Teachers Gone Wild
I know a lot of Loosers would rather watch videos than read, so here is today's clip from Michelle Malkin's Vent, dealing with crazy professors, including "Scholar" for 9/11 "Truth" Kevin Barrett. I can't believe she left off Judy "Keebler Elves" Wood though...
posted by James B. @ 10:59 AM
38 comments
38 Comments:
"Loosers"
Wow James, how old are you?
What the heck do Loosers have to do with how old James is?
If you're just complaining about his terminology, you may want to look at your own diatribes, Mr. Official-Conspiracy-Theory / Concidence-Theorist.
Someone who supports Loose Change is a "Looser". It is called a "pun".
It's called immature. I can imagine you using those childish terms during a professional debate.
Also, can you show me one "lie" in LC?
James,
Regardless of terms, age, etc...
The idea that you think Malkin's garbage is a good thing to link to is one of my least fav. things about you.
"Hot Air" couldn't be more descriptive.
Also, can you show me one "lie" in LC?
Check out the top post. I have more than 40.
Really BG. What exactly is it that you dislike about her? I've yet to see any outright lies or distortions on either her own site, or the Hot Air site. So unlike the Loosers, at least she's honest. She may be a wee-bit overzealous, but I can't really blame her for getting overexcited when faced with the stupidity of the people and issues that she talks about.
Lie:
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
So how were those "lies" compared to just being inaccurate?
Why is it if a CT gets something wrong it's automatically considered a "lie"?
debunking911, see my 'smoking guns' page.
So how were those "lies" compared to just being inaccurate?
Why is it if a CT gets something wrong it's automatically considered a "lie"?
When you misquote someone, it's pretty clear what your motives were. For instance, if you were to read an article where I say:
"Some people want you to beleive that the towers collapsed because of explosive charges. Nothing could be further from the truth."
And then you turn around and in your video say:
"Alex was quoted as saying 'The towers collapsed because of explosive charges'".
You are deliberately twisting my words to make it appear as if I were saying the exact opposite of what I actually said. While you may be repeating my exact words, you're deliberately taking them out of context in order to suggest I said something completely different. THAT is a lie. LC does that numerous times.
That's only one example ofcourse, and on obvious one. Most of the errors in LC really ARE due to honest mistakes (lack of intelligence and common sense). But it's quite obvious at several points that the authors are being deliberately dishonest. In other words, they're lying.
debunking911, see my 'smoking guns' page.
It's more of a dribbling water-pistol.
Why is it if a CT gets something wrong it's automatically considered a "lie"?
Damn, they sure manage to make a lot of "mistakes" in support of their theories.
I asked earlier on 2 different posts here, for the CTs to point out similar lies and distortions here on SLC, the viewer's guide, and 911 Myths. I didn't get a single example in response.
I am sure you give Bush the same leeway regarding his "lies" about Iraqi WMD.
Our Favorite Guy (Jim Fetzer) highlighted here:
Better Bad News: SCHOLARS FOR 9/11 TRUTH USE UNPATRIOTIC SCIENCE TO TEST EVIDENCE OF AN INSIDE JOB.
Alex,
About Coulter:
Calling for internment camps of Muslims is one her most infamous crimes.
If she understood the truth about 9/11, I imagine she would be a passionate advocate and much more sane. The fact is she is either duped or a knowing agent for the lies of 9/11, and it seems like that's just the start of basis for positions that I find indefensable.
For example, you can think OBL was behind 9/11 and still disagree with the bloody mess we are responsible for in Iraq.
Coulter is anywhere as bad as, say, Tammy Bruce, but Coulter's worldview seems to coincide to a great degree.
Meant to say:
Colter isn't.... above
What does this have to do with Ann Coulter?
Darn it,
I meant Malkin, not Coulter. My Bad.
Malkin has more brains and is more articulate than Coulter. Overall they seem to serve the same purpose.
Here's another example of Malkin:
Feminist blames “Hadji Girl” for rape/murder in Iraq
This is the culture war making so-called honest right wing?.
This isn't conservatism. This isn't decency. This is flat out hate speech recklessly demonizing a groups (feminist) which is considered a political (and possibly a cultural) oppenent.
This is on the level of Rush L, and use of the word femi-Nazi. Rhetoric on this level is not appealing to the best in the populace, you have to admit.
I don't want our government to be influenced massively by hard core so-called feminists. However, this approach of winner take all Republican scorced-earth tactics insures a bloody battle-field, not a working democracy.
More about Malkin
undense said,
Whether I "whine" is debatable.
"Hit" pieces aren't intrinsically bad things.
If one isn't outraged by lies, and forceful in defending the truth, what kind of human are you.
The problem is with untrue hit pieces (e.g. Popular Mechanics, other articles that Pat/James have posted or link to.).
I'd love to see where the lies are in the popular mechanics article.
Abby,
Have you really not been given the website that explains why the Popular Mech piece was a hit pieces based on lies and manipulation? I'll be glad to post it again here.
Here's it is:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/
BG, Malkin was not calling for internment of Muslims with In Defense of Internment. And the post about the feminist claiming that Hajii Girl caused a rape and murder was by Allahpundit and not Mrs M (and was accurate as far as I can see). That Orcinus found Unhinged to be a little light is not surprising; folks seldom find books that mock their worldview very entertaining or amusing.
I also noticed that much of the response essay's frustrations were in terms of "straw men".
Considering the wide array of statements made by CTers, it would be actually difficult to come up with a strawman, or something that CTers don't believe.
abby,
I'm amazed by the popular technique that is used all over the internet... "the old I couldn't read any further", or with respect to 911 Eyewitness video: I couldn't watch any further.... this is possibly one of the more dishonest debating techniques that exists. I don't know who would give you any credibility as having been honest when you refuse to discuss the details of the material presented.
The link I provided does point out specific lies, and you don't show the honor to admit the truth.
Here the article cites the claim on reopen911.org that the hole in the Pentagon was "only 16ft. across," and mentions French author Thierry Meyssan, who helped to spawn the "no-757-crash theory", the subject of my earlier essay. The article again implies that this idea is gospel among 9/11 skeptics, giving no clue that there is controversy about the issue in 9/11 skeptics circles, and that many consider this claim that no jetliner hit the Pentagon a big distraction. The page ERROR: The Pentagon Attack Left Only a Small Impact Hole and others by 9/11 skeptics have long debunked Meyssan's wildly inaccurate description of a 16-foot-diameter entry hole.
Are you using this article to argue against us, or Killtown?
Abby,
Do you want more proof of the story of 9/11 being suppressed and mis-represented in the 9/11 Commission Report, in the press, in this blog.
Take a look at the raw testimony about explosion and the WTC towers:
9/11 Transcripts and Police Reports
Explosions again?
Why in the world would we not expect explosions? It would be odd if NO ONE heard explosions.
I feel like a broken record with this one.
So how were those "lies" compared to just being inaccurate?
When you know something is inaccurate (which the makers of loose Change must've known, unless they're braindead) and you present it as if it were true, you are lying.
Oh, and the only hit-piece I've seen on either side is the "debunking" of Popular Mechanic's debunking (which I, in turn, debunked in one of these threads).
BG:
This is flat out hate speech recklessly demonizing a groups (feminist) which is considered a political (and possibly a cultural) oppenent.
I don't see how. Pleas point out a passage of that article which is "demonizing" any group.
And, as has been pointed out to you. Michelle Malkin never advocated internment camps for Muslims. What she DID say (roughly) is that she understands why Japanese Americans were interred during WW2, and that it's pointless to judge that action by 21st century standards. Which she's absolutely right about. In hindsight it was a horrible thing to do, but things often tend to look different in hindsight.
If you're confusing Malkin with Coulter, it's no wonder you're so biased against her. I'm deffinitely not a fan of Coulter.
alex,
With respect to Malkin:
I don't know the realationship between Malkin and Allahpundit. His posts on her site seem to go over the line toward hate speech more than Malkin's.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Abby, and everyone that have taken issues with comments I've made here.
I want to give you credit for some of your points, and your general remarks being factual, and on topic. I am able to see 9/11 and other issues from your view point. I acknowledge that, based on our "back and forth" here, I haven't brought forward new or convincing evidence that has the power to change many minds. I think the "truth", if it is pursued and becomes known will bare out my skepticism.
I once again say that my goal is awareness of the questions of 9/11, with the idea that an official investigation to get at the heart of the matter.
I say the above because I don't see myself having time this week to address all the legitimate claims / questions that you have raised in this thread.
I don't know the realationship between Malkin and Allahpundit. His posts on her site seem to go over the line toward hate speech more than Malkin's.
You are just mad because he likes Screw Loose Change. You are accusing most of the US government as being part of a secret cabal to murder thousands of Americans and Iraqis, sounds like hate speech to me.
James,
I know we have honest differences.
However, you are simply on the wrong track when you charge that I'm against allahpundit due to his stance on screwloosechange.
I respect that anyone who thinks 9/11 truth and Loose Change, the movie is a bunch of hookum is going to like this blog.
James,
If, you were kidding me, you should put a little smiley face or something....
Is speaking out against a religion that preaches hate and intolerance hate speech?
You should join CAIR with that atttitude.
Post a Comment
<< Home