regarding the mission of this website yet you continue to be a troll about the issue. I think even you would agree that GQ is entering into some highly politically charged waters with this article. Can you be so dim as to think that they are above criticism just because, by your admission, they don't even take themselves seriously? I think it's only natural that the readers here want to know who this author is; to know where he's coming from and whether he speaks for all of GQ (as a staff writer) or was paid to write this garbage by an outside organization.
MobiusDickimus
February 22, 2007 - 12:22 ET by Dave RMobiusDickimus,
Isn't it about time for you to go somewhere and blow?
I hate newspapermen.....I regard them as spies.....If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast. -Gen. William T. Sherman
Ladies and Gentlemen
February 22, 2007 - 13:22 ET by Noel SheppardFolks,
You're being conned, and wasting time responding to this charlatan.
Anybody that calls a 4,000-word article in a monthly magazine "filler" knows as much about journalism as my pet cockatiel.
The sooner it is ignored, the sooner it will crawl back to the hole from which it came. ns
In a word...Troll
February 22, 2007 - 13:26 ET by Tim the EnchanterIn a word...Troll
Wow, your idiocy is never e
February 22, 2007 - 11:35 ET by steviep831Wow, your idiocy is never ending....
(That was a play on words for those of you in Rio Linda)
We're supposed to take some
February 22, 2007 - 11:41 ET by Jack BauerWe're supposed to take someone seriously when they include poncey frog frases like raison d'etre.
Oooo La La. We're d'ya pick that up monsewer... one quarter man magazine?
GQ -- One quarter man. All metrosexual.
Moby, be honest. Do you buy G
February 22, 2007 - 12:21 ET by Roger the ShrubberMoby, be honest. Do you buy GQ for the pictures, or the articles?
Come on, be honest now.
Just think of all that valuable magazine space that was wasted by a political piece in a fluff magazine that could have been better used to critique the current trends of mousse usage in New York City salons. I am sure the writing staff over at GQ would love to know that they are not considered "journalists" (by your standards, at least).
Perhaps, in your huff to "expose" Newsbusters this morning, you fail to ask yourself why that article even appeared in GQ, it being a "target-demographic feature magazine" as you say...
Plus, technically, GQ is considered to be a part of the Mainstream Media. At least, according to Wikipedia. But that is a right-wing website, too, right?
I won't be too worried about
February 22, 2007 - 10:54 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveI won't be too worried about this article. Anyone who pays the price of a magazine filled with ads and drivel aren't too bright in the first place and secondly probably can't understand the articles even if they can read.
Gun Safety Tip #8: No matter how responsible he seems, never give your gun to a monkey. (www.imao.us)
...[W]e, the Fourth Estate,
February 22, 2007 - 11:15 ET by Tom1969caUm, I'm sorry. Did I miss something?
Where in the Constitution does it say that The Fourth Estate can present legislation to the House or Senate?
Since the whole screed is about the alleged trampling of the Constitution, it would lend the author some credibility if he showed he actually understood said document...
Of course, to a liberal, the Constitution consists of:
(a) What is there, and
(b) What should be there.
(Oh, and the Second Amendment should not be there...)
~~~
VOTE DEMOCRAT!
(It's easier than thinking)
The way that "news"
February 22, 2007 - 11:25 ET by MivvisThe way that "news" outlets continue to push the envelope is disgusting. Until a few end up facing charges it will continue. The "legaleze" verbage of the article is particularly despicable.
You don't really get it, do you?
February 22, 2007 - 11:39 ET by MobiusStripfor those of you who took no time time in getting your undies in a bunch, googling the author of this piece, talking lawsuits and criminal charges, etc.: puh-leeze!! GQ IS NOT A NEWS OUTLET! THIS IS A FICTIONAL MUSING! IT CARRIES NO WEIGHT BUT THAT OF A WRITER'S IMAGINATION!
The disgusting part of this is your posse vigilante, burn-the-books mentality. What are you, lost in Plaesantville? Really, really spooked by the legalese? If you can come here and have your little circle-the-wagons circle-jerks, I think someone can put a FANTASY PIECE OF FICTION in a print publication somewhere- DON'T YOU? What a bunch of reactive morons.
I will be bringing this thread to my next law and/or journalism class
Well, MobiusStrip, I'm glad you've been amused.
February 22, 2007 - 11:53 ET by acaiguanaWell, MobiusStrip, I'm glad you've been amused.
Since you are so disgusted, let me point out that I haven't seen much, if any, demand to burn books, hang the writer or kill the fantasy.
I have seen some opinions that the guy is an idiot. But that would apply to all the posters here, would you not agree?
The point is, Mr. Strip, that you dropped by (thanks for staying long enough to get some feedback) and dumped on the premise of this site. Further, you offered up an opinion about the choice of the articles used on this site.
Now, we appreciate your opinion, but we think your opinion is not germane to the thread; not very well presented; and further, pretty defensive about a <shout caps on> "Fictional Musing" <shout caps off>.
One of things you might share with your student friends is that one does not have to 'SHOUT' to get a point across. Here or in life.
You might learn how to form a decent sentence, not that journalism requires that anymore, but it would be nice to think that people who go into journalism are not all losers from the starting gate.
I think it is fair to allow anybody's drivel to be published in GQ, after all, that's what the magazine is known to publish. It is also fair to point out that a political piece written by an author that cannot be backgrounded is presented as a serious proposition to the public (all 3 of their readers) is Liberal Hype; drivel, nut-case speculation; and not very funny.
In fact, it tends to undermine the United States of America's presence in the world because I have it on authority that the French use GQ as their prime source of information on American politics.
But, again, thanks for the lingerie plug.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
George Orwell's 1984 was a &q
February 22, 2007 - 11:54 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveGeorge Orwell's 1984 was a "fictional musing" so by your reasoning, no one should've been concerned with the possibility of it becoming reality?
You're right GQ isn't a news outlet per-se. However, there aremany of those idiots that buy it because they can't dress themselves or otherwise think for themselves. This type of people are influenced by these types of articles when they take the time to read them. Many of them take articles as truth if they find them amusing or humorous.
There is a reason it was published in GQ--because no serious news outlet would publish it, knowing what kind of publicity/legal problems that could arise...whereas GQ can just say, "oh, we weren't serious, it's just a fictional musing."
I think featuring this article on this blog is relevant to the MRC's mission.
And if this is just a "fictional musing" why are you so up-in-arms and defending it so much? After all, it really doesn't matter...or does it?
Gun Safety Tip #8: No matter how responsible he seems, never give your gun to a monkey. (www.imao.us)
<sniff> <sniff>
February 22, 2007 - 12:21 ET by King of the Britons<sniff> <sniff> You smell that? Smells like . . . dirty TROLL.
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!´´
--Patrick Henry
OH NO! Don't take it to your
February 22, 2007 - 12:42 ET by florida_chadOH NO! Don't take it to your next law/journalism class. PLEASE NO!!! ANYTHING BUT THAT!!
BTW - Will you and your classmates be having one of those circle jerkss your were speaking of over this thread? Cause I wouldn't want you to get your panties in a wad or to be reactionary or anything like, um, that, um dude.
Tom 1969ca - you left out a few little things.
February 22, 2007 - 11:30 ET by acaiguanaTom 1969ca - you left out a few little things.
:-)
ACA...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
this was a magazine you use t
February 22, 2007 - 12:59 ET by buddycthis was a magazine you use to subscribe to and enjoy. i don't want to be homophobic but there are some staff people who now run that mag who are angry gay/lesbians who despise christianity and anything republican. i terminated my subscription long ago. it is pathetic and is probably trying to become the dixie chicks of the publishing industry.
it is all leftwing all the time.
GQ
February 22, 2007 - 16:54 ET by Pixie_MateJake Gyllenhaal is so damned hot...What's wrong with you people reading about Dick Cheney with those soulful eyes are a mere page or two away...?
I thought you were more of a
February 22, 2007 - 22:08 ET by Roger the ShrubberI thought you were more of a Heath Ledger kinda guy, Hater...
you heat up too easily
February 22, 2007 - 22:36 ET by tumbler_2007Pixie,
This cat looks like he needs a bath. SOAP. And cut that ridiculous hair! Ha!
I've read the post and repl
February 22, 2007 - 17:53 ET by WhichWingI've read the post and replies, but I've yet to find someone pointing out something that is false in the GQ article. Is that to come after all the personal attacks on one another? Or should I stop holding my breath?
Are you kidding me!?So you be
February 22, 2007 - 18:14 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveAre you kidding me!?
So you believe that this article is factual?
How has Cheney "expanded his power"? Did I miss something? Are his tie breaker votes in the senate worth two votes now? Even if they were, it still wouldn't be expanding his powers as his votes are only cast to break a tie.
"Crafting new intelligence?" and "spreading it to the public" When did Cheney go public with any intelligence, let alone new and crafted intelligence?
"Sabotaged the democratic system" what the hell does that mean? We are a representative republic--not a strict democracy...we don't hold an election every time something needs to be decided.
"Conducting secret meetings with secret policy boards" These meetings or boards don't sound so secret if a hack journalist knows about them.
"Promoting the interests of Halliburton Corp." What other company in the world can operate on the same logistical scale as Halliburton?
How's that for pointing out some falsehoods in this article? Since you fail to grasp that the main criticism of this article is that even though GQ is not a news/policy magazine, there are some of the intellectually deficient that will believe this article to be completely factual which will serve to perpetuate such falsehoods.
Gun Safety Tip #8: No matter how responsible he seems, never give your gun to a monkey. (www.imao.us)
Thank you, WhichWing, for
February 22, 2007 - 20:30 ET by dabalThank you, WhichWing, for pointing out why it was completely necessary for this article to be posted here at NB, thereby refuting the idiocy of an unnamed poster above.
When you're 12, you think you know everything. When you're 20, you think you know everything. When you're 35, you know you don't know jack schitt...which is why the liberals focus on your indoctrination when you're a kid.
I am not sure how any good De
February 23, 2007 - 09:18 ET by AlgerHissI am not sure how any good Democrat could trust anything from GQ. After all, it was deemed a "fag rag" by one of their vaunted own.
By the way, over at Vanity Fair, is it Graydon Carter or Carter Graydon that runs that equally silly magazine?
Rochester, Minnesota: A Fem_Leftist City!