jujubeans
OVM Project Manager
ok..that does it...I am getting out my cheerleader outfit and pom poms.....
Oh no you don't...you got enough flack on your shorts!!!
If You Don't Know Michelle Malkin....
- Thread starter dieseldiva
- Start date
Oh no you don't...you got enough flack on your shorts!!!
chefdennis
Veteran Expediter
juju wrote:
mama has spoken!! Thank God!!
mama has spoken!!
Thank God!! 
dieseldiva
Veteran Expediter
Oh no you don't...you got enough flack on your shorts!!!
Thank You, Girlfriend....
OH THANK YOU SOOOOO MUCH!! I OWE you a coffee or the beverage of your choice!!
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
That is supposed to be the general idea .... keep it about the ideas ...... and the facts of the matter (agreed upon, or disputed) ... and don't let it get personal (can't say that I always succeed at this) ..... sometimes though the replies are a bit of a mix - addressed partially at points to the individual that wrote them, as well as to the ideas expressed. Admittedly, that probably makes it a bit confusing as to who or what I'm actually aiming at ... at any given point
I had thought that I had made it clear that I was speaking to certain ideas (as stated by myself or others .... or simply implicit), rather than to an individual - but apparently not clear enough - as one was still offended and evidently took the entirety of what I said as aimed at them, as an individual.
Why this happens is understandable for two reasons:
First, my own inabilities to effectively communicate whatever it is that I'm trying to say. When I reply to a post, it often takes considerable effort, and sometimes takes me hours to compose a reply (I have about 5+ hours in on this one at the moment) .... simply because that is what is required flesh out exactly what I mean or intend. It is almost always a struggle to get it right - quite often, what I write could be stated better, more clearly.
The second reason is that you can't get much closer to the fundamental essence of a being, the individual person themselves, than the ideas they hold, or have held. There really isn't anything more intimate than one's own thoughts and ideas.
When one is debating an idea, or premise, and taking a position counter to an idea that someone else has espoused, it may often seem as though you are attacking them, when in fact it is simply the idea.
It's a fine line to be sure ....
Ya think ?
And it doesn't do a whole lot to raise the level of political discourse - sitting around agreeing with like-minded souls rarely does (if that is all you are doing) .... it can however serve to elevate the general level of political frothiness ..... and can certainly serve to further a "mob mentality" .... depending on the nature of the conversation, of course.
Agreement is not reason ....
And at the point where one (ie. "sources" above) becomes willing to use any device or method, stoop to any level, engage in whatever manner of perfidy, tell or pass along any lie - no matter how blatant (especially when one knows it to be a lie), then I would submit that whatever moral authority one claims to hold ... has probably been long ago sacrificed at the altar of political expediency simply for the acquistion of political power .... and such a view (where all things are fair game thru any means possible - no matter despicable) is morally bankrupt.
I believe the English expression is "throwing the baby out with the bath water ...."
One cannot have it both ways: one cannot claim the moral high ground .... to espouse certain moral principals ..... while doing the very things that violate those moral principals ....
BTW, just so there is no mistaking what is I'm saying, I am not particularly saying that anyone in here is doing the above - what I am saying is that it is done on a daily basis in the media (TV, radio, blogs, etc.)
One would do well to consider very carefully indeed exactly what one is agreeing with, when agrees with such individuals.
If you look at the evolution of this thread what you will see is this:
1. The OP posted a link to a book by Michelle Malkin.
2. A number of other folks responded with alot of "rah-rah-let's-get-out-the-pom-poms-for-dear-little-Michelle" .... possibly because they agreed with some or part of something she has said. (While I do not share their apparent enthusiasm, I have nonetheless agreed with Malkin on occasion, and so stated.)
3. I posted a link which showed Michelle in .... a somewhat different and decidedly less complimentary light .... where she was caught promulgating blatant, outright lies. I further suggested that one ought to be somewhat cautious when jumping wholesale on the bandwagon of any of the media
s du jour (regardless of political affiliation) - because one doesn't often know the entirety of what it is one is agreeing with.4. My post was followed immediately (within the hour) by a post from the OP, which:
A. attempted to minimize or excuse Michelle Malkin's reprehensible behavior by claiming that what she said was not an "out and out lie" and that maybe she "misspoke" ..... based on exactly what evidence I'm not sure - hopefully not her so-called "retraction" .... itself prima facie evidence of mens rea (<---- click for definition) - and which she largely used just to continue the hatchet job ...
Of course, I disagree with that characterization ("misspoke") - as I believe that what she did was knowing and intentional, done with malice aforethought, in an effort to attempt to derail the candidacy of a decent, honest person who was running for national political office (a rare thing, to be sure)
(Of course, I suppose it could be the other possibility: she's just simply grossly incompetent as a journalist.)
B. and then the OP stated: "if this is the best you have against Michelle it's rather lame."
The implication being (apparently, if I read, and understood it correctly) that since I had only posted a single link of an instance where Malkin had lied or mischaracterized things that what I had posted was somehow "lame".
Personally, I don't think that indisputable evidence (in the form of words out of someone's own mouth in an appearance on national cable TV) is "lame" ... but hey - everyone's mileage may vary.
One should be aware however that there is no shortage of instances where Michelle Malkin has been demonstrably shown to distort, twist, and alter facts - if it furthers her political agenda. (further examples of which I will be happy to submit as time permits)
While some might find such behavior admirable ("anything for the cause"), I ain't one of them - I find such folks who knowingly and willingly engage in such behavior to be huge political liabilities .... by their own conduct they degrade and make less of whatever of cause or philosophy that they claim to represent - they are liabilities because it's usually fairly easy to expose how unethical they are.
Final thought: It does sometimes amaze me however, the degree to which some will go to minimize or excuse the transgressions of those that they (apparently) agree with philosophically or politically - all while heaping criticism and condemnation on others, who they don't agree with ..... for conduct which is essentially the same .....
I think there is a word for that ... but it escapes me at the moment
Last edited:
wellarmed
Not a Member
LOL! It's late. NO,it's early, Just kiddin. No I'm not, I read that again and I feel sick again, I think I should go with my gut on this one. be real shoot from the hip. Composing? in a forum? be real!
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Ahhh ... yeah .... your gut might be the better choice ....
wellarmed
Not a Member
Ahhh ... yeah .... your gut might be the better choice ....
In a couple hours I would expect you to compose a more shly comment, that one really disappoints me.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
This one is just too much of a crackup - a total hoot - so I just gotta do it - apparently it's originally off Alex Jones Prison Planet website - a place I'm aware of, but not one where I've spent much time - I found it quoted on another site. (Bonus: The linked column even shows Michelle back before the Faux News styling and makeup crews had gotten ahold of her apparently - something she is undoubtedly better off for):
Debunkaholic Michelle Malkin Was A "9/11 Truther"
Neo-Con Fox News poster child who called truth movement a "virus" grilled official story in 2002 column ....
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Echoing the sheer hypocrisy of fellow debunkaholic George Monbiot, Michelle 'put every Muslim in a concentration camp' Malkin, who routinely attacks the 9/11 truth movement, was herself a "truther", and wrote a column just six months after the attack in which she harshly questioned the official story.
Last week, Malkin appeared on Fox News' Big Story with John Gibson to smear the 9/11 truth movement as a "virus" and called for Ron Paul to be kicked out of the debates for associating with "9/11 conspiracy nut Alex Jones."
Deliciously ironic therefore it is to have uncovered one of her columns from 2002, (<---- click link) by way of the website Michelle Malkin is an Idiot (rlent note: a very amusing website I might add - that is maintained by two ex-Republicans - who the neo-con whackjobs like Michelle have apparently managed to drive away from the Party), in which she grills the official story, sounding far more like a "truther" than her incarnation today as a Neo-Con pin-up girl spouting phony indignation at Alex Jones and other 9/11 truth movement leaders.
Yeah ..... ok ...... now I think I get it:
Old Michelle: Ask questions - GOOOOD !
New Michelle: Ask questions - VERY VERY BAAAAAD !!!!
Afterall: it's just so much better (and far more lucrative I'm sure) to provide prepackaged "answers" to those that seek them
Debunkaholic Michelle Malkin Was A "9/11 Truther"
Neo-Con Fox News poster child who called truth movement a "virus" grilled official story in 2002 column ....
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Echoing the sheer hypocrisy of fellow debunkaholic George Monbiot, Michelle 'put every Muslim in a concentration camp' Malkin, who routinely attacks the 9/11 truth movement, was herself a "truther", and wrote a column just six months after the attack in which she harshly questioned the official story.
Last week, Malkin appeared on Fox News' Big Story with John Gibson to smear the 9/11 truth movement as a "virus" and called for Ron Paul to be kicked out of the debates for associating with "9/11 conspiracy nut Alex Jones."
Deliciously ironic therefore it is to have uncovered one of her columns from 2002, (<---- click link) by way of the website Michelle Malkin is an Idiot (rlent note: a very amusing website I might add - that is maintained by two ex-Republicans - who the neo-con whackjobs like Michelle have apparently managed to drive away from the Party), in which she grills the official story, sounding far more like a "truther" than her incarnation today as a Neo-Con pin-up girl spouting phony indignation at Alex Jones and other 9/11 truth movement leaders.
Yeah ..... ok ...... now I think I get it:
Old Michelle: Ask questions - GOOOOD !
New Michelle: Ask questions - VERY VERY BAAAAAD !!!!
Afterall: it's just so much better (and far more lucrative I'm sure) to provide prepackaged "answers" to those that seek them
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
This is a good one too, if you are up for a little light reading :
So Let Me Get This Straight: Michelle Malkin Claims to Have Rewritten the History of Japanese Internment in Just 16 Months?
By Eric Muller
Mr. Muller is Ward Professor, University of North Carolina School of Law. He is a member of the Historians' Committee for Fairness (<--- click link), an organization of scholars and professional researchers, which charges that Michelle Malkin's book represents "a blatant violation of professional standards of objectivity and fairness."
In her prefatory note to readers of her new book In Defense of Internment, Michelle Malkin says the following about the book's goal:
"This book defends both the evacuation and relocation of ethnic Japanese from the West Coast (the so-called "Japanese American internment"), as well as the internment of enemy aliens, Japanese and non-Japanese alike, during World War II. My work is by no means all-encompassing; my aim is to provoke a debate on a sacrosanct subject that has remained undebatable for far too long."
Read just a bit further, though, and you'll see that the book is not just about "provoking debate." It's about "correcting the record" (page xv). (rlent: the record according to Michelle no doubt ....)
Malkin claims to have been inspired to start research on this topic after seeing a blog debate I conducted on the subject sixteen months ago. I can't imagine how she--or, indeed, anyone--could have done the primary research necessary to understand the record, let alone "correct" it in an informed way, as the book claims to do, in five or six years, let alone in one. Especially while doing anything at all in addition to researching the book (such as writing a nationally syndicated newspaper column and having a child, as Malkin says she did). (rlent: Hint - Michelle is a reeally, reeally smart cookie) To tell the story correctly and impartially, a person would need to sift through thousands and thousands of pages of archival material from all over the country and then piece bits together into a coherent story.
Yeah .... no doubt ...... but if you don't got time for all that, then just offering an opinion is just as good isn't it ?
Full article here
:So Let Me Get This Straight: Michelle Malkin Claims to Have Rewritten the History of Japanese Internment in Just 16 Months?
By Eric Muller
Mr. Muller is Ward Professor, University of North Carolina School of Law. He is a member of the Historians' Committee for Fairness (<--- click link), an organization of scholars and professional researchers, which charges that Michelle Malkin's book represents "a blatant violation of professional standards of objectivity and fairness."
In her prefatory note to readers of her new book In Defense of Internment, Michelle Malkin says the following about the book's goal:
"This book defends both the evacuation and relocation of ethnic Japanese from the West Coast (the so-called "Japanese American internment"), as well as the internment of enemy aliens, Japanese and non-Japanese alike, during World War II. My work is by no means all-encompassing; my aim is to provoke a debate on a sacrosanct subject that has remained undebatable for far too long."
Read just a bit further, though, and you'll see that the book is not just about "provoking debate." It's about "correcting the record" (page xv). (rlent: the record according to Michelle no doubt ....
) Malkin claims to have been inspired to start research on this topic after seeing a blog debate I conducted on the subject sixteen months ago. I can't imagine how she--or, indeed, anyone--could have done the primary research necessary to understand the record, let alone "correct" it in an informed way, as the book claims to do, in five or six years, let alone in one. Especially while doing anything at all in addition to researching the book (such as writing a nationally syndicated newspaper column and having a child, as Malkin says she did). (rlent: Hint - Michelle is a reeally, reeally smart cookie) To tell the story correctly and impartially, a person would need to sift through thousands and thousands of pages of archival material from all over the country and then piece bits together into a coherent story.
Yeah .... no doubt ...... but if you don't got time for all that, then just offering an opinion is just as good isn't it ?
Full article here
Last edited:
letzrockexpress
Veteran Expediter
Though I harbor contempt for Ms. Malkin, I have to admit it is very difficult if not impossible to disagree with anyone 100% of the time...Well, unless it's Ann Coulter..
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
chefdennis
Veteran Expediter
RLENT wrote:
LOL, who cares if he has links!?!?! What a great tie-in...ward churchill to a group of college professors that bust on a writer...lol and we all know how Conservative todays College professors are....LOL
Great question Greg!! I love even the hint that they might have supported ward churchill even if they didn't, and i am not even going to bother to look to see if they did, but i have already posted that question on another board that has a thread on Michelle...fantasic!!! Thanks for the inference..LOL
And thank you RLENT for even bring them up..it is greatly appreciated that you can feed the machine!!!! LOL!! Thanks bud!! LOL
LOL!!!!
LOL, who cares if he has links!?!?! What a great tie-in...ward churchill to a group of college professors that bust on a writer...lol and we all know how Conservative todays College professors are....LOL
Great question Greg!! I love even the hint that they might have supported ward churchill even if they didn't, and i am not even going to bother to look to see if they did, but i have already posted that question on another board that has a thread on Michelle...fantasic!!! Thanks for the inference..LOL
And thank you RLENT for even bring them up..it is greatly appreciated that you can feed the machine!!!! LOL!! Thanks bud!! LOL
LOL!!!!
letzrockexpress
Veteran Expediter
Yeah, why bother to back it up with facts....
Oh boy....I believe this is exactly what RLENT was speaking of in an earlier post...This is deliberate dissemination of unsubstantiated information. Journalistic Integrity obviously means nothing to you.
chefdennis
Veteran Expediter
Letz wrote:
LOL, you are just now figuring that out!?!? LOL, i have said as much more then a few times myself!!! heck i even thought i made that pretty clean in that above post....lol..as long as it fits the agenda.... catch up dude....
And as i said in another thread too RLENT, "as with you, i am not having any sleepless nights worrying about what light i am seen in"....lol
LOL, you are just now figuring that out!?!? LOL, i have said as much more then a few times myself!!! heck i even thought i made that pretty clean in that above post....lol..as long as it fits the agenda....
catch up dude....And as i said in another thread too RLENT, "as with you, i am not having any sleepless nights worrying about what light i am seen in"....lol
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Izzat right ?
Just curious ... is that only in the political context - or does that apply to other facets and aspects of your life as well ?
Jus' wonderin ....
Last edited: