The really odd thing is that this woman is, supposedly, a Ph.D. (or a candidate to become one). People in academia who share this sick worldview drove me to drop my Ph.D. aspirations early in my undergraduate carrer. A doctorate degree, or even a bachelor's degree, is becoming such a dirty mark on one's character.

Posted by: Eric in Atlanta at July 8, 2006 11:15 AM

I've just read about the posts made by Deborah Frisch and it is beyond sick. I question if she has, in fact, resigned? That would be the VERY least she could do!

Posted by: Price Smith at July 8, 2006 11:17 AM

And these poeple cannot figure out why we don't want them in positions of responsibility and leadership in our government?

Ms Frisch must be an alien; clearly, she cannot be human.

Posted by: Old Soldier at July 8, 2006 12:00 PM

CY, check out her website at www.debfrisch.com.

She has, in fact, resigned.

Posted by: lady redhawk at July 8, 2006 12:00 PM

The comments section at Frisch's site is well worth reading. She is being lambasted by her fellow liberals.

Posted by: lady redhawk at July 8, 2006 12:32 PM

Eric,

there is nothing wrong with having a PhD - your comment does however apply to "social sciences" degrees, and psychology in particular. Most people I´ve met many who have stated they want to get a degree in psyc., or have actually studied it, seem to have no particular interest in psyc. but just wanted a degree. The same with journalism. I don´t know what it is about these degrees, is it because they are easy subjects? These degrees also tend to attract moonbats. You don´t see many moonbats with science degrees, I guess in part because you can´t put a political spin on say maths. Ironically, it would be interesting to make a psychological/sociological study of why certain people are attracted to these fields.

blubi

Posted by: blubi at July 8, 2006 12:32 PM

Anything can be said on the internet.

As for her 'resignation' - - that should be validated/corroborated somehow.

I wouldn't take her word on anything.

Posted by: Daniel at July 8, 2006 12:36 PM

Don't worry people her and Ward Churchill will find a new job very quickly.

Posted by: DoubleU at July 8, 2006 12:40 PM

I suspect she has claimed resignation to stop the emails. I wouldn't take her word for anything at all.

Posted by: Doubtful at July 8, 2006 12:55 PM

Heh. I imagine Deb "resigned" from U of A after finding that not only could she not compare intellectually to Goldstein, but his son as well.

Posted by: Allan at July 8, 2006 12:57 PM

Raw Story linked to this post, so you should probably remove them from the list of people unwilling to condemn these comments.

Posted by: sew at July 8, 2006 01:03 PM

I am what you would probably call a "dyed-in-the-wool liberal," but I simply wanted to state that Ms. Frisch's comments are absolutely abhorrent. While I disagree with your statement that conservative bloggers consistently condemn their own when they resort to sleazy tactics--such as posting the personal information of persons with whom they disagree (as I've seen little evidence of this regarding, most recently, reactions to the New York Times "controversies")--it should be understood by all that such actions are wholly unacceptable no matter what one's political beliefs may be.

Nor would I condemn an entire branch of academic study as a refuge for "moonbats;" rather I think perhaps that Ms. Frisch's evident lack of humanity may be a more sufficient explanation for her behavior. Either way, I do agree that those are totally inexcusable and repugnant statements. Anyhow, I just wanted to add this as an attempt to demonstrate that such people do not speak for all of us.

Posted by: JE at July 8, 2006 01:05 PM

It is worth noting that Frisch was "adjunct" (that is, without tenure, and usually not on tenture track) faculty, which means she could be tossed out with no notice or long drawn out procedure. I am guessing that her resignation was a race to beat the dismissal notice, and keep her employment record a bit cleaner. Trouble is, the web keeps track of such rash obscenities, and if she applies elsewhere, it's possible that this imbroglio will haunt any future employment candidacy. Which would be a just outcome I think.

Gregory Koster

Posted by: Gregory Koster at July 8, 2006 01:08 PM

As a mother who has a toddler & a blog about toddlers, this is just a horrible thing that she has done, I can't imagine. Just goes to show you can never be too careful, eh?

Posted by: Lisa at July 8, 2006 01:13 PM

As a progressive/liberal and a resident of the State of Arizona.......I would like to condemn the idiot Dr. Deb Frish as strongly as possible. She makes me sick. She needs professional help if this is the way she thinks and feels.

SHE DOES NOT REPRESENT ME OR OTHERS LIKE ME. WE CONDEMN HER FOR WHAT SHE HAS SAID. WE CONDEMN HER FOR EVEN BEING ON OUR SIDE - IF SHE REALLY IS. WE DON'T WANT HER. I AM DISGUSTED AND DISGRACED BY HER.

Clear enough? She is NOT us and we are NOT her.

Posted by: clueless at July 8, 2006 01:18 PM

Isn't it always the libs that are crying out (no pun intended) for 'Hate Speech' laws . . .

How ironic, er, uh, hypocritical. Duh.

Posted by: Son of the South © at July 8, 2006 01:20 PM

"When conservative bloggers go over the line and publish personal information, they are condemned by their own."

Will one of you morally superior righties point me to all the conservatives who are condemning Ann Coulter for her hate-filled, threatening remarks?

"Searching for signs of intelligent life among the ruins of the Democracy"

Posted by: cadaverdog at July 8, 2006 01:21 PM

The point of all of this I suppose is that Liberalism somehow invariably leads to such behavior, and that Liberals don't look after their own, like Conservatives do. When all is tallied by History, Conservatives in this era, serving for apologists for the Bush Administration and all of it's crimes, might have more to answer for than the lack of comment about a so-called liberal nobody, that most Liberals have never heard of, much less what she has said. For the record, her comments are disgusting, insane, and indefensible.

Posted by: Brian at July 8, 2006 01:23 PM

As soon as you guys are out there blogging headlines about every disgusting thing said on every conservative site, I'm sure us libs will get right on it.

Posted by: s at July 8, 2006 01:35 PM

Dear Deb has closed the comments on her "white flag" post, on her blog. Despite her lame apology and attempt to paint herself as the victim, she is now trying to muddy her tracks by saying that when Jeff's site comes back up, there will be no way to determine what comments of hers he altered. How pathetic.

Regarding some of the liberal comments above, I'd like to make a few observations...

a) Ann Coulter, never sexually or physically threatened a two year old child. Get a clue and notice the difference! By the way, I'm no Coulter fan either.

b) Yes, there are sickos on both sides of the political spectrum, however they are far more prevalent on the left and the left seems, by its silence to give tacit approval to these weirdos. If you doubt that, just go read the drivl on th DU site, or Kos, or Atrios, the list goes on. Or just look at the comments section of her post on her blog and read 'Liberal Avenger's' comments. On the left, the lunatics seem to have indeed taken over the asylum.

Posted by: Tim P at July 8, 2006 01:50 PM

For whatever it's worth, since you mentioned me in your post as being "silent" about this great controversy, I never heard anything about it until I just read your post, nor have I ever heard of this Professor. And I can't read any of the context because Jeff's blog appears to be down.

Nonetheless, the comments you excerpted seem repugnant and I can't imagine any context which would make them something other than that.

I think it's off a different (and less dangerous) nature than posting someone's home address on the Internet after accusing them of treason and urging that they be confronted because (a) that can quite easily result in physical attacks on that person, as it's designed to do and (b) it was perpetrated by mainstream right-wing pundits and bloggers (David Horowitz & StopTheACLU, among others) rather than some anonymous professor nobody has ever heard of, so I'm not sure I would have blogged about it even if I did know about it.

Nonetheless, while less dangerous, the remarks made to Jeff which you are describing seem just as reprehensible as any of the conduct I wrote about, and I can't imagine any blogger, liberal or otherwise, contesting that. I certainly don't.

Posted by: Glenn Greenwald at July 8, 2006 01:56 PM

I understand that, apparently because of human nature, people like gossip and tattling. I really wish, though, that we all could refrain from 'publishing' this stuff on the internet, as it gives everyone and our venue, blogs, bad names.

Posted by: EllenG at July 8, 2006 01:59 PM

And I see now from her blog that she apologized for what she did, ackonwledged it was way over the line, and quit her job over it -- far more than any of the individuals did involved in falsely accusing the NYT of endangering Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld's lives by printing that Travel article and then publishing the home address of the photographer involved.

It also seems that you overstated this woman's importance. She is not a "Psychology professor." According to her blog, she is merely a temporary worker from Oregon, more likely a staff instructor or something of that sort.

There are random anonymous commenters who make repugnant comments all the time on blog. LGF linked to a post I wrote yesterday and I had people coming to my blog telling me to do the world a favor and end my life with an honor suicide just as my Muslim terrorist allies would do.

There is a big difference between comments of this sort coming from people who have influence and are known opinion leaders (like David Horowitz, Michelle Malkin, StopTheACLU, etc.) and some random individual who starts commenting on a blog. Trying to build up her importance in order to make her somehow representative of the "Left" is rather misleading.

Posted by: Glenn Greenwald at July 8, 2006 02:03 PM

Just because this person is a so-called "liberal" does that mean that the liberal blogosphere has to answer for her personal problems? Is anyone defending her? I doubt if any of them have heard of her before or knows her real views on any issue. There is definately no coordinated efforts of intimidation of the sort Greenwald noted about the right blogosphere.

If someone can povide a single example of a significant lefty blogger linking favorably to ANY post by this person, I will recant that statement.
BUT YOU CAN'T!

This teacher is an idiot with no following or cheering fans (unlike Coulter) who demonstrated terrible judgement. The end.

Posted by: Ramar at July 8, 2006 02:10 PM

The difference between the crazies on the left and the crazies on the right is that the right-side psychopaths currently occupy the White House and comprise about half the Republicans in Congress. In other words, if you're on the right, the psychopaths are your chosen representatives; if you're on the left, they're just psychopaths who happen to agree with a few common sense political propositions when they aren't overwhelmed by their madness.

Consider the recent news that Bush's people have been letting Aryan Nations people into the military and sending the to Iraq. Now, does anyone believe these fine young persons of the right are refraining from wanton killing of brown-skinned babies there? It's who Bush has chosen as appropriate representation of America abroad - or if not Bush, at least Rumsfeld has winked at it.

Posted by: Jack Flash at July 8, 2006 02:14 PM

You tell 'em Glenn. These sicko self-righteous righties like to make a stink (in fact stink is what they do best) but never take responsibility. Moral bankruptcy is the name of the game on the right side of the isle.

Posted by: Uncle Sam at July 8, 2006 02:15 PM

People engage in often inappropriate inflamatory talk on the internet with the semblence of anonimity. I'd never heard of this woman before. Her blog is a journal of musings about personal stuff and appears largely devoid of overt political speach. These statements, while offensive, merely indicate her feelings to mr. wisdom (or is it protein?) and were clearly not actual threats to do harm herself, or incitements for others to do harm to him or his kids.

We should compare the response of the liberal, progressive community to the inflamatory remarks of an unknown commenter, to the lack of interest (and increased visibility and bookings) of someone like ann coulter who is well known, who does speak at republican events, and who has said that she thinks a member of congress should be murdered for challenging the administration.

When i no longer see ms. Coulter spouting her hateful inflamatory retoric on channel after channel, then i'll get worked up about this lone liberal moron. Its the rarity that makes her novel. Blisteringly vicious conservatives are dime a dozen.

And what's the deal with that name "protein wisdom"? you'd have to be an idiot to not get that there might be a slew of homosexual jokes.

Posted by: liberal gunowner at July 8, 2006 02:18 PM

Yeah, about those Kossacks who aimed comments at Robert's son, wasn't it two of them? OUt of a community of over 200,000 readers, two don't even make up a tenth a percent of them. So give me a fucking break with this bullshit about how the left supports attacks on children.

Posted by: tas at July 8, 2006 02:28 PM

Good point. It would be better if the left policed teh left nd the right policed the right, but that would be admitting fallibility

The attack the post not the poster rule would help

Posted by: don surber at July 8, 2006 02:29 PM

I'm with Greenwald on this one. I also just read about this story and these absolutely disgusting comments by that lefty blogger just an hour ago.

I'll ask you one thing: did you and your fellow right-wing bloggers display any similar angst towards one of your fellow right-wing bloggers friom The Political Insight who wrote this last week during the hysteria over the NYT bank records story?

"Let's start with the following New York Times reporters and editors: Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger Jr. , Bill Keller, Eric Lichtblau, and James Risen.

Do you have an idea where they live? Go hunt them down and do America a favor. Get their photo, street address, where their kids go to school, anything you can dig up, and send it to the link above. This is your chance to be famous - grab for the golden ring."

"hunt them down" Find out where their kids go to school...

Let's face it. Most of you probably don't even know who that blogger is, just as many of us on the left never heard of this "Deb" person until today. Is it fair to claim that she is representative of the left-wing blogosphere or that somehow we on the left are supposedly ignoring her remarks? Ought we say the same about you and this right-wing blogger from Political Insight (whose blog has now thankfully disappeared)?

Neither of these people is worth defending and their words must be condemned. But let's not make the error of condemning those on the same side of the political fence right along with them. That is unfair.

Posted by: catnip at July 8, 2006 02:30 PM

Glenn,

Nice use of political tactics. The old switcharoo. Say in one line it was wrong, but spend 80% of your post on blaming someone else.

Won't someone PLEASE think of the children?

I use my real name. Having had death threats in multiple states and by multiple interest groups (though never conservative ones - and thank god those muslims that threatened me in Albany are in jail now), I'm more sanguine about something stupid like the posting of my home address.

But, then, I'm kind of more knowledgeable apparently about how easy it is to get someone's personal information. Posting it or not, is really not a big deal to me.

I still walk around at night. Even on the most liberal campuses which erupted regularly with vandalism (ironically from peace groups), thefts (again by liberal "conscience groups",), invasions of meetings by Hamas members, and even actual bonfires in front of passive state police of my conservative student newspapers.

Next time, Glenn, just condemn ad-hominem attacks on the children of any blogger. That's all. Nothing more. No need to score points.

Best of all, it's ok if people know where you are. You are far more likely to suffer violence by a family member or friend in this country. Watch your next-door neighbor, not the internet if you want to be paranoid.

Posted by: Jeff Barea at July 8, 2006 02:30 PM

Ms. Frisch is ill. She's trolled left sites as well as right sites and been banned from both. Her behavior in no way indicative of the left or the right or lesbians or universities--or anything else, for that matter. It's indicative of her illness. This whole thing is being blown way out of proportion by some people. She was vile and harrassing and is going to be held responsible for it. She hurt herself more than she hurt anyone else.

You can read the entire thing, I believe, by retrieving it from the google cache. She dropped by PW a few days ago, begging to be banned. Jeff didn't ban her and things escalated. Her last posts started out okay, but became more wild and incoherent, as if she were having some kind of compulsive emotional episode. A few people tried, without success, to get her to stop before she wrote something rash.

As for the publishing of someone's name and address; I understand it is a matter of some confusion and debate. (I could make some crack about the New York Times, but this is neither the time nor the place.)

Ann Coulter can take care of herself.

Posted by: ahem at July 8, 2006 02:45 PM

Glenn Greenwald: "There is a big difference between comments of this sort coming from people who have influence and are known opinion leaders (like David Horowitz, Michelle Malkin, StopTheACLU, etc.) and some random individual who starts commenting on a blog. Trying to build up her importance in order to make her somehow representative of the "Left" is rather misleading."

Describing Frisch as a non-trivial member of the 'Left' is completely accurate and not at all misleading. On the contrary, your attempt to distance yourself from her by distancing her from the "Left" is the definition of misleading. Here is an an article Frisch wrote in Counterpunch supporting Ward Churchill's "little Eichmann's" statement.

http://www.counterpunch.org/frisch02122005.html

Here is how Counterpunch describes Frisch:

"Deborah Frisch, Ph. D., is a psychologist and Former director, of Decision, Risk and Management Sciences Program at the National Science Foundation. She can be reached through her blog: South(West) Paw."

Frisch is well withing the bounds of the mainstream 'Left' and far from being just "some random individual" as you tried to portray her. Just because you never heard of her does not mean she is not a core member of the left and that she does not have some degree of influence. She sure as hell has more influence than me. Frisch is a perfect example of the core 'intellectual' leftist academic.

I realize the perceived necessity to superficially at least distance oneself from a Dr. Frisch, but in doing so at least be intellectually honest about who she is.

Posted by: F15C at July 8, 2006 02:52 PM

Trackbacks no work

http://baldilocks.typepad.com/baldilocks/2006/07/often_i_think_d.html

Posted by: Juliette at July 8, 2006 02:57 PM

Dr. Frisch is not and has not been a 'professor' at the University of Arizona.

She is on the adjunct faculty with the rank of instructor, according to their web site.

I'm an academic person myself but I'm not a 'professor' either -- I'm an 'associate professor' (one rank down). While it may seem to be a minor point, these ranks do mean something in the academic world in terms of one's value to the institution and respect with which one is held in the academic community. The order is generally professor > associate professor > assistant professor > instructor > lecturer; the latter generally is not a position on any tenure track.

An adjunct faculty person is not on a regular faculty track (tenure or non-tenure). Adjunct faculty are hired as essentially 'temporary' workers who fill needs that aren't being met by the regualar faculty. For example, Dr. Frisch was teaching a statistics class in the Dept. of Psychology at the U. of A. Adjunct faculty generally are hired and dismissed at will and don't ordinarily go through the same vetting process as regular track faculty.

Adjuncts are used extensively at some institutions, and there's a less than happy history as to how adjuncts are routinely mis-treated.

Posted by: Steve White at July 8, 2006 03:00 PM

As to Mr. Greenwald's comments about the apology, Dr. Frisch has updated her website. Apparently her resignation is something she was considering doing anyway due to a desire to live elsewhere.

I confess that I read Dr. Frisch's apology as less than complete and sincere. Others may see it differently. I'd prefer that she 'allocute' as to what she did wrong, and state that she understands now why it's wrong.

Right now she's asking to be 'left alone'. I would gently suggest to her that when you kick up a shitstorm, you shouldn't be surprised as to the response. She's been around the blog world for a while so she's no rookie, and (apparently) no shrinking violet.

Posted by: Steve White at July 8, 2006 03:03 PM

The difference between the crazies on the left and the crazies on the right is that the right-side psychopaths currently occupy the White House and comprise about half the Republicans in Congress. In other words, if you're on the right, the psychopaths are your chosen representatives; if you're on the left, they're just psychopaths who happen to agree with a few common sense political propositions when they aren't overwhelmed by their madness.

Consider the recent news that Bush's people have been letting Aryan Nations people into the military and sending the to Iraq. Now, does anyone believe these fine young persons of the right are refraining from wanton killing of brown-skinned babies there? It's who Bush has chosen as appropriate representation of America abroad - or if not Bush, at least Rumsfeld has winked at it.

Where do you people come up with this shit?

How can you expect to be taken seriously?

Posted by: DWB at July 8, 2006 03:04 PM

So she wrote a comment defending Ward Churchhill, and that is proof? Actually that is proof of how trivial and non-representaive of of the left she is. Most in the left (saving a pissible fringe), support or like Ward Churchill or his repugnant 'little Eichman' comments.

Again, Glenn's point that this is some big name is true. I certainly never heard of her and I've been a big time progressive blog reader for 3 years.

Posted by: Oyka at July 8, 2006 03:06 PM

These are really brilliant comments. Deb Fisch - who, I guarantee you, 99.5% of the people talking about her, at least, never even heard of her before yesterday - is now one of the leaders of the "Left"- a truly towering figure whom liberals have been following for years and therefore are represented by her and have an obligation to condemn her when she does bad things.

It's just like that great political leader Ward Churchill - everyone knows that Churchill is a real mainstream leader of liberals and liberals agree with him that the Americans who were killed in the 9/11 attacks deserve it. That's a real mainstream liberal view - that the 9/11 victims deserved it. Wasn't there a statement in the Democratic Party platform heaping blame for the 9/11 attacks on the WTC victims? I believe there was. I'm surprised that Ward Churchill isn't mentioned as one of the leading contenders for the Democratic nomination in 2008. Everyone knows most liberals support him.

In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that when it comes to important political leaders among Democrats, there is nobody who exercises greater influence among liberal political leaders than Ward Churchill and Deb Fisch. I can't believe how liberals are trying to pretend that the Great and Powerful Deb Fisch is actually some nobody whom they never heard of. After all, it's so obvious to any rational person that she is at the very epicenter of the Democratic Party structure and has been an important figure for liberals for years now.

Do the people who say things like this really expect to be taken seriously? Some commenter at my blog yesterday told me to do the world a favor and commit an honor suicide. Why hasn't the right-wing blogosphere risen up to condemn him?

Posted by: Glenn Greenwald at July 8, 2006 03:11 PM

Considering the campaign the lefties have been running against PW for the last few months, is anyone surprised that one of their less balanced individuals pulled this?

Posted by: Robert Crawford at July 8, 2006 03:15 PM

Some commenter at my blog yesterday told me to do the world a favor and commit an honor suicide. Why hasn't the right-wing blogosphere risen up to condemn him?

He's an idiot, and I condemn him.

Happy?

Posted by: Robert Crawford at July 8, 2006 03:16 PM

I'll echo Doubtful's above comment: why take *her* word for anything? The U of AZ ought to confirm whether she's actually resigned or if this announcement is just another piece from her disordered mind.

Posted by: Leonard at July 8, 2006 03:16 PM

Michelle Malkin, StopACLU, David Horowitz and Front Page Magazine...those ARE big names in the right blogsophere and they published the names of the photographer with comments that could be construed to mean "go after them".

Most if any have yet to apologize for this.

Posted by: Oyka at July 8, 2006 03:17 PM

Glenn,

You're doing it again.

Will you PLEASE think of the children?

Just condemn her comments.

Come on, I know you can do it.

That's all. Just condemn them. Nothing more. No postulating. No defensiveness.

Just one little itty bitty post. One line even.

Once? Without mentioning anyone else? Or anything else?

Posted by: Jeff Barea at July 8, 2006 03:20 PM

The bottom line is that you don't, under any circumstances, threaten a child, either implied or directly. Deb Frisch did. And if Greenwald, et al do not see the frightening aspects of Frisch's anti-semitic remarks, that is even scarier.

"[...] as I said elsewhere, if I woke up tomorrow and learned that someone else had shot you and your “tyke” it wouldn’t slow me down one iota. You aren’t “human” to me."

Deb Fritsch isn't mentally ill, she is a raging anti-semite and in her own twisted logic probably doesn't understand what the uproar is about since she doesn't see Jeff or his "progeny," as she calls his two year old, as human. If you don't think she is dangerous, I would suggest reading about 1930s Germany.

Posted by: Sara (Squiggler) at July 8, 2006 03:31 PM

Oyka, it is proof that she is not "some random individual". And with all due respect, just because you are a self-described "big time progressive blog reader" for a whole three years does not make you an expert on who is, or is not, a leftist.

By her words and actions you will know her. She has the the public record to be considered a died-in-the-wool leftist, and the accomplishments to be considered more influencial than some random individual. She clearly has bona fides that elevate her above the "some random person" zone. She is no Al Gore, but neither is she "some random person".

If you can show proof that she is just "some random person" then do so. Your personal opinion is inadequate as we all can understand that it is formed at least in part by not wanting to be perceived as being allied with Dr. Frisch. I can understand that.

But trying to distance yourself from her by denying that she is not a lefist of greater than average visibility and influence is utterly ludicrous.

Posted by: F15C at July 8, 2006 03:32 PM

Look at glenns comments and it is clear he condems it. What we have here is someone who sees how wrong their argument that Deb Fisch was representative or big among the left, so you abandon that trac and make it about condemning her comments.

Just admit: She is not representative or big

Also admit: Horowitz, StopACLU, Front Page, Michelle Malkin ARE big names, they did endanger the lives of photographers, and they HAVENT apologized.

Posted by: Oyka at July 8, 2006 03:32 PM

But...who the hell is she?

You tell me: Who the Hell is Horowitz, who the hell is Michelle Malkin, who the Hell is StopACLU, and what is Front Page Magazine.

We can debate how big of a figure this Deb person is in the left(I argue she's nobody with views out of the mainstream of the left by evidence actually of her support for Ward Churchill), but there is NO argument as to how big those aforementioned figures are in the right blogosphere. DO you deny they are big figure in it?

DO you deny it and do you deny that what they they did to the Times photographer was bad, dangerous, possibly endangering her life?

Do you deny that?

Posted by: Oyka at July 8, 2006 03:38 PM

Okya, apologize for what??? The Frish matter is not dependent on anythiny else - it is either wrong or right. Choose one and argue for it. But quit trying to equivocate by inserting this other situation (which I admit I'm not familiar with, but does not seem to be a case of threatening children).

When it comes to threatening children even the left should draw the line without qualification or requiring quid pro quo. If you can't unequivocably denounce Ms. Frisch's statements it will be rightfully perceived as support for her statements.

Posted by: F15C at July 8, 2006 03:44 PM

Greenwald makes it very clear that he condemns what Deb did, and it should be quite obvious that so do I condemn her words. She's a nobody and not representative of the left.

Now, how about those aforementioned Big time right-wing figures. Sure, they didn't threaten a child (repugnant), but they published the home address of a Times photographer knowing how crazy some people could be, and some even left little comments akin to "find them and get them."

That, sir, is dangerous and is much more than a simple threat, it is potentially puting the lives of the photographer in jeopardy in ACTUALITY.

Both acts where repugnant but I find ACTUALLY endangering someones life more repugnant.

Posted by: Oyka at July 8, 2006 03:50 PM

She wrote one article for Counterpunch and suddenly she's a leader of lefties? Wow. No one sent me that memo.

If you want to condemn what she wrote, fine, (and I have as well, in case any of you missed it). Can some of you please stop acting like she's one of our leaders? She's not and not one of you has supplied any facts to back up that claim. I'd suggest you drop that line of so-called reasoning and stick with focusing on her behaviour, which was definitely unacceptable. We all agree on that. Why try to make this more than it is? Just to further divide the right and left? Aren't there enough divisions already? Do we need to fabricate new ones?

Posted by: catnip at July 8, 2006 03:55 PM

Glenn Greenwald remarks sarcastically that Frisch is "one of the leaders of the 'Left,'" "a truly towering figure whom liberals have been following for years," and that "she is at the very epicenter of the Democratic Party structure and has been an important figure for liberals for years now." Greenwald then queries, "Do the people who say things like this really expect to be taken seriously?"

Who, aside from Greenwald, is saying things like this? Of course, no one is saying these things, and Greenwald's strawman argument is simply clumsy. Indeed, how is it that Greenwald expects to be taken seriously?

Posted by: bnm at July 8, 2006 03:55 PM

Frisch is well withing the bounds of the mainstream 'Left'

She is not.

You continue.

...and far from being just "some random individual" as you tried to portray her. Just because you never heard of her does not mean she is not a core member of the left and that she does not have some degree of influence. She sure as hell has more influence than me. Frisch is a perfect example of the core 'intellectual' leftist academic.

Well I've never heard of her before, and as a libertarian with a foot in both camps depending on the issue, I read both right-wing and left-wing blogs. Greenwald's I read virtually daily, and I do not recall him ever citing to anyone at counterpunch, which is the very embodiment of far, far left. So far, in fact, that really far right also is published there; the crazies meet having come full circle to finally join.

Prior to this occasion of her vile comments about Jeff's son, I had never known any blogger, left or right, to link to Frisch or discuss her either pro or con. Until she made her grotesque comments, she was a nobody among the political blogosphere.

Comments sections are often teeming with nastiness. At Jeff's site, a wingnut told me to "f*ck off and die" because I disagreed with Bush's theories of Executive power. At Greenwald's , I was advised by a left-winger that I was subhuman and not entitled to the respect accorded to human beings, that I lacked a soul, and was ill with evil. Neither Jeff nor Greenwald are responsible for what their commenters post, unless they post provocations to such filth -- which I've not seen either do, with the exception of what Jeff posted about Tristero. (I would not say the same about the site owner of LGF.)

In any event, nastiness in comments sections is an entirely different matter from powerful bloggers and high-profile political pundits trafficking in charges of treason, accusations of promoting death, and eliminationist rhetoric -- and publishing home and work contact information with the clear intent to intimidate, harass and terrorize the politically-disfavored recipient. Comments sections that are essentially unmoderated will often brush with Usenet brutality and that is just a fact of online life; but "respectable" bloggers, authors and pundits ought to be held to higher standards.

Posted by: Mona at July 8, 2006 03:57 PM

P.S.: I agree that Greenwald clearly condemns her. As Jeff Barea makes clear, however, Greenwald apparently cannot leave it at that. He seems compelled to overstate the significance attributed to Frisch.

Posted by: bnm at July 8, 2006 04:00 PM

Yes, this woman's comments were clearly reprehensible. Has anyone found a source - other than the early comments from Frisch - saying otherwise? Has anyone put in a call to Ward Churchill to get his opinion on tyke-killing?

OK. I'm denouncing her statements . . . they are an embarassment to all decent human beings of all political leanings.

I'm not hedging too much here am I? She is clearly a moron. A moron who managed to earn a Ph.D. at some point, which makes her a superior moron to me.

And I comdemn her statements without reservation. Except of course the unlikely scenario that she has really been taken out of context and she started her comments with: "I like you Jeff but if I didn't I might say something like . . ." But that's so unlikely that just forget I even brought it up and I will just go on record saying that I'm liberal and I think she is vile.

BB

Posted by: ben brung at July 8, 2006 04:03 PM

Okya. I can not address the merits of the times photographer case. That case can and evidently is being debated elsewhere. Here, the issue is Deborah Frisch, her comments to Jeff G. and whether she is a leftist of greater stature than "some random person".

I posted a proof-point that she is indeed not simply "some random person", and you respond demanding a quid pro quo on the other, unrelated matter. Whatever Horowitz/Malkin did or did not do is not the issue here.

Your continued attempt to make it relevant still amounts to a poor, grasping, strawman. The question is why? Why do you fear addressing the issue that Ms. Frisch is actually a non-random representative of the left with some visibility and influence beyond "some random person"? No one is saying that she is the equivalent of Horowitz/Malkin, but that is not the issue.

I don't for a second believe all leftists are perverted wannabe child killers, that is not my point. But your over-defensive attitude in failing to acknowledge that one of the non-random members of the left did something abhorent is disturbing.

She teaches at the U. of Arizona; she is a psychologist; she has been published clearly espousing an opinion shared by other leftist academics. Yet you insist that she is just "some random person" and lamely attempt to deflect discussion on her by pulling this red herring issue about some photographer's address being published into the discussion.

You are better than that. Have the guts to address the Frisch issue head on and in all its ramifications. That can be respected.

Posted by: F15C at July 8, 2006 04:06 PM

But...who the hell is she?

Nobody now...self-flattened roadkill on the information superhighway ;->

Next time anyone sees her will be on a street corner with a "homeless, will work for food sign"

Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 8, 2006 04:07 PM

I guess we shouldn't be surprised anymore that deranged nutters like this woman are teaching at our public universities. Clicking around her web site, I saw under her 9/11 Conspiracies category that she spends time in classes discussing unhinged conspiracy theories and her students bring her videos about how the Pentagon was supposedly hit by a missile and not a hijacked plane. Last week, Ann Althouse had an item on her blog about a professor at the University of Wisconsin who apparently believes in this sort of rubbish as well.

We clearly need to start going over these universities with a fine-toothed comb. Who is making the hiring decisions that allow off-the-charts sick lunatics like Ward Churchill and Frisch to teach students? Clearly there are entire departments at our universities that have been taken over by nutters. Someone in this thread said that adjunct professors don't get vetting very carefully. Would you even have to spend much time vetting Frisch to find out how crazy she is? All you'd have to do is enter her name in Google and spend a fcew minutes looking around.

Whatever the case, I trust she will never, ever be hired by a university again, and if she ever is, we should do something about it.

Posted by: LoafingOaf at July 8, 2006 04:12 PM

And duh, I assume that anyone posting here denounces the content and essence of Frisch's comments to Jeff G. That is simply human. If anyone wishes to support her comments, then we have a completely different discussion...

However, this discussion is about Frisch, her statements, and her status within the whole of American academic leftists. I see her as something greater than "some random person", you and Glenn disagree.

Fine. But make a reasoned argument instead of attempting to deflect the discussion to include this other photographer/Horowitz/Malkin issue.

Posted by: F15C at July 8, 2006 04:13 PM

Reading thourhg the comments here just amazes me. For those of you who don't bother to read anything and just listen to Limbaugh and Hannity, YES, there ARE large numbers of white supremecists being recruited. Seems that the regular people in the country don't want to join up to die for W's lies.

As to the left supporting or liking Churchill or this woman, where in the flying hell do you people come up with this? No, we dont support him or like him, and the VAST, VAST majority of us do NOT like what he said at all. While we do support his right to say what he did, we find it to be just as calloused and insensitive as, oh, say, Ann Coulter talking about the 9/11 widows. But where are the righties complaining about HER insensitivities? Where are you people when it comes to the "hunt them and their children down" about the NYT publishing things that W and Cheney were out bragging about openly not 2 weeks after 9/11? National secrets, indeed!

What is it with you people that you will NOT see what is put in front of your eyes? Why is it that you hate the constitution so much that you think that only people who agree with you should have freedom of speech? How is it that you people can bad mouth everyone who you disagree with but sit and whine about how unfair someone else is when they do the smae thing to you? In my time blogging, I've been called a nazi, a commie, a loser, a moron, gay, told to go and shoot myself, told I should be sent to gitmo with no parole, and a whole host of other just really wonderful, enlightened things. It's almost a daily occurance, anymore. And it's not the lefties that are doing it, it's YOU people.

Well, go ahead and think that you are just the most loving, wonderful people in the world. I myself have never run across a ruder, more hate filled bunch of babies who can't accept honest debate without resorting to threats and name calling. You live in a constant state of fear, both from foreign and domestic sources, and you can't stand those who don't fear everything and everybody as well.

And just for the record, this woman is no leader of ANYONE, let alone the left. She is clearly an unsettled person who doesn't know any boundaries of taste or propriety. I've never heard of her before, and I doubt that she will ever be heard from much again. She is a nobody, and for you people to insist that she is some kind of left wing luminary is not only disingenuous but CHEAP. Your side's NATIONAL writers say things like this almost every day, but where is YOUR outrage?

You people don't understand a single thing about the very basics of this country, and you've been kidnapped by those who want to rule. You've bought into their whole "you're not a good American, we are the ONLY real Americans" line of bull, and parrot it every chance you get. And it's nothing but a divide and conquer policy that is destroying this country. I'm embarassed now to say that I am from the same country as you are. Go on, keep showing me how much you hate Americans and tell me how much you love America. Which do you think I will believe?

Posted by: Will at July 8, 2006 04:14 PM

I also think Frisch should be checked into a mental hostpial, as she does seem like a threat to both herself and others. Strange how a mentally ill person was teaching psychology at a university. Whatever she does, my advice to her is to write a real apology and then go away. Her phoney apologies combined with further attacks are just making it worse for herself. We're witnessing a woman destroying her life right before our eyes. It would be sad if she didn't deserve it.

Posted by: LoafingOaf at July 8, 2006 04:18 PM

What a bunch of crap. Not the alleged threatening, the idea that Conservatives call their own to account. You said, "When conservative bloggers go over the line and publish personal information, they are condemned by their own. When a liberal blogger threaten child sex abuse and murder, what response do we get from prominent liberal blogs?" You are so full of crap it makes me laugh. You see, your basic premise may be correct. The fundamental problem is that All you Neo-Con idiot keep moving the line so no one EVER can cross it. Wake up you pukes and vote a democratic ticket in November. Oh, I forgot, you all think everything in this county is A Okay. Get a life, and a mind.

Posted by: A. Patriot at July 8, 2006 04:21 PM

I'm a left-wing blogger. A very small blogger in the big fish tank. I just caught wind of this and I will tell you, here in the "enemy" camp and on my blog, this is disgusting.

There was a small dust-up last week over the posting of a NYT photographer's personal information, and I went to bat against that.

But this is so far beyond that. So far beyond any standard of decency. This woman should go to jail, and if these facts are correct, any blogger that defends her has lost a reader and an ally.

Even in the most spirited and vicious debate, a civilized human being does not threaten children. Period.

Posted by: Robert at July 8, 2006 04:22 PM

Oyka,

Yes I do deny it. When AT&T stops publishing people's home addresses on the internet (anywho.com), then I'll think differently. When Network Solutions stops publishing people's home addresses on the internet, then too. When, oh, I could name hundreds of ways to get your home address, but you should get my point. Not one of those ways include sexual molestion and murder of a little boy.

And, no, Glenn did not condemn sexual molestation and murder suggestions against little boys.

I don't want to take up too much of the comment space, so I wrote my dissection of Glenn's first comment here http://bareablog.com/article.php?story=20060708153557331

The word SEEM can be a bitch sometimes.

Posted by: Jeff Barea at July 8, 2006 04:23 PM

Ann Coulter, never sexually or physically threatened a two year old child.

That may be the only classification of person she hasn't threatened. Give her time.

If Frisch said what is claimed she said, then she's really awful and should be ashamed of herself. But as an actual liberal blogger of some standing with the Left Blogosphere, I'm announcing that I refuse to be collectively lumped together with or held accountable for people I've never heard of.

Further, I've gotten emails and blog comments from righties that were every bit as vile as what you attribute to Frisch. It's a damn shame that there are people who lack judgment and impulse control and write nasty things like that. But such people are, IMO, distributed evenly across the ideological spectrum.

I'm sure if I combed through the blogosphere I could find plenty of marginal blogs written by white supremacists and neo-nazis and other elements of the right-wing fringe, and I could make a big bleeping deal about how awful everyone on the Right is because they don't condemn this junk. But if extremist blogs aren't on your blogrolls I figure you probably don't read those blogs either, and I assume you don't endorse what they say.

I would like the same courtesy extended to me, thank you very much. If you can find any liberal blogs who had Frisch on their blogrolls, by all means, snark away. Otherwise, please assume we don't know who the hell she is. Thank you.

Posted by: maha at July 8, 2006 04:31 PM

Good Job Maha. I agree completely. Only you're too nice to these idiots. The right has been so blatantly wrong and open about condemning people, can anyone say Michael Schiavo, that it makes anything anyone on the left has said look pale in comparison. I agree that IF she has said what is claimed here, then she is as disgusting as Ann Coulter, or any other numerous right winged mouthpiece that could be named in her place. I'm always amazed when some right-wingnut jumps on their soapbox with some obscure reference top US on the left, but totally ignore their own. BTW, My comment about the basic 'premise" referred only to this"

When conservative bloggers go over the line and publish personal information, they are condemned by their own.

I'd hate to think that you may believe I agree that liberal bloggers let evil shit go overlooked like you all on the right do.

Posted by: A. Patriot at July 8, 2006 04:47 PM

"liberalism is a persistent vegetative state."

You TAR AND FEATHER everyone with this disingenious comment. The fact of the matter is that liberals are the most educated and most intelligent people in the U.S. statistically. What Frisch wrote was reprehensible. That certainly doesn't make us all the same, nor even one percent of us of the ilk of this persons seriously deluded psyche, whoever the hell she is.

Ditto MAHA

Posted by: Sine.Qua.Non at July 8, 2006 04:48 PM

Out of one side of the mouth Maha condemns. Out of the other she goes on a bizarre allegation that neo-nazi's and white supremacists are fringe elements of the "right."

The National SOCIALIST Party believed in total government control. Um, that makes them Cain to Communism's Abel, babe. I miss the days when college actually taught that libertarians were the ultimate fringe of the right. You know, them smoking anti-government types. Instead, you think that libertarians are neo-nazi's now?

Funniest of all is that left and right were coined to describe where the "special interest factions" of the Frenchies sat. On the right side were the big government types a.k.a royalists (what we now call liberals) and the left had the laissez faire capitalists (which we now call conservatives).

Somewhere along the line someone forgot their right hand from their left hand.

Don't even get me started about the four estates (bloggers actually already belong to one of them, not a new estate)

Posted by: Jeff Barea at July 8, 2006 04:51 PM

maha has a point. Lefty bloggers who don't know and haven't supported the lunatic lefty Frisch should not be attacked in all this. At the same time, I'd hope that they'd look at this and see that David Horowitz has a point about what's going on on our university campuses.

As far as neo-Nazis, I noticed Glenn Greenwald and someone named "Hunter" at DailyKos have been trying to lumo center-right and libertarian bloggers in with nei-nazis in the past week. In fact, "Hunter" made a big, ranting, and rather ridicukous post trying to associate libertarian blogger Instapundit with neo-nazis and even terrorists. I'm not sure what a libertarian could possibly have in common with a neo-nazi, since nazism is a form of socialism and libertarians are against all forms of totalitarianisms. My guess is that the DailyKoss/Greenwald community is still stinging from when the highly influencial, century-old liberal news magazine The New Republic referred to them as fascists, and now they want to scream, "No, those people are more like fascists than we are!" Although I obviously am not privy to the stratgies being cooked at the Townhouse. Whatevr the case, Greenwald's little campaign the last week would seem to require him to take this incident rather seriously, as left wing fascists are currently doing a DOS attack on Protein Wisdom.

Posted by: LoafingOaf at July 8, 2006 04:55 PM

Ok, this is getting pathetic. Trying to minimize Dr. Frisch by comparison to "white supremacists and neo-nazis" bloggers should at least use the correct criteria. Find us a right-wing blogger who has a PhD., has worked for two universities (U of Oregon and U of Arizona), and has been a Director at something as prestigious as the National Science Foundation - and has made statements even roughly as vile as Dr. Frisch's.

Frisch is many things, but "some random person" she is not. Deal with it.

Posted by: F15C at July 8, 2006 04:55 PM

YES, there ARE large numbers of white supremecists being recruited

Right. Just like the "militia threat" the SPLC was pimping for years was going to be a big deal. Yawn.

I would be suprised if the military contains a percentage of white supremecists significantly larger than the percentages in the general population.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 8, 2006 05:12 PM

Is there any way we can agree that there are constituencies of good souls on both sides--in addition to the sickos? It doesn't matter what side of the aisle you're on, certain behavior is beyond the pale. We're doing an awful lot of globalizing here! I would energetically condemn any conservative sicko who threatened a progressive blogger's child. It's simply indefensible.

Posted by: ahem at July 8, 2006 05:19 PM

Find us a right-wing blogger who has a PhD., has worked for two universities (U of Oregon and U of Arizona), and has been a Director at something as prestigious as the National Science Foundation

Some here have already attacked universities as bastions of Frisch-like sentiments, which is untrue. Why hasn't anyone denounced the National Science Foundation for her affiliation with them?

What I'm saying here is that you have tarred all lefties as guilty by association (even when most of us actually don't have one) with this Frisch person. Following that logic, you shoud also be going after any and all affiliations she has, n'est-ce pas?

Why are some unable to see how twisted this so-called logic is?

As for right-wing bloggers with credentials, Dr Sanity doesn't exactly provide a prime example of what I'd consider to be rational posts by a person who is a psychiatrist.

I recall a post she made some time ago where she actually diagnosed some public figure with a mental illness - a person she had absolutely no personal knowledge about.

Posted by: catnip at July 8, 2006 05:20 PM

The fact of the matter is that liberals are the most educated and most intelligent people in the U.S. statistically.

What a howler. Here is data that refutes your claim:

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dems . . . Repub
* No H.S. Degree - - - - - - - -59% . . . 39%
* High School Graduate - - - 48% . . . 49%
* Some College - - - - - - - - -45% . . . 51%
* College Graduate - - - - - - 45% . . . 51%
* Post-Graduate Degree - - 52% . . . 44%

You should modify your statement to read that Liberals are a coalition of the least and most educated voters, while the conservatives have the greatest number of HS and college graduates.

PS. When you write "most intelligent people" I thought it was well known that liberals don't believe in IQ, unless that is when they want to tout their own intellectual superiority.

Posted by: TangoMan at July 8, 2006 05:22 PM

"Dr." Frisch's comments support an assertion made to me several years ago by a fellow student. It was his contention that psych professors are typically neurotic or even insane, that's why they enter that particular field. I'm considering going back to college to earn a Phd. If idiots such as Frisch can do it, there's no reason why I can't do it.

As an alum of Arizona State University I would like to take a cheap shot at the U of A for hiring this moron, but that would not be fair. ASU has it's own share of idiots with Phd's.

My guess is that Frisch has never had to function in the real world.

Posted by: Iceman57 at July 8, 2006 05:25 PM

Hey TangoMan,

What about the Jack Block study?

Block's study began in the 1960's when he began tracking over 100 nursery school kids in Berkeley, California as part of a study of personality. Teachers and assistants who had known the kids for months rated the children's personalities. A few decades later, Block followed up with more surveys, and this time, also looked at politics. What did he find? The "whiny kids" tended to grow up conservative, becoming rigid young adults who also adhered closely to traditional gender roles. The confident kids, however, turned out to be politically liberal, transforming into bright, non-conforming adults.

What's that? Are you whinning about something? Like how this study must be biased and flawed unlike your stats which are, of course, true?

Posted by: A. Patriot at July 8, 2006 05:33 PM

yay some nobody conservative blogger who repeatedly threatens 'cock-slapping' peoples faces gets a taste of his own medicine. (and the medicine of fellow conservatives)

Perhaps Dr.Frisch simply had a hard time believe Jeff Goldy even had a kid, I know I do.

Posted by: StevenR at July 8, 2006 05:33 PM

It's quite simple really.

One may say anything one wants about an ADULT who is responsible for his/her opinions and can
defend his/herself.

One should not say anything negative about, let alone wish for the molestation of, a TODDLER.

Not Rocket Science.

Jeff Goldstein, Michelle Malkin, the NYT, Liberal Avenger, etc.... are all ADULTS, and opinionated ones at that. They should expect any shitstorm that comes their way and have the personal responsibility to accept that and deal with it in anyway they see fit.

Bringing a baby into the equation, wishing that said baby would be sexually molested is light years beyond the pale.

Do i think for one second that anyone was in danger, no.

But if she worked for/represented my company/institution I would can her in the blink of an eye. If she was a friend of mine, I seriously doubt i would ever speak to her again.
That was a window on her soul, nasty stuff.

Posted by: geofferygellineck at July 8, 2006 05:39 PM

Iceman,

Just what we need, anoth IDIOT earning a Ph.D.
And tabgo, I suggest you look into your study as you changed the headers. Here's how it reallu looked:

Vote by Education All Gore Bush Buchanan Nader
No H.S. Degree 5% 59% 39% 1% 1%
High School Graduate 21% 48% 49% 1% 1%
Some College 32% 45% 51% 0% 3%
College Graduate 24% 45% 51% 0% 3%
Post-Graduate Degree 18% 52% 44% 0% 3%

I don't see anywhere that it states everyone who voted for Gore was a Democrat, or vice versa. You're just another misleading scumbag Neo-Con

Posted by: A. Patirot at July 8, 2006 05:50 PM

As far as neo-Nazis, I noticed Glenn Greenwald and someone named "Hunter" at DailyKos have been trying to lumo center-right and libertarian bloggers in with nei-nazis in the past week.

I haven't kept up with Hunter, but Glenn's recent posts speak for themselves. He doesn't make charges without providing arguments in defense of his charges. If anyone wants to know what those arguments are, I suggest reading Glenn's posts.

And much of what Glenn's been writing lately is a reponse to the crap the Right does to us all the time, such as conflating opposition to Bush Administration policies -- recently because we're trying to protect the integrity of the law and Constitution -- with support for terrorists. Or picking up some fringe whackjob like Ward Churchill, that none of us ever heard of, and holding him up as some kind of spokesperson for the Left, when in fact all most of us know of the guy is what we read on rightie blogs.

And FYI, fascism is not a form of socialism. The Nazi Party called itself the "National Socialist Party" to make itself sound mainstream in 1930s Germany. But Hitler hated socialism, and fascism originated in large part as a backlash against socialism. Put another way, the Nazis were socialists the same way the People's Republic of China is Republican.

Also, FYI, under current ownership The New Republic is about as liberal as you are.

Someone else said, "Out of the other she goes on a bizarre allegation that neo-nazi's and white supremacists are fringe elements of the 'right.'" Well, yes, that's standard political science, and has been for years. See, for example, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., The Vital Center: The Politics of Freedom [Houghton Mifflin, 1949]. Fascism is of the right because of its attitude toward personal property. Fascists were not socialists, but corporatists, which is pretty much the opposite of socialism. But both Right and Left political ideologies, taken to extremes, become totalitarian. I hope we can all agree that totalitarianism is bad.

Posted by: maha at July 8, 2006 05:57 PM

geofferygellineck,

Right. Like it makes a bit of difference who you say evil shit about. It appears that it's okay by you to make "evil" comments about anyone over the age of, what? 18? So, if someone were to say that you and any relative you have over the age of 18 should be raped or murdered, it would be not okay, but acceptable? Get real. It's not okay to make the kind of hate comments that so easily role off the tongues of the likes of Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin. They're not cute, funny, witty, of pleasant. Now, how about starting to condemn them. Or do you and yours agree? Let's hear you sate it publicly one way or the other. A simple Yes or No.

Posted by: A. Patirot at July 8, 2006 06:00 PM

The coming civil war shall be such fun.

She was wrong. So are you. Life is good. Stock weapons now. We don't have to worry about the terrorists. We have to worry about those standing next to us.

Posted by: Cassandra at July 8, 2006 06:04 PM

A simple Comparison:

Mine:

Vote by Education..........All......Gore......Bush......Buchanan......Nader
No H.S. Degree..............5%.......59%......39%........1%................1%
High School Graduate....21%.....48%......49%........1%................1%
Some College................32%.....45%.......51%.......0%................3%
College Graduate...........24%....45%.......51%.......0%................3%
Post-Graduate Degree...18%....52%.......44%.......0%................3%

TangoMan:

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dems..........Repub
* No H.S. Degree - - - - - - -59%............39%
* High School Graduate - - - 48%............49%
* Some College - - - - - - - -45%...........51%
* College Graduate - - - - - -45% ..........51%
* Post-Graduate Degree - - --52%..........44%

Another Lying Turd exposed!

Posted by: A. Patirot at July 8, 2006 06:08 PM

Cassandra,

Bite me. if you're so keen on a revolution, why not join the Armed Forces and go to Iraq or are you too old and worn out? You support the war, join up! And give me a break on this "revolution" BS. Everyone knows that if you pathetic wing-nuts won't even join the war effort how do you expect us to take you seriously when you say anything about a revolution. Typical wingnut bullshit once again.

Posted by: A. Patriot at July 8, 2006 06:28 PM

Mr. Patirot

Actually, it IS different to impugn a child, If you don't think so, that is fine.

Myself, I try not to engage in name-calling or generalizing. you should try that.

I also try to stay on topic.

I agree that the women you mentioned can go well beyond a line I chose too avoid. Especially Ann.
It also appears to me, from your postings here that hateful comments roll pretty easily off your tongue as well. I am equally unimpressed.

The difference being, I don't hate you, or them,
for it.

You know nothing about me or mine, you seem to assume much. I think you would be surprised, there is probably a considerable amount of overlap in our beliefs. The problem is, there would also be, I am guessing, many things we would not agree on, which would make me a target of your vitriolic invective. A similar invective to Mrs. Coulters, only the opposite end of the political spectrum.

Darn. So, yes, wishing rape on someone is always wrong and offensive.

And what's with the quotes around "evil". I never used that term. Would it be alright now for me to call you a "misleading scumbag"?

Methinks it might, but I won't. Have a pleasant evening.

Posted by: geofferygellineck at July 8, 2006 06:50 PM

Mr. Patirot

The majority of our soldiers support and voted for Bush. So by your definition they are "wingnuts". Excuse me, "pathetic wingnuts"

Posted by: geofferygellineck at July 8, 2006 06:56 PM

geofferygellineck,

You said:

Mr. Patirot
The majority of our soldiers support and voted for Bush. So by your definition they are "wingnuts". Excuse me, "pathetic wingnuts"

You're point is? I mean, can you be any more ignorant? What in the hell does your statement have to do with what I said? Our Soldiers are ALREADY fighting in Iraq you imbecile!

Posted by: A. Patriot at July 8, 2006 07:07 PM

Open comment to all:

Can anyone here, besides the 'liberals" make a cogent and sound argument? My impression is that the majority of you are a dumb as a box of rocks. Anyone care to argue me on the points?

Posted by: A. Patriot at July 8, 2006 07:09 PM

What nonsense trying to distinguish fascism from socialism with words about "attitude towards personal property." Huh? Statism is statism. Such gibberish about left and right is, hello, a "leftist" dichotomy, coming out of the French revolution. The actual dynamic is between liberty and order, with socialists and fascists coming down on the side of order, collective values and planning, over liberty and risk--planners, statists, socialists, fascists, communinists are simply hues of the same color.

And by the way, the electorate that voted for Hitler included a large number of socialists and communists.

Hitler didn't hate "socialism" he hated Bolshevism, i.e. Russian socialism. National socialism was just what it says it is: state direction of the economy to assure national interests. In fact what all of the "socialist" countries, Russia, China, Cuba, etc., have always done.

Man, I'm so sick of explaining things to brain-washed leftists, because every talk ends up with them saying the "facts don't matter, Bush is still ____________" (fill in the blank).

I recognize that there are people of good faith who think that the government needs to run things more, to make life more fair, to do what they think needs to be done for the downtrodden, for the environment, for making the world more peaceful, and I can appreciate such concerns. Conservatives like me simply don't think that such direction of things EVER produces a good result in the long run (although obviously it may do so in the short run, and may even be necessary sometimes for the very short term). We can debate and take votes and move on (not what MoveOn has in mind).

It is people who have vested interests in relativism and atheism, the cultural leftists, who want to impose their views on the rest of the world, who cannot accept simply being tolerated in a society that has gotten where it has gotten, has thrived, due to Judeo-Christian and Greco-Roman-Germanic conceptions of law and liberty, who need to be exposed for their hypocrisy and insanity.

Such radicals are not negligible in number, and represent a much higher percentage in social science departments. I have a Ph.D. and a J.D. and have taught in plenty of schools, of all sorts, where the radicals, even if small in number, exercise a disproportional influence over departmental matters--including hiring.

If the Democrat party has turned over so much of its hard core advocacy to the minority of cultural leftists it's because class conflict and socialist economics are no longer winning horses. On economics there is a broad consensus across the world (almost all the socialist and "mixed" economies have moved towards market principles) that has absolutely repudiated economic collectivism. But there is still room to debate over details of policy and priorities, including things like due process and the conduct of national defense.

Frisch may be a sad, personal case of radical dementia, but her views are widely shared. I hear colleagues espouse very similar ideas ROUTINELY.

Oh brother.

Posted by: D. Ox at July 8, 2006 07:19 PM

A. Patriot, as civility is obviously a foreign concept to you, nope, I have no interest in conversing with you. In my view, "bite me" doesn't constitute "a cogent and sound argument." But good luck, perhaps you'll find someone else to hurl insults at.

Posted by: bnm at July 8, 2006 07:21 PM

geofferygellineck,

impugn vitriolic invective? My, such big words. Please point out my hateful comments. I admit, a bit impassioned, but I doubt they rise to the level of HATE. Synonyms: detestable, horrible, horrid, unpleasant, awful, nasty, disagreeable, despicable, objectionable, insufferable, revolting, loathsome, abhorrent, abominable, execrable, odious, disgusting, distasteful, obnoxious, offensive, vile, heinous, ghastly, beastly, godawful.

Definition: hateful, adjective, arousing, deserving of, or filled with hatred : hateful letters of abuse that had come unsigned.

Hatred: intense dislike or ill will.

On the other hand, Sardonic may be more appropriate Definition: grimly mocking or cynical : Starkey attempted a sardonic smile.

BTW, the quotes were for emphasis, not to quote you. Sorry for the misunderstanding

Posted by: A. Patriot at July 8, 2006 07:22 PM

My impression is that the majority of you are a dumb as a box of rocks. Anyone care to argue me on the points?

Hubris and ignorance are a potent combination. All we need do is look to your performance at data analysis, per above, and how you arrive at conclusions absent argumentation and we see that you're out of your league.

If you want to argue points, then for instance, you need to address why the additional polling data supports your viewpoint and refutes mine. You see how that works.

Posted by: TangoMan at July 8, 2006 07:24 PM

bnm,

Oh well. My loss I guess. Such brain power as yours can, I'm sure, only be released for mere seconds at a time. Typical wing-nut. pick and choose what you'll talk about. No comments about TangoMan's obvious load of crap stats?

Posted by: A. Patriot at July 8, 2006 07:28 PM

TangoMan,

Hubris and ignorance are a potent combination

I agree. Just look at George Bush or anyone in his administration. People with who you have a ideological POV no doubt.

Posted by: A. Patriot at July 8, 2006 07:30 PM

Ha! Thanks for proving my point, A Patriot.

Posted by: bnm at July 8, 2006 07:34 PM

A few points:

1. StevenR, you are a despicable human being, and the only person here, that I can see, who has actually defended the woman's "right" to threaten children. This is beyond the pale.

2. A Patriot, you will not acknowledge the points others make, and then claim no one is arguiing coherently. That would be like the Lakers giving up slam dunks and then claiming it's because their foe couldn't hit from the top of the key. When you revert to platitudes rather than facts to win an argument, you've lost.

3. Far too many liberals on here, while denouncing the woman's threats, always offer qualification to their remarks. Something like - "Yeah, that's bad, but what about this?" Stop trying to be morally superior. Acknowledge that threatening someone's child is waaaaaaaaay over the line and be done with it. That, more than anything else, would help establish that she doesn't represent the mainstream left. Get back on message on another topic, but I am sickened that some folks' partisan leanings cannot even overcome the revulsion most people should feel over this woman's comments. I personally might not like Ward Churchill, but I would take issue with him, not his kids.

Posted by: Russ at July 8, 2006 07:35 PM

I agree, academics are all idiots. I personally don't believe a word that comes out of Condi Rice's mouth. For that matter, even undergrads from so-called "Ivy League" colleges are suspect in my book. Don't expect me to believe a "hoity-toity" Yale grad when he trys to go all "folksy-wolksy" on me during the State of the Union or some "town hall" speech... (Even if the only reason that President got into Yale was because of an "affirmative action for rich kids" legacy admittance policy...)

Posted by: Big Time Patriot at July 8, 2006 07:36 PM

Hitler didn't hate "socialism" he hated Bolshevism, i.e. Russian socialism.

Correct - all one need do is to look at the NAZI party platform. Here are a few highlights:

7. We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens.

10. The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all.

11. Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.

12. In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

13. We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

16. We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.

19. We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.

20. The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. . . . We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.

21. The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.

What do you see? National healtcare and education, collective ownership of the means of production, expropriation of property, a strong central government, and many other common touchstones of Communism, and for that matter, issues that resonate deeply with the Left.

Posted by: TangoMan at July 8, 2006 07:37 PM

TangoMan,

If you want to argue points, then for instance, you need to address why the additional polling data supports your viewpoint and refutes mine. You see how that works.

I already addressed it but you're obviously too stupid to get it. You LIED and quoted out of context. Please point out to me where, in the data you quoted, it claims that those numbers belong to Democrats and Republicans. They belong to GORE VOTERS and BUSH VOTERS, period. Plus, by your calculations, you left out everyone who voted for Buchanan and Nader, whom you should have lumped in accordingly. And I'm sorry, all the five-dollar words you have are not going to overshadow your blatant fabrication nor you stupidity. Ooops! Name calling again. My bad. Please accept my most humble apology.

Posted by: A. Patriot at July 8, 2006 07:38 PM

No comments about TangoMan's obvious load of crap stats?

Case in point - you've arrived at a conclusion without engaging in any reasoning. Explain to us why the statistics are an inaccurate reflection of reality.

Now, who was it that you were saying was as dumb as a bunch of rocks?

Posted by: TangoMan at July 8, 2006 07:39 PM

TangoMan,

Hitler also hated Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, the Developmentally Disabled, etc., etc. Also, the Nazi regime was one of the most corrupt regimes ever...well, next to BushCo of course. : - )

Posted by: A. Patriot at July 8, 2006 07:40 PM

TangoMan,

Get real. Are you really that stupid? Don't you think it's a jump to conclusions to think that everyone who voted for Gore was Democrat? You FALSIFIED the data. A typical ploy of you and your kind. How can you replace the header of Gore with Dem and Bush with Repub, and believe it's an accurate representation? Before you continue with your idiotic line of reasoning, please answer me this. Di you, or did you not replace the Gore and Bush headers with Dem and Repub? If not, please provide me the link to your data that proves you didn't.

Posted by: A. Patriot at July 8, 2006 07:45 PM

TangoMan -- you are equating liberal with Democrat and conservative with Republican. This is incorrect. There are more Democrats than Republicans, and more conservatives than liberals. So there are in fact a good number of conservative Democrats.

Posted by: Cyrus McElderry at July 8, 2006 07:48 PM

Russ,

Sorry dude. I choose my arguments and the points OTHERS have made ARE what I am debating. Please bullet point where I am wrong or shut up. I'm not making a claim, I'm countering claims. Is there a rule that says I have to say someone is right on a certain, miniscule point, if they even are? It's a common ploy of you right wingers' to mix in a bit of truth with your lies. I know it, don't you?

Posted by: A. Patriot at July 8, 2006 07:51 PM

bnm,

Ha! Thanks for proving my point, A Patriot. Posted by: bnm at July 8, 2006 07:34 PM

You're welcome.

Posted by: A. Patriot at July 8, 2006 08:05 PM

A. Patriot - You could at least leave the fan on when you're done speaking....

Posted by: SouthernRoots at July 8, 2006 08:09 PM

Russ,

Far too many liberals on here, while denouncing the woman's threats, always offer qualification to their remarks. Something like - "Yeah, that's bad, but what about this?" Stop trying to be morally superior. Acknowledge that threatening someone's child is waaaaaaaaay over the line and be done with it. That, more than anything else, would help establish that she doesn't represent the mainstream left. Get back on message on another topic, but I am sickened that some folks' partisan leanings cannot even overcome the revulsion most people should feel over this woman's comments. I personally might not like Ward Churchill, but I would take issue with him, not his kids.

The day you stop defending people like Ann Coulter, Sean Hanity, DeLay, Bush, and all the rest, then I may consider something you have to say as valid. BTW, threatening ANYONE, not just someone's child, is WAAAAAAAAAY over the top. Do you agree or disagee? Put it in print, I have. For all you short bus people out there, ANYONE also includes people's children.

Posted by: A. Patriot at July 8, 2006 08:12 PM

SouthernRoots,

What is that? Southern wit? Speaking of RANK, don't quit your day job.

Posted by: A. Patriot at July 8, 2006 08:14 PM

TangoMan,

Why so quite? Busy trying to dig up something to prove your point or fabricating more data? BTW, all you here on the right who claim to hold your own accountable, why haven't I head word one about me pointing out TangoMan's falsifying his headers? Huh? Rather, you adhere to the wingnut ploy of ad hominem arguments about HOW I say what I say, not asdressing the FACTS of WHAT I say.

Posted by: A. Patriot at July 8, 2006 08:23 PM

Don't you think it's a jump to conclusions to think that everyone who voted for Gore was Democrat?

I'm pretty sure some were apolitical Druids. They're always suckers for the tree hugger candidates.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 8, 2006 08:23 PM

Mr Patirot

This will be the last time i respond to you, so please refrain from responding to this, I will only defend myself and get on with my evening.

Hatred- intense dislike or ill will.

I think it is fair to say many of your comments show intense dislike for other posters. You choose to call it impassioned, fair enough, we can agree to disagree. I think it would be easy for Coulter to use the same defense.

As for me being an ignorant imbecile, let me explain this simple thing to you without insulting your intelligence.

You said "you pathetic wingnuts won't even join the war effort"

well, we have a volunteer army, these volunteers
have joined the war effort, heavy percentages are re-enlisting, the fact that the majority of these volunteers are by your definition "wingnuts", disproves the above statement. comprendez-vous?

I am sorry that my choice of words brings out in you the need to condescend towards me. You seem to have a grasp of the language as well, should I mock you?

I have tried engaging you in polite conversation and received only insults and condescension. You can't seem to grasp that someone can disagree with you on some things without being a RABIDFASCIWINGNUT, or whatever label you like to use. I will not continue a discussion with someone who insults me without provication,
I have not been unpleasant to you in any way. Save it for posters who share your rude sensibilities. I appreciate the apology and the clarification, but quite frankly, you owe me another for your insults.

BTW- quotation marks are a bad choice for emphasis, as they usually imply that you are quoting someone. I would suggest italics, boldface, underlining, or capitals. For future reference. I would also like to mention that if you scroll down this site you will find a post which condemns Ann Coulters apparent plagiarisms.

I will again wish you a pleasant evening, albeit undeserved.

To the rest, have fun, it is time for me to stir-fry. oh yeah)

Posted by: geofferygellineck at July 8, 2006 08:24 PM

geofferygellineck,

May you have a wonderful evening too. BTW, I don't hate you, just you lack of moral fiber. My comment about not supporting the war effort was directly related to Cassandra's comment and is about those who support the war yet fail to join up when the we need boots on the ground. It seems to be okay if some else does the bleeding. Myself, 4 years in the Service. Can you say the same? Also, you have never addressed my claim that you falsified data.

Posted by: A. Patriot at July 8, 2006 08:32 PM

Why so quite? Busy trying to dig up something to prove your point

Hey, I'm not sitting at the computer eagerly refreshing the page in anticipation of your comments. I'm a first time visitor to this blog being drawn by the coverage of Frisch, with whom I had two run-ins last year, one on my blog and another on which I was a frequent commenter.

As to your second point, what exactly would be disgraceful about doing a bit of research in support of one's position? I generally like to base my arguments on data rather than on divine inspiration and the natural order of the universe, you know, like liberals must be more intelligent than conservative or reality will fold in upon itself.

As to your point of contention that there is no equation between liberals and democratic voters I ask who then do liberals vote for? In 2000 Nadar and fringe parties like the Communists got miniscule support, nowhere near enough to upset the liberal-democratic mapping.

My point, that the Democratic Party, which we can operationalize as being Liberal, is a combine of the most educated and the least educated voters within our society, while the Republicans, which we can operationalize as being conservatives, are the voters who hug the middle of the educational spectrum, still holds uncontested. For the Democrats, the educational gains of their post-graduate contingent are winnowed away by the legions of less-educated, thus neutralizing the claim that they are the most intelligent political party or ideological movement.

Posted by: TangoMan at July 8, 2006 08:50 PM

I am always amused at how the right wingnuts will hoist up any negative thought, act, or word and immediately call for a group apology from the left. I for one will not apologize for the words of an obviously sick individual. I have never, and will never fall for that ploy that at its center accuses me and ALL other Liberals of condoning such behaviors UNLESS we bow our heads to the Righties and profess that we in some way are guilty by association and sincerely apologize for not kneeling in repentance to you fast enough to show our servile posture. Nice try but I refuse to allow you to frame the questions and answers I must reply to.

Posted by: liberal and proud at July 8, 2006 08:59 PM

I think it funny that someone can claim to be a liberal, then by their deeds, demonstrate they are not.

I also think it funny that it then becomes accepted wisdom that if others call themselves liberals, then conservatives expect they must ritualistically repudiate the offensive one to 'prove' their morality. I'm a liberal (so I say) on many issues, yet I don't feel a compulsion to publicly prostrate myself before the Morality Guardians, left or right, to prove or disprove their allegations about what liberals are.

Too, I think it incredibly silly that any who are concerned about the safety of infants believe the best way to protect them is to blog about what a horrid ninny poo-poo Example D is.

I've known lefties and righties who are exemplary people. I've known jerks in both camps, too. Making generalizations about either side of the partisan divide is mostly rhetorical hyperbole and the morality play being staged in this case is a perfect case in point about how ludicrous such generalizations usually are.

Posted by: Kevin Hayden at July 8, 2006 09:11 PM

What Liberal and Proud said. This woman is contemptible, but she speaks for herself, not for me.

If you want to comdemn my side about this, there's probably no stopping you, but I never heard of it until I read about it on TalkLeft. I won't go wearing a hairshirt for someone else's stupidity and inexcusable behavior.

Posted by: Randy Paul at July 8, 2006 09:15 PM

Communists also "hated" Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, and add bourgeois types, Christians, and anyone who thinks independently of the party.

Liberals from MoveOn, and on Daily Kos or other Lib blogs routinely use "exterminationist" language when referring to believing Christians and to folks who happen to think that socialism is a failed, tribal throwback of an idea. Sorry, I have not made it my duty to keep a file on such comments, but anyone who occasionally visits such sites can confirm my point.

Posted by: D. Ox at July 8, 2006 09:18 PM

D. Ox,

Sorry, I have not made it my duty to keep a file on such comments, but anyone who occasionally visits such sites can confirm my point.

Gee, that makes it easy to make such a statement. Point of fact...you're wrong. People here have accused me of making "hateful" comments. I am more forward with my Brethren on the left in our blogging when they present stupid ideas with no proof, like you. You're a typical, wingnut ass who makes a comment and then offers nothing to back it up except to claim that other people's hearsay will prove you point. What a moron.

Posted by: A.Patriot at July 8, 2006 09:28 PM

UH, one correction here, I actually read this because of a link at Raw Story. OK everybody continue with your hatin'

Posted by: Libby McLiberal at July 8, 2006 09:29 PM

OK then, "liberal and proud," how about apologizing for your own verbose pretentiousness?

Posted by: SmokeVanThorn at July 8, 2006 09:33 PM

TangoMan,

You STILL haven't answered my question. Di you, or did you not change the headers on the stats to read DEM and REPUB from GORE and BUSH? Make all the spin you want, but you're an unethical bullshit artist and that is the truth unless you can PROVE otherwise. Do that or shut your trap about my statements.

Posted by: A.Patriot at July 8, 2006 09:35 PM

Deb Fisch is to the Left what Fred Phelps is the Right. Both are disgusting individuals and - to my knowledge - neither represents the core values of either.

Posted by: mac at July 8, 2006 09:47 PM

yeah, anybody catch the a/s/l of that tyke????? yeah babe, i could lego my ego all niiiight, yeaaaahh, ain't nothin like soulless satanic republicon reich wing bubees, yeeaaaaahh, alllll niiiiight bubbbaa!!! who's your WMD! who's your WMD buuubbba! i can be your sarin gas if you be my mustard gas & together we can make holy war jihad crusades allll niiiiiight buuuubbbaa!!

Posted by: beef cakes at July 8, 2006 09:51 PM

mac,

Please give me a break. While she made some over the top comments by her own admission, she has apologized. She is NO WAY even close to Fred Phelps. She isn't even close to Ann Coulter. Why? Because Deb Fisch apologized.

Posted by: A.Patriot at July 8, 2006 09:51 PM

Patriot,

Your vaunted intellect is too much, for it is like a bright beacon on starless night, and while others may call your fixation on Senator Gore not being a representative of the Democratic Party and Governor Bush not being a representative of the Republican Party as being a very pedantic line or argument, I will acknowledge that the candidates leading their parties are indeed not the whole embodiment of their party. Now, having satisfied your inconsequential point, how exactly does it pertain to the overall point, which was just a comment in passing, until you got a bee in your bonnet?

Posted by: TangoMan at July 8, 2006 09:58 PM

It always amazes me how something that everyone agrees was reprehensible can still become something for opposing sides to disagree on.

There has clearly been more outrage on the right over Dr. Frisch's comments than on the left. This is to be expected since we on the right are defending "one of our own" in a sense. Just as there is clearly more outrage on the left when they feel they have been attacked.

But there has been clear joint dismay expressed about the actual statements this woman made. I am fine with believing that liberals are just as outraged by threats levied against children as conservatives are. Even if KOS doesn't lead his site with it and Glenn Reynolds does.

The more I read from Dr. Frisch the more I am inclined to agree that she actually does need some professional help and that she is not representative of any ideology. She is more representative of a pathology if you want my opinion.

We have plenty of substantive things to disagree about. Let's stop trying to trump each other's morality.

I am also concerned that the longer this goes on, the more of a charge Dr. Frisch gets out of it. She seems to crave attention, and this is definitely feeding that craving.

Posted by: CosmicConservative at July 8, 2006 10:04 PM

FYI -- I found out about the conduct of this professor this afternoon after reading about it on Raw Story.

I posted a condemnation on Daily Kos within one hour.

I frankly am disgusted that anyone would threaten a kid over something a parent wrote. Its wrong when it happens, regardless of the political orientation of either party.

Posted by: Cthulhu at July 8, 2006 10:10 PM

quote"OK then, "liberal and proud," how about apologizing for your own verbose pretentiousness?"
SmokeVanThorn

Is this where I am supposed to say "I know you are but what am I"? or "You are ruber and I am glue"?

Posted by: liberal and proud at July 8, 2006 10:10 PM

BUSH KNEW ABOUT 9/11! COMPLICIT IN HIGH TREASON!

*Academic group of 50 (ST911.org) says "We believe these events may have been orchestrated by the administration in order to manipulate the American people into supporting policies at home and abroad." (Deseret News; Jan. 28, 2006)

*Charge of high treason with documentation, including his deceptive response about what he knew at Booker Elementary school and a creepy convergence of finance bigwigs at SAC. (Document presented at press conference Oct. 13, 2004, Utah State Capital.)

*A prominent federal judge has told a conference of liberal lawyers that President Bush’s rise to power was similar to the accession of dictators such as Mussolini and Hitler. (New York Sun; June 21, 2004)

MANY, MANY REPORTS & PROVEN DOCUMENTATION & TESTIMONY! SHOW TO YOUR FAMILY & FRIENDS! BUSH ORCHESTRATES 9.11 ATTACKS!

http://www.patriotsaints.com/News/911/Conspiracy/Bush/

Posted by: beef cakes at July 8, 2006 10:13 PM

TangoMan,

Ah, a perfect Ad hominem, Congratulations. Sometimes it's just better to call it as it is and leave it at that. And in that spirit, TangoMan, you are an A #1 lying, cheating, fax-fixing asshole. As Dick C would say, Go F*** Yourself. PS. Have a nice night.

Posted by: A.Patriot at July 8, 2006 10:28 PM

Ahh, that's FACT-FIXING ASSHOLE. My Bad.

Posted by: A.Patriot at July 8, 2006 10:31 PM

CosmicConservative,

Nice points. What's your opinion on TangoMan fixing his data to make a point? Any conservative here going to hold him accountable?

Posted by: A.Patriot at July 8, 2006 10:34 PM

This is almost as bad as the deliberate, concentrated attack of the Left that culminated in the very serious War on Christmas!

The Left knows no sanctity, and will always try to attack our great Christian leadership and brilliant minds like George W Bush and Dick Cheney. Some day we will have parades celibrating how these brave men paved our path to a new American century. Some day, God willing, the faces of Bush and Cheney will be on Mt Rushmore and thereby forever underscore the fallacy of the Left.

Posted by: Planet_Of_The_Chimp at July 8, 2006 10:49 PM

A. Patriot: I don't know which fact-fixing you are referring to, but I think I can fairly state that I am opposed to lies in general, whether they come from the right or the left.

I just read a long thread on the Frisch-Goldstein dust-up on "TalkLeft.com" and it is amazingly like looking into a mirror when compared to right-leaning blogs like PW or LGF. Amazingly like looking into a mirror. I think reading ideologically opposed posts and comments should be practiced and encouraged by all the top bloggers.

I mean, did you realize that those people on the left think that us "wingnuts" on the right are wrong? That we are hypocrites? That we are mind-numbed robots? That we eat our own young? OK, that last one was for effect only, but the rest is all true. Wow. Who woulda thunkit?

The most common comparison I see with Frisch's comments is to say that Ann Coulter is as bad or worse. Now I don't think that's true because Ann typically targets adults for her most outrageous comments, but I personally find Ann Coulter's brand of "commentary" to be quite offensive. And in my turn I compare her to Al Franken or Rhandi Rhodes. Those who cared to do google searches find plenty of over-the-top rabid "wingnuts" to quote to bolster their point.

The more I look at both sides, quite frankly, the more similar they look, although mirror reversed. But it is good to see that both sides mostly recognize Dr. Frisch as a person in need of help.

I am going to come away from this whole affair convinced not that the two sides are more different than I initially thought, but in fact that they are more the same.

Posted by: CosmicConservative at July 8, 2006 11:15 PM

You are unreal. You post links to non-existent diaries and stories and every treats this crap as real. Blockquotes doesn't make something true no matter how much you want it to be. Get a grip and think about what you are doing to America with all this hate. What good can come of it?

To paraphrase another sad moment in American history. You should be ashamed of yourself, you really should. Have you no sense of decency or integrity?

Posted by: Ron at July 8, 2006 11:22 PM

A. Patriot,

Your own comments are sufficient proof of my point; I'll take "your say" over my earlier appeal to "hearsay" any day.

Hey nonny, nonny!

Oh, if only you were running the world, we'd all be safe and snug in our little beds tonight...

Posted by: D. Ox at July 8, 2006 11:27 PM

For those of you who care to honor the stated credo of holding your own to account. TangoMan presented data he used to refute Sine.Qua.Non's statement, "The fact of the matter is that liberals are the most educated and most intelligent people in the U.S. statistically." He then went on to say this:

What a howler. Here is data that refutes your claim:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dems . . . Repub
* No H.S. Degree - - - - - - - -59% . . . 39%
* High School Graduate - - - 48% . . . 49%
* Some College - - - - - - - - -45% . . . 51%
* College Graduate - - - - - - 45% . . . 51%
* Post-Graduate Degree - - 52% . . . 44%
You should modify your statement to read that Liberals are a coalition of the least and most educated voters, while the conservatives have the greatest number of HS and college graduates.
PS. When you write "most intelligent people" I thought it was well known that liberals don't believe in IQ, unless that is when they want to tout their own intellectual superiority.
Posted by: TangoMan at July 8, 2006 05:22 PM

My rebuttal PROOF is this, from HIS LINK.

A simple Comparison:
Mine:
Vote by Education..........All......Gore......Bush......Buchanan......Nader
No H.S. Degree..............5%.......59%......39%........1%................1%
High School Graduate....21%.....48%......49%........1%................1%
Some College................32%.....45%.......51%.......0%................3%
College Graduate...........24%....45%.......51%.......0%................3%
Post-Graduate Degree...18%....52%.......44%.......0%................3%
TangoMan:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dems..........Repub
* No H.S. Degree - - - - - - -59%............39%
* High School Graduate - - - 48%............49%
* Some College - - - - - - - -45%...........51%
* College Graduate - - - - - -45% ..........51%
* Post-Graduate Degree - - --52%..........44%
Another Lying Turd exposed!
Posted by A. Patirot at July 8, 2006 06:08 PM

But there was a bit of a problem, the link he used doesn't show his data. It has the numbers, but under the headers of GORE and BUSH not DEM and REPUB. I have asked him numerous times to state if he did or did not change the headers, and that if his claim is he didn't, to provide me with a link that shows the proper data, not this LINK. Go see for yourself. No where will you find those headers for that data. Anyone here is welcome to prove me wrong. Instead, all he does is use five-dollar words and Ad hominem arguments. Here are a few:

Hubris and ignorance are a potent combination. All we need do is look to your performance at data analysis, per above, and how you arrive at conclusions absent argumentation and we see that you're out of your league.
If you want to argue points, then for instance, you need to address why the additional polling data supports your viewpoint and refutes mine. You see how that works.

Case in point - you've arrived at a conclusion without engaging in any reasoning. Explain to us why the statistics are an inaccurate reflection of reality.
Now, who was it that you were saying was as dumb as a bunch of rocks?

Hey, I'm not sitting at the computer eagerly refreshing the page in anticipation of your comments. I'm a first time visitor to this blog being drawn by the coverage of Frisch, with whom I had two run-ins last year, one on my blog and another on which I was a frequent commenter.
As to your second point, what exactly would be disgraceful about doing a bit of research in support of one's position? I generally like to base my arguments on data rather than on divine inspiration and the natural order of the universe, you know, like liberals must be more intelligent than conservative or reality will fold in upon itself.
As to your point of contention that there is no equation between liberals and democratic voters I ask who then do liberals vote for? In 2000 Nadar and fringe parties like the Communists got miniscule support, nowhere near enough to upset the liberal-democratic mapping.
My point, that the Democratic Party, which we can operationalize as being Liberal, is a combine of the most educated and the least educated voters within our society, while the Republicans, which we can operationalize as being conservatives, are the voters who hug the middle of the educational spectrum, still holds uncontested. For the Democrats, the educational gains of their post-graduate contingent are winnowed away by the legions of less-educated, thus neutralizing the claim that they are the most intelligent political party or ideological movement.

Patriot,
Your vaunted intellect is too much, for it is like a bright beacon on starless night, and while others may call your fixation on Senator Gore not being a representative of the Democratic Party and Governor Bush not being a representative of the Republican Party as being a very pedantic line or argument, I will acknowledge that the candidates leading their parties are indeed not the whole embodiment of their party. Now, having satisfied your inconsequential point, how exactly does it pertain to the overall point, which was just a comment in passing, until you got a bee in your bonnet?

Now. Let's try this once more. TangoMan, DID YOU or DID YOU NOT change the headers on you data from GORE to DEM and from BUSH to REPUB? If not, PLEASE provide a link to prove otherwise.

Now, I don't think that I've made an unreasonable request. So, either those of you here stand with him or you will ask him to cough up the goods. It's show time boys and girls. Let's see who defends TangoMan's bullshit. Yes, I call it bullshit, or who will ask him to PROVE what he put into print.

Posted by: A.Patriot at July 8, 2006 11:31 PM

D. Ox,

the only POINT you have is the top of your head. Only wingnuts spin bullshit and convince themselves it's true. Then when confronted with logic and truth, they take their ball and go home. See ya ya cry baby. That survey by Jack Block WAS right!

Posted by: A.Patriot at July 8, 2006 11:37 PM

TangoMan,

How dare you! Shame, shame, shame!

You, you, you, (fill in expletive of your choice)!!!

You probably went to the Ann Coulter school of lying liars!

I've got to stop now! My exclamation mark is tired! (And 'Murder She Wrote' is getting to the interesting part.)

Fie upon thee! Harumph!

Posted by: D. Ox at July 8, 2006 11:47 PM

CosmicConservative,

I have provided all the data for you to make an informed decision about TangoMan. As to your comparison, I'm sorry to say that Al Franken and Randi Rhodes cannot compare with Ann Coulter or, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limpbaugh, Bill Bennett, or anyone else from the right. They are sarcastic and can maybe even be mean, but rarely, Well, may Mike Malloy, but the right wingers and down right mean spirited and usually spout hate that is not backed up by facts. While the left may make mistakes, they usually retract the statements associated with them, unlike the right.

Posted by: A.Patriot at July 8, 2006 11:49 PM

Frisch's comments are obviously offensive and over the line - and every single post I've seen, from every perspective, agrees on that.

Moving on, what this whole debate demonstrates, more than anything else, is the extent to which American politics needs to get away from the falsehood that there are two groups called "the Left" and "the Right."

Americans live in 50 states, in thousands of cities and towns, and every single one of us has our own set of priorities and beliefs - no matter where we live, which party we belong to, and where we fit into the political spectrum. At least forty percent of most "Blue states" voted for Bush; at least forty percent of most "Red states" voted for Kerry.

As far as I'm concerned, accusing a large percentage of the country of tacit argeement with some minor blogger's insane rant in another blog's comment section - just because the leading liberal blogs didn't think that was a major national news story - is just absurd.

It is especially strange to hear this charge coming from conservatives, who have historically championed personal responsibility over collective action in the form of government spending programs, and the rights of the individual when it comes to issues like property rights and gun ownership.

The view that we are all individuals in control of our own destinies, no matter who we are and what groups we belong to, has always been the strongest tenet of American conservatism. Why abandon it now?

Posted by: Thad Anderson at July 9, 2006 12:00 AM

To A. Patriot,

I like how you make unsubstantiated points.

I even like how you spuriously attack individuals rather than their positions.

I most like how you throw around accusations as if they were bouqets of flowers on Valentine's Day.

I like it because without a flair for humor or truth, it only ends up being the railings of useless noise. The typing sounds of a partisan hack.

One day, maybe, you'll learn that saying something isn't the same as it being true.

Take me on, now, A. Patriot. See how well you stack against the truth.

I await your reply.

Posted by: Jeff Barea at July 9, 2006 12:06 AM

A. Patriot:

I must assume that you are not being serious. To assume that you are has too many implications that I'd prefer not to deal with.

As far as your personal vendetta against TangoMan, you are doing fine without my help. I feel no compulsion to get involved one way or the other. I will do nothing to impair your search for truth, justice and the American way. Good luck bro!

Posted by: CosmicConservative at July 9, 2006 12:08 AM

CosmicConservative,

You're correct again. I could care less about the '"data" but I am serious as hell about people spouting shit without proof. Or worse, altering something to make their point "correct." You can call it what you will, but will assume that you agree with my point because to assume otherwise has way too many implications that I don't care to deal with. I mean, it's not as if the Bush administration hasn't had its share of scandals in which a part or the whole was about altering the facts to fit the policy. Isn't that really the main point of my assertion about TangoMan? he's probably a nice enough guy and I have no vendetta against him, just his methods. An thanks for the "truth, justice, and the American way" bit. I take it that it's a friendly rib as to assume otherwise...well, you know.

Posted by: A.Patriot at July 9, 2006 12:23 AM

Jeff Barea,

Please don't huff and puff too much. You may blow your own house of cards down.

Posted by: A.Patriot at July 9, 2006 12:26 AM

It's difficult to put into words what a hypocrite Confederate Yankee is. He objects that certain bloggers who ARE condeming these comments can't just condemn them, but instead go on instead to draw broader political conclusions about this incident.

But Confederate Yankee's post here itself is NOT confinused to merely condemn the specific comments in question, but instead, he tries to exploit the situation to blame liberals generally for the comments ("One might be tempted to think that this absolute lack of condemnation was a tacit acceptance of these tactics").

Most right-wing bloggers are doing exactly what Confederate Yankee is doing -- trying to exploit this incident to make political points against the "Left", and then feigning pained offense when those points are responded to ("Oh, why can't they just condemn the comments? why do they have to go on after that and respond to the political points we made?").

If you're going to be a hypocrite, you at least ought to be a little less obvious about it. Only the blindest followers are going to listen to you sermonzie against making political points out of this incident when you yourself - along with most of your comrades - are doing exactly that right before everyone's eyes.

Posted by: Glenn Greenwald at July 9, 2006 12:28 AM

Are you guys all this stupid? Or, must I explain how the conservative elite get the rank and file heartlanders to vote for the elite (that you are not part of...) over and over again, while they rape you behind the scenes? This latest CY article is case and point. Put an article about healthcare, economics, or global diplomcy (I don't really see these topics)on this site, and you get two comments at best. Talk about some whack job who hates or wants to kill some kid (I can't even bother to read this whole article), and I see over 140 posts?? Hehe..You all make me laugh. Does this whack job woman represent all people swinging left? Does a drug atic like Rush Limbaugh represent everyone on the right? It is one crazy person...that's all. These are the kind of pivot stories and scenarios the conservative agenda likes to stir up, basically using a flawed argument. That liberal lady wants to kill kids. That liberal judge is letting that drug dealer back on the street. Say no to drugs. Liberals support gays. So what if the conservative machine is butt f@cking your economic and foreign policies, among many other things. So what if the elite lower their taxes by 20% and give you a hundred bucks tax credit. So what if everything we do is detrimental to the middle and lower classes, you surely can't support the other guy, because he believes in gays and letting child molesters back on the street? You can't vote for that guy, no matter how bad I'm blowing a hole in this budget! Let's face it...."Heartlanders" are the biggest suckers on the planet. They fall for this crap over and over again, that is why it is all coming up on the next congressional agenda for the good 'ole November election. Keep taking an intellectual nose dive and adding fuel to the conservative bait and switch fire CY. What article is next? Let's talk about steroids in sports or liberal baby killers, or terrorists with anti-aircraft missiles. Anything to keep people's minds off reality, business and politics.

Posted by: Johnny at July 9, 2006 12:37 AM

Okay Jeff, if you insist.

To A. Patriot, I like how you make unsubstantiated points.

Okay, bullet all my unsubstantiated points.

I even like how you spuriously attack individuals rather than their positions.

Please list all my ad hominems. Oh, BTW, it's not an ad hominem to call someone, like you for instance, an idiot AFTER or even BEFORE you counter their argument. Please show me where, with the one exception of calling it like it is, that I have done that. You provide links to counter what i say and I'll do the same. that is if you're ready to do a little work.

I most like how you throw around accusations as if they were bouqets of flowers on Valentine's Day.

Again, nothing but bluster, Show me the money.

I like it because without a flair for humor or truth, it only ends up being the railings of useless noise. The typing sounds of a partisan hack.

Ah! The sound of half a mind thumping against the skull. Is this your stunning conclusion? Oh no, that's below. Again. Some proof would be nice.

One day, maybe, you'll learn that saying something isn't the same as it being true.

Ahh, Jeff? This a Republican strategy. You may know it well and that's probably why you claim I've dome it. You're claim is unsubstantiated isn't it? I mean, where's the proof?

Take me on, now, A. Patriot. See how well you stack against the truth.

I dare not. your scathing attack has left me too imp;aired to continue. AHHHHHHHH!!! Posted by: A.Patriot at July 9, 2006 12:38 AM

D. Ox, it's about time you came around!

Posted by: A.Patriot at July 9, 2006 12:40 AM

To A. Patriot:

"Okay, bullet all my unsubstantiated points."

Are you that lazy?

"Please list all my ad hominems. Oh, BTW, it's not an ad hominem to call someone, like you for instance, an idiot AFTER or even BEFORE you counter their argument. Please show me where, with the one exception of calling it like it is, that I have done that. You provide links to counter what i say and I'll do the same. that is if you're ready to do a little work"

Do you even notice that calling someone an idiot is the entire definition of ad-hominem?

"Again, nothing but bluster, Show me the money."

Again, are you that lazy? Do you need someone else to show you how impossibly silly your arguments are? You really should feel some shame there.

"Ah! The sound of half a mind thumping against the skull. Is this your stunning conclusion? Oh no, that's below. Again. Some proof would be nice."

Um, someone read him the definition of ad-hominem please.

"Ahh, Jeff? This a Republican strategy. You may know it well and that's probably why you claim I've dome it. You're claim is unsubstantiated isn't it? I mean, where's the proof?"

I guessed you missed the fact that I am not a republican. But, then, I can't blame you. You are just acting out in a random way in order to attack regardless of the truth. I think it's clear, btw, that anyone can say a lie. That's about the point of what I was saying. Thank you for your following that line.

"I dare not. your scathing attack has left me too imp;aired to continue. AHHHHHHHH!!! Posted by: A.Patriot at July 9, 2006 12:38 AM"

I figured as much. Guess life in the big leagues is beyone you.

Ta Daaaaaaaaaaaaah!

Posted by: Jeff Barea at July 9, 2006 12:47 AM

It's been fun guys. I love a good bout of jousting in cyberspace, but I'm afraid I must get back to planning my vacation. Please don't let the fact that I won't be here to defend myself stop you from distorting anything I may have said or taking it out of context. That, after-all is pretty much the stylistic trend for this year's conservatives isn't it? Oops. I did it again, I hurled an unsubstantiated remark your way. Gee? Where would one find examples of Conservatives:
Lying?
Cheating?
Fixing the facts to fit the policy?
Using Ad hominem, Straw man, and slippery slope arguments?
Fear-mongering?
Politicizing tragic events?
Ripping off the American taxpayer?
Being hypocritical?
Ah man! i just can't think of where to go to get the proof I need to substantiate ANYTHING! Damn!

Posted by: A.Patriot at July 9, 2006 12:53 AM

Glenn,

I see you have just completely abandoned the entire concept of condemning the sexual molestation and murder of a little harmless defenseless boy.

But I guess that's what you New Jersey residents (who apparently claim to be NYC'ers) like to do.

Never did care much for you bridge and tunnel trash.

Posted by: Jeff Barea at July 9, 2006 12:54 AM

To A. Patriot:

Just leaving like that?

Guess my one itsy bitsy bout with you was all you needed to give up.

At least you understood that you hurl unsubstantiated comments.

Wait til I build yet another conservative student newspaper near your town. Then you can write me a letter to the editor to explain your cowardice.

300 conservative student newspapers in the next few years. Hear that all you play at being "liberal" types?

I will counter every falsehood and lie you throw out. Not just on the internet. But in your hometown.

Be afwaid... Be vewwy vewwy afwaid...

Posted by: Jeff Barea at July 9, 2006 12:58 AM

Jeff,

You truly are an ass. First, Ad hominem does NOT have a hyphen. Second, this is the definition:

>i>ad hominem adverb & adjective 1 (of an argument or reaction) arising from or appealing to the emotions and not reason or logic. • attacking an opponent’s motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain : vicious ad hominem attacks. 2 relating to or associated with a particular person : [as adv. ] the office was created ad hominem for Fenton. | [as adj. ] an ad hominem response.

get a life you substantiated jerk. BTW, calling me lazy is a lazy person's way of getting out of proving what they can't prove in the first place. I'm afraid it is you who are lazy...and stupid. That's NOT an Ad hominem. You have proven it with you inane response. So much for your BRING IT ON bravado. just like Bush, all bluster and nothing to back it up with. Now I'm really going, I promise.

Posted by: A.Patriot at July 9, 2006 01:00 AM

Jeff, I popsted my farewell before I read that garbage you call an argument. Be proud son, you really bested me! Goodnight.

Posted by: A.Patriot at July 9, 2006 01:02 AM

To A. Patriot:

You can't even leave gracefully can you? Did you lie about leaving then?

I will damn well put a hy-phen where I damn we-ll please if you continue to lie about leaving in addition to your count-less lies about not usi-ng ad-hominem attacks, while using ad-hominem att-acks to do i-t.

Hell, you ev-en used an ad-hominem att-ack to attack my clear de-mon-stra-tion of your ad-hominem a-ttacks.

Calling someone an ass, a jerk, and stupid is in fact the entire de-fin-it-ion of AD-HOMINEM.

And then you forgot to post your, so omg searing goodbye, and had to, as a second thought come back on to do it.

Outclassed and jittery now? You seem a bit disconcerted boy. Keep up the good work. Maybe one day you will be able to actually contend without the after-thought postings.

Buh-bye babe...

Posted by: Jeff Barea at July 9, 2006 01:17 AM

Glenn,

What, dear sir, so upsets you?

Is it the fact that I accurately linked and presented in context (something you should try from time to time) those comments made by you and your fellows?

And precisely how I am I hypocrite again? By reading and reposting comments and the tone of comments, that you and your fellow travelers made?

If that makes me a hyprocrite in your world, sir, I'll take that as a badge of honor.

As for making political points, sir, since my original post, I've made but one update more than 12 hours later, and that was but to highlight the responses you (collectively) have made thus far.

That those comments that you have chosen to make have portrayed you unfavorably, simply indicates that you are far more successful at making "political points" against you than I could ever manage on my own.

Good night.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 9, 2006 01:20 AM

Bwuahahahahaahahaaha:

Check this out you liberals, here is your defender:

"Now I'm really going, I promise.
Posted by: A.Patriot at July 9, 2006 01:00 AM"

And after he said that he posted:
"Now I'm really going, I promise.
Posted by: A.Patriot at July 9, 2006 01:00 AM"

Now I am really going, I promise.

ROFLMAO.

Freak says what?

If you go, you don't post again.

Truth does not matter to liberals.

Glenn Greenwald understands this, too.

Posted by: Jeff Barea at July 9, 2006 01:22 AM

A. Patriot - My earlier observation merely suggested that you have a habit of crapping in every comment and that the stench is becoming overwhelming.

Your idea of debate is to insult anyone that says anything to you. I find this approach tiresome.

I must admit though, you did do a very good job of talking about almost everything except the post at hand.

If you really are as intellectual as you think you are, you should be able to use that powerful brain to engage in discussion without resorting to calling people names or in speaking to others with a holier than thou condescending tone.

But then, maybe you're not that smart.

Have a good vacation.

Posted by: SouthernRoots at July 9, 2006 02:21 AM

If liberals have to answer to Deb Fisch, then you conservatives need to answer for Shirley Phelps-Roper:

We're waiting.

Posted by: Cyrus McElderry at July 9, 2006 02:29 AM

Whoops, mu.nu swallows url's with angle brackets around them. Here's the link:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=b3PyoUPcobA&search=fox%20news%20shirley%20phelps

Posted by: Cyrus McElderry at July 9, 2006 02:30 AM

Cyrus,

I don't have to answer for anything.

You either condemn sexual assault and murder of little helpless boys or you sit idly by the next amber alert that happens.

You don't get to choose which cause you speak out against when you don't speak out against the sexual assault and murder of little helpless boys.

Posted by: Jeff Barea at July 9, 2006 02:52 AM

You know why we do this? BECAUSE YOU PEOPLE BROUGHT DOWN JEFF GANNON/GUCKERT!

AND YOU MUST PAY FOR TAKING AWAY OUR KING!

Posted by: Jeff G at July 9, 2006 03:47 AM

Typical panty-waist conservative tactic - find one person on the other side who engages in tactics practiced routinely by the majority of the conservatives and attack them with fake outrage. Give it up, you're pathetic. No one is buying it except the brain-dead, and they're already on your side. Dumbass ...

Posted by: John at July 9, 2006 04:35 AM

"If you really are as intellectual as you think you are, you should be able to use that powerful brain to engage in discussion without resorting to calling people names or in speaking to others with a holier than thou condescending tone."

Written in a holier than thou condescending tone ... Another example of a right-winger completely unable or unwilling to recognize their own hypocrisy. I suspect the later - it's a well-known rove tactic, along with always accusing the other side of whatever devious behavior you yourself are up to. Pathetic.

Posted by: John at July 9, 2006 04:47 AM

The sad thing is that y'all are actually proving Deb's point. Here is a comment of hers posted a couple days before any of the one that have been extensively quoted:
DC: I’ve had enough fireworks for one 4th of July.

DF: Roger that, Dan. I’m not sure why I’m back, but here I am. I’m trolled out (well, as trolled out as a troll can ever be)and yet my email is STILL down (going on 24 hours - a very long time) and so the only way to satisfy this urge to verbally joust and spar is here, with you allegedly wise proteins.

I’ll tell you this much - if any of y’all start in again with inappropriate, disgusting, personal sexual comments, I’m outta here. Ciao. Adios. Kapish?

You wouldn’t tolerate it if some nasty troll started making jokes about Jeff’s children (saw the tyke reference in the post that started it all) being run over, kidnapped, etc. It’s over the line to make even vaguely threatening references to people’s real lives. So don’t do it anymore. Jeff, if you want me to perform as Professor Moonbat here at your zoo, you need to tell your pals there are rules. I’m going to take my tinfoil hat and kazoo somewhere else if you allow people to continue to try to diss me by referring to my body parts.

But if y’all can refrain from disgusting, inappropriate, quasi-sociopathic physical references, you can enjoy the benefits that accrue to metaphorical virtual zoos (e.g., blogs) with their VERY OWN MOONBATS.

Think about it.

With this comment in mind, it seems pretty clear that all her later comments about Jeff's tyke were not threatening in any way, but intended to make a point (which apparently went over many people's heads).

Posted by: MattR at July 9, 2006 05:02 AM

I just linked to this blog via a story. I'm kind of surprised to find that there is not none thing here that one can consider intelligent. All you do is bash and attack, bash and attack. You folks really are devoid of decency.

Posted by: swiftliberal at July 9, 2006 05:25 AM

I don't understand how liberals like Frisch and Rather think that they can make things okay just by resigning. If a conservative did something like what Professor Frisch did -- although I can't think of any examples -- I am certain that they would make real amends.

Posted by: Grumpy at July 9, 2006 05:32 AM

When the repukes castrate Coulter and Savage, etc., then I will worry about Frisch. Such crocodile rage from the right. And general stupidity. More proof that eventually there will be war in the streets.

Posted by: dr rw at July 9, 2006 07:29 AM

The reason conservatives don't apologize for Shirley Phelps and David Duke? Because Shirley Phelps and David Duke are on your team: both are Bush-hating, Israel-hating antiwar nutjobs.

Frankly I'm suprised Yale hasn't offered them tenure.

Posted by: iowahawk at July 9, 2006 07:57 AM

Threatening to murder someone's child is illegal, isn't it? Why not simply call the police or the FBI instead of soliciting meaningless condemnations from bloggers? It would certainly seem more likely to get results, assuming the evidence supports the charges.

Posted by: Realist at July 9, 2006 08:20 AM

Know something? What...whatever her name was, wrote over at Jeff's blog was, very simply inexecusable. If she used her employer's computer resources to post that kind of disgusting garbage, she ought to have been fired.

But y'know, for you and a bunch of other headcase wingers to come along and start seeking out some kind of moral equivalency between (I'm paraphrasing) a massive leftist failure to condemn the ravings of an obscure commenter on the blog of a man know for certain ravings of his own, and the front-page publishing of personal information of one's "enemies" (you know, basically calling for the head of Arthur Sulzberger on a stick) is, well...stupid.

Because, and I realize that I'm going out on a limb here, but maybe, just maybe, there are a lot of us who don't read the comments at Goldstein's blog, or, in fact, read his blog at all. Wow...I realize that must be a lot to swallow at once, but speaking only for myself here, I've seen just enough of Goldstein's writing to know that (a) he's boring, (b) he's a proto-fascist nutjob, and (c) I have better places to waste my time.

Jesus. People like you act like the entire left-wing readership of the "blogosphere" (aside: what a stupid word) and every left-wing blogger all make a collective daily hajj to Protein Wisdom for our dose of extreme-right nonsense. Which is, as a basis for theorizing about the left, only marginally less insane than the host of PW himself.

Posted by: Lefty at July 9, 2006 08:51 AM

I'd sincerely like to apologize for not immediately responding to a comment left on Goldstein's blog on a Saturday.

Normally, my Spidey Sense detects all insults left there and allows me to respond immediately. However, on the weekends, the service gets a little fuzzy.

Posted by: Otto Man at July 9, 2006 09:34 AM

The incident Confederate Yankee cites - involving associate professor Frisch's alleged threats made against blogger Jeff Goldstein and his family - is indeed deplorable.

Further, the comments made last year, on a Daily Kos discussion thread, concerning the sexual orientation of the 4 year son of John Roberts are also deplorable, and there are statements made every day on the Internet, on websites of every imagineable ideological shading, that are deplorable as well.

But, to suggest that such behavior is characteristic of the left is an attack tactic - of stereotyping a large societal group based on the behavior of a random few associated with that group - and a logical fallacy as well. On that dubious logic one could characterize any group any way one wanted simple by pointing to the behavior of a stastically insignificant few. Further, anyone can sign up for accounts on the Daily Kos - the ideology of commentators is not actually known.

Now, Confederate Yankee is correct in suggesting that the left blogosphere should condemn the email threats made against Goldstein:

"When conservative bloggers go over the line and publish personal information, they are condemned by their own. When a liberal blogger threaten child sex abuse and murder, what response do we get from prominent liberal blogs?"

Liberal and conservative blogs both should be called to make statements condemning such behavior and - indeed - several conservative blogs, six or seven at least by my count, have made statements condemning the publishing of personal information on the Dobrich family by "Stop the ACLU" founder Nedd Kareiva.

It unclear to what extent, however, such condemnation arose spontaneously - in terms of chronology the condmemnation of Kareiva's behavior by conservative bloggers came after the Indian River incident and Mr. Kareiva's involvement in it had been widely pubicized on leading liberal blogs.

In other words, Confederate Yankee's suggestion that moral censure of Nedd Kareiva's behavior arose spontaneously on the part of conservative bloggers is a dubious claim. Let us simply say the the issue was "brought to the attention" of conservative bloggers and that some of them found the moral clarity to denounce Nedd Kareiva's actions.

Let me suggest that the shoe is now on the other foot and that were Nedd Kareiva to denounce the email threats made against Jeff Goldstein, as Michelle Malkin has done, he would be correct in denouncing those threats regardless of Kareiva's previous activitie but his denounciations would not carry much weight were to avoid mentioning his related past behavior and, for the same reasons, Malkin's denunciations carry little moral authority as well : some matters can transcend political fray but only if they are allowed to do so.

Now, on chance that Nedd Kareiva happens to be reading this, let me suggest that there exists now an opportunity for him to actually seize the moral high ground by denouncing his own previous behavior, the threats against Jeff Goldstein, the behavior of Michelle Malkin, and any targeting and threats made against individuals that happen anywhere, on the Internet and off of it and by persons from the left, the right, and from any ideological and political persuasion : some things transcend partisan politics.

Were Mr. Kareiva to do that he find a newfound respect as a voice of rare moral clarity. Threats against individuals, and the tartgeting of individuals, must be condemned wherever and whenever they occur.

But to use such serious incidents merely as ammunition for the rhetoric of attack politics is to do them a great injustice : that is to employ incidents of hateful behavior in a way that - for not being evenhanded - simply encourages more hatred and thus more harassment, threats against, and targeting of individuals.

If we truly deplore such hateful incidents - such as the threats made against Jeff Goldstein - then we are held to a higher standard, that of public speech which does not incite hatred. Otherwise we simply feed societal hatred and in doing so become moral relativists and hypocrites.

On that note:

As Glenn Greenwald notes, Michelle Malkin has published the personal contact information of University of Santa Cruz student organizers of an anti-war rally. Those students subsequently received death threats.

For Malkin to cite the threats against Goldstein without mentioning her posting of the personal information of those student activists, on her website, is hypocritical in the extreme. Indeed, the behavior smacks of moral relativism, and the hypocrisy undercuts Malkin's moral authority and turns what should be a serious affair into a vehicle for cheap attack politics.

Thuggery - whether via email and telephone threats, or by publicizing and so targeting specific individuals for attack, must be condemned wherever and whenever it occurs regardless of the politics of the perpetrators.

The demonization of large societal groups based on no evidence or on the behavior of a scant few individuals alleged to be associated with those groups must also be condemned :

One can find such sweeping attacks on the character of "the left" and "the right" on both left leaning and right leaning blogs : such abuses of argument that in the end can only lead to greater hatred and societal polarization are below the standards Confederate Yankee professes to uphold.

Let's try to do better - both left and right.

Posted by: Bruce Wilson at July 9, 2006 10:06 AM

this is merely a sign of the times.
hate is all the rage.
still republicans and corporate hate shills like Goldstien usually get what they deserve as will Frisch.

Posted by: einstein at July 9, 2006 10:17 AM

Jeff Barea --

I don't have to answer for anything.

If you don't have to answer for a converative woman who stages protests at the funerals of fallen soldiers, then why do liberals have to answer for a liberal woman who encourages the murder of children?

You're a hypocrite.

Posted by: Cyrus McElderry at July 9, 2006 10:33 AM

White Americans from the South are the most retarded, evil people in the World.

Evil. The Devil's Spawn. Born with FAS and drinking themselves into oblivion.

Posted by: The Rest of the World at July 9, 2006 11:05 AM

L&P - Your comment at 10:10 pm on 7/8 shows that you CAN express yourself more succinctly and with less bombast. Keep up the good work!

Posted by: SmokeVanThorn at July 9, 2006 11:05 AM

Gavin over at Sadly, No! tears you to pieces over this one:

http://sadlyno.com/archives/003206.html#more-3206

Just sayin'.

To. Pieces.

Posted by: VIsh at July 9, 2006 11:24 AM

This whole thing is just astonishingly silly. Time for a little perspective:

1) Ms. Frisch's comments were extraordinarily stupid and vicious.

2) Unless I'm missing something, they were no more than words--never any kind of credible threat.

3) The fact that they were directed toward a child was particularly horrible, but only for Goldstein; they did not in any way harm the kid unless Goldstein himself read them to him.

4) I have never linked to, read, or even (before now) heard of Deborah Frisch. I have nothing in common with Frisch other than, apparently, being part of a very broad political spectrum that includes her. That doesn't make me responsible for her comments.

5) Still: stupid and vicious.

6) The verbal attacks do not appear to have in any way increased the probability of harm coming to Goldstein or his kid.

7) Unlike actions by bloggers (including but not limited to Malkin and Stop the ACLU)

8) Whom Confederate Yankee has not condemned, and to whom he does link.

Posted by: Tom Hilton at July 9, 2006 12:00 PM

SouthernRoots,

First off, let me say that the post at hand is garbage. What else does one need to say? I've said it numerous times. To threaten ANYONE is awful and should not happen. There, it's done again. I guess your idea of dealing with the post at hand is to dissect the item and tar and feather Deborah Frisch. A blog post is similar to a living organism; it grows and changes depending upon what's put into it. My focus was not to attack Frisch but to point out the hypocrisy of this blog. What happens then? I get a bunch of wanna-be pundits whose idea of an argument is the same as Assrocket's at Power Line, that being the You're wrong because I said you were wrong and I won't answer any of your questions directly even if you go to the trouble of providing me proof to back up your comments. Then, I'll just call you names and say you're an idiot but not counter ANYTHING you've said. All one needs to do is look at my post where I include ALL of TangoMan's responses to my one simple question. Did he, or did he not falsify data to prove his point. He won't answer it and better yet, no one here will. Rather, some here engage in the tried and true conservative approach of saying I spew hate, can't make an argument without name calling, and the good old Ad hominem. The best part? I get accused of using the Ad hominem. Why do I call people idiots and lying, cheating, fact-fixing assholes? Because they are. And Casssandra's comment about the "revolution?" What in that is worthy of an intelligent response? Not ONE of you here that claim to hold your own accountable condemned her for that remark, only me for fanging her for it. Now, I really don't know what more to say, but I can tell you what the tried and true response to this post will be. It will come in the form of me not "backing up" any of my comments, which I have amply done in most prior posts, and it will come in the form of me being accused of whining and crying, which is not the case at all. I have not called you or anyone else here a name and have politely responded to your comment. Now please show me the same respect and tell me if you believe it is okay for TangoMan to post false data to prove a point. Do you condone that behavior on your blog? Do you also condone your members calling for a "revolution" that implies the liberals will be on the losing end, hence threatening violence against liberals. Will you give me simple answers to simple questions? Yes or No?

The coming civil war shall be such fun.
She was wrong. So are you. Life is good. Stock weapons now. We don't have to worry about the terrorists. We have to worry about those standing next to us.
Posted by: Cassandra at July 8, 2006 06:04 PM

A simple Comparison:
Mine:
Vote by Education..........All......Gore......Bush......Buchanan......Nader
No H.S. Degree..............5%.......59%......39%........1%................1%
High School Graduate....21%.....48%......49%........1%................1%
Some College................32%.....45%.......51%.......0%................3%
College Graduate...........24%....45%.......51%.......0%................3%
Post-Graduate Degree...18%....52%.......44%.......0%................3%
TangoMan:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dems..........Repub
* No H.S. Degree - - - - - - -59%............39%
* High School Graduate - - - 48%............49%
* Some College - - - - - - - -45%...........51%
* College Graduate - - - - - -45% ..........51%
* Post-Graduate Degree - - --52%..........44%
Another Lying Turd exposed!
Posted by A. Patirot at July 8, 2006 06:08 PM

Posted by: A.Patriot at July 9, 2006 12:08 PM

Cousin-marrying, Jack Daniels-mainlining, clay-eating trailer trash.

Posted by: The Resf of the World at July 9, 2006 12:16 PM

Cyrus,

Since you can't see the difference between protesting a funeral and sexually molesting and murdering little boys, I'm not surprised you don't understand the definition of a hypocrite.

Let me clue you in. Phelps believes in a Theocracy. Big government at its finest. Can you see that is not the conservative position of limited government? You should be the one apologizing for them, not me.

Please make sure you don't compare apples and oranges when you try to connect philosophies.

Posted by: Jeff Barea at July 9, 2006 12:32 PM

Open to all at CY:

Is this your defender? A man who accuses someone of an Ad hominem and then in as arrogant a tone as possible uses the Ad hominem without substantiating anything? This guy's a real piece of work and probably has a personailty disorder. I especially love how he accuses me of "lying" because I didn't leave when I said I was leaving. Only a true Neo-Con Bushaholic would resort to such a lame and incoherent tactic.

To A. Patriot:
You can't even leave gracefully can you? Did you lie about leaving then?
I will damn well put a hy-phen where I damn we-ll please if you continue to lie about leaving in addition to your count-less lies about not usi-ng ad-hominem attacks, while using ad-hominem att-acks to do i-t.
Hell, you ev-en used an ad-hominem att-ack to attack my clear de-mon-stra-tion of your ad-hominem a-ttacks.
Calling someone an ass, a jerk, and stupid is in fact the entire de-fin-it-ion of AD-HOMINEM.
And then you forgot to post your, so omg searing goodbye, and had to, as a second thought come back on to do it.
Outclassed and jittery now? You seem a bit disconcerted boy. Keep up the good work. Maybe one day you will be able to actually contend without the after-thought postings.
Buh-bye babe...
Posted by: Jeff Barea at July 9, 2006 01:17 AM

Posted by: A.Patriot at July 9, 2006 01:02 PM

Hey Jeff,

Spreading joy and goodwill where ever you go, right? LOL! Going to throw some more stones my way without doing any real work? You go boy! BTW, your blog sucks. FYI, that's NOT an Ad hominem, it's just my opinion and I'll use your defense to defend it. I won't post anything to s-u-b-s-t-a-n-t-i-a-t-e what I say except to claim that it speaks for itself and anyone caring to challenge what I say should just go to your blog and read it for themselves? Did I get it right Jeff? Isn't that how things work here?

Posted by: A.Patriot at July 9, 2006 01:10 PM

A. Patriot:

What is the problem you have with doing what you say you are going to do?

You say you won't use ad-hominem atta-cks and the-n you do.

You say you are leaving, and then you don't.

It's called a pattern.

How do I substantiate that? I use your own words. No quotes from federalist papers, no need to show polling results.

You say it, you get to be held accountable for saying it. Much like Debbie does Arizona has to be.

Two other simple things: 1) Calling me, the leader of a paleo-con thinktank - and sworn political enemy of the neo-con philosophy - a neo-con is silly, as silly as calling me a Bushaholic when I didn't vote for him - not even in his gubenatorial races. 2) Of course my blog sucks. I like it that way. Happy ending and all that. I even wrote about it sucking at http://bareablog.com/article.php?story=2006052411113580

I'm not running for Prom Queen. I'm simply exposing every inconsistency and lie that liberals try to cover up with quotes and figures and statistics.

What I am saaaaaayyyyyiiiiiinngggg is give truth a chance...

All I am saaaaaaayyyyyiiiinnnngggg is give truth a chance...

Posted by: Jeff Barea at July 9, 2006 01:20 PM

what she posted doesn't have anything to do with Left or Right - it's just plain old crap. it's disgusting. and from what i've seen of her response, i think she's disgusting. and don't forget, she doesn't speak for anyone but herself.

and i'd have posted the same thing in her blog, if she hadn't turned off the comments.

Posted by: cleek at July 9, 2006 01:35 PM

Jeff Barea -- You think Phelps-Roper is a liberal? That's laughable. Of course she's a conservative, all those religious maniacs are. If you get to decide who is and isn't a conservative, then liberals should be able to say who is and isn't a liberal too.

I didn't equate protesting at soldier funerals and harming children. I'm saying that you're a hypocrite.

Posted by: Cyrus McElderry at July 9, 2006 02:18 PM

A small request:

Could the people posting lengthy screeds as blog comments please post them on their own blogs and just provide a link?

Think of it as having some respect for the bandwidth challenged.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 9, 2006 02:33 PM

TROTW - Nice try, but you really need to get out more.

A. Patriot - I acknowledge that you denounced the actions of Frisch.

Look at the newspapers from the 1850's and you will see pretty vitriolic language, similar to our current "civil" discourse between the left and the right. In those days, the ideological split became so strong that the South seceded and started a bloody war. Maybe Cassandra has trepidation that what is happening today could end up the same. But since I only noticed one posting, I couldn't say one way or the other.

As for Tangoman, you insist on tearing him apart for doing the time-honored approach of looking for penumbras and emanations within the written word, rather than just interpreting the black and white text. Does that make him a “lying turd”, or a Supreme Court justice? A news editor? An advertising executive? A political strategist? Why was there no similar outrage that Sine.Qua.Non did not provide a link to support his assertion?

Why do you refuse to discuss the substance of his argument rather than nitpick a few nonsubstantial changes he made?

A simple Comparison:
Mine:
Vote by Education..........All......Gore......Bush......Buchanan......Nader
No H.S. Degree..............5%.......59%......39%........1%................1%
High School Graduate....21%.....48%......49%........1%................1%
Some College................32%.....45%.......51%.......0%................3%
College Graduate...........24%....45%.......51%.......0%................3%
Post-Graduate Degree...18%....52%.......44%.......0%................3%
TangoMan:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dems..........Repub
* No H.S. Degree - - - - - - -59%............39%
* High School Graduate - - - 48%............49%
* Some College - - - - - - - -45%...........51%
* College Graduate - - - - - -45% ..........51%
* Post-Graduate Degree - - --52%..........44%
Another Lying Turd exposed!
Posted by A. Patirot at July 8, 2006 06:08 PM

In this most favourite chart you love to repost, when I looked at the comparison, the first thought I had was that instead of saying Gore, Tangoman relabels the chart to represent the Dems candidate and Bush is relabeled as the Repub candidate. The bottom line is that most of the people identified as having attained higher levels of education, with the exception of Post-Graduate, voted for Bush/Repub over Gore/Dems. 23% of the people had either no high school education or a post grad degree and they voted for Gore. 77% of the people were high school through college graduates and they voted for Bush. While it doesn’t prove which parties members are more intelligent, it does show that the majority of educated people stayed away from Gore – the Dems candidate.

Debbie Frisch is supposedly one of the intelligent group. Her classes center on judgement and decision making. Ironic.

Posted by: SouthernRoots at July 9, 2006 02:45 PM

I do not condone any threats or what not, but with the way Jeff conducts himself, what does anyone expect?

Posted by: Fred at July 9, 2006 02:55 PM

Actually Jeff, I said is this your defender, as a response to YOUR use of the word in this phrase:

Check this out you liberals, here is your defender

Now, I mind it amusing that you are such a blatant hypocrite and in such denial. There is treatment for such an affliction, but alas, never a cure. Once a personality disorder, always a personality disorder. In using your own words, I would like to respond to you calling me a defender of the liberals. I'll post your original statement separate from the full quote below so as to filter out all the nice things you said about me, and then my edited version replacing any NEO-CON references but still using your words. That way, we can compare.

Calling me, the leader of a paleo-con thinktank - and sworn political enemy of the neo-con philosophy - a neo-con is silly, as silly as calling me a Bushaholic when I didn't vote for him - not even in his gubenatorial races.

Calling me, the leader of a paleo-LIBERAL thinktank - and sworn political enemy of the LIBERAL philosophy - a LIBERAL is silly, as silly as calling me a [Bushaholic when I didn't vote for him - not even in his gubenatorial races.]

Okay, so you didn't vote for Bush and, apparently, you hate the Neo-Con philosophy. Great. We seem to agree on two things. Still your logic is flawed beyond belief. You're like the guy who sits at the bar, annoying all the customers, and then cries foul when someone punches you out or you're asked to leave. As if you have a right to behave the way you do without anyone calling you on it. The same tactic as when Ann Coulter attacks the 9/11 widows and then complains that people are attacking her for her attacks, which she claims is her just telling the truth. There's a great video that i wanted to link to, but I couldn't find it. Darn! But below is a funny link. Take the quiz and report back, will ya?
go HERE for a Coulter or Hitler quiz. Myself, I got four wrong.

I love your jump in logic in the quote below about me saying I'm leaving, but instead countering a couple of you inane points with liberals not caring about the truth. Given that logic, I guess you'd agree that anyone who supports the death penalty doesn't care about life, hence cannot be have a Pro Life stance without being a hypocrite. Correct?

Bwuahahahahaahahaaha:
Check this out you liberals, here is your defender:
"Now I'm really going, I promise.
Posted by: A.Patriot at July 9, 2006 01:00 AM"
And after he said that he posted:
"Now I'm really going, I promise.
Posted by: A.Patriot at July 9, 2006 01:00 AM"
Now I am really going, I promise.
ROFLMAO.
Freak says what?
If you go, you don't post again.
Truth does not matter to liberals.
Glenn Greenwald understands this, too.
Posted by: Jeff Barea at July 9, 2006 01:22 AM

Posted by: A.Patriot at July 9, 2006 03:33 PM

Jeff,

I forgot. I could also use your tactic and say, I'll come and go as I damn well please and I'll thank you to keep your mouth shut and not tell me what to do and when to do it. Who do you think you are anyway?

Posted by: A.Patriot at July 9, 2006 03:36 PM

Oops! My bad Jeff. Posted the wrong full quote so here is the correct one. I suppose that means that Liberasl are, what? I'm sure you'll tie my action into something that has nothing to do with anything at all relevant, or liberals for that matter.

A. Patriot:
What is the problem you have with doing what you say you are going to do?
You say you won't use ad-hominem atta-cks and the-n you do.
You say you are leaving, and then you don't.
It's called a pattern.
How do I substantiate that? I use your own words. No quotes from federalist papers, no need to show polling results.
You say it, you get to be held accountable for saying it. Much like Debbie does Arizona has to be.
Two other simple things: 1) Calling me, the leader of a paleo-con thinktank - and sworn political enemy of the neo-con philosophy - a neo-con is silly, as silly as calling me a Bushaholic when I didn't vote for him - not even in his gubenatorial races. 2) Of course my blog sucks. I like it that way. Happy ending and all that. I even wrote about it sucking at http://bareablog.com/article.php?story=2006052411113580
I'm not running for Prom Queen. I'm simply exposing every inconsistency and lie that liberals try to cover up with quotes and figures and statistics.
What I am saaaaaayyyyyiiiiiinngggg is give truth a chance...
All I am saaaaaaayyyyyiiiinnnngggg is give truth a chance...
Posted by: Jeff Barea at July 9, 2006 01:20 PM

Posted by: A.Patriot at July 9, 2006 03:46 PM

My favorite Jeff Goldstein quote:

Incidentally, Tim? I touched your sister in her secret places. Lots.

Posted by: Jeff G at November 17, 2005 10:42 PM

Posted by: Fred at July 9, 2006 03:52 PM

instead of saying Gore, Tangoman relabels the chart to represent the Dems candidate and Bush is relabeled as the Repub candidate.

Exactly, he LIED and FALSIFIED THE DATA. How on earth can you acknowledge that he did it, and then defend him doing it. If it's that simple, I think I'll take to "relabeling" as much data as I can find to make my point the correct one. Don't you see how egregious this type of behavior is?

The bottom line is that most of the people identified as having attained higher levels of education, with the exception of Post-Graduate, voted for Bush/Repub over Gore/Dems.

PROVE to me that everyone who voted for BUSH was a Republican, or even a conservative. Can you do that? Based on you way of doing things, I claim that the majority of those with higher educations that voted for Bush in 2000 were Liberals who had strayed from their liberal roots. Prove me wrong here based on the data at hand.

While it doesn’t prove which parties members are more intelligent, it does show that the majority of educated people stayed away from Gore – the Dems candidate.

On this we agree. According to the data, that is what it says, though it also states that those with the highest education levels stayed away from Bush. This still doesn't tackle to problem that TangoMan falsifies facts to suit his own end. Posted by: A.Patriot at July 9, 2006 04:00 PM

Southernroots,

Look at the newspapers from the 1850's and you will see pretty vitriolic language, similar to our current "civil" discourse between the left and the right. In those days, the ideological split became so strong that the South seceded and started a bloody war. Maybe Cassandra has trepidation that what is happening today could end up the same. But since I only noticed one posting, I couldn't say one way or the other.

WTF? Cassandra said:

The coming civil war shall be such fun.

I guess that's okay with you. Are you going to have fun in the coming Civil War? Yes or No? You only condemn those who do not meet your ideological point of view. I do not. I fang liberals on the liberal blog I'm a member of just as much as I've done here, if not more so. you see, I expect this kind of response from you on the right. I find it repugnant, but even more-so when done by someone claiming to be a liberal or a progressive. Now, we may just have agree to disagree, but form your stance here, you have not condemned Cassandra for spreading hatred or TangoMan for spreading lies. As to Sine.Qua.Non's statement, it was not backed up by any data and is therefore bullshit in my opinion. At least Sine.Qua.Non didn't post something fake and call it data to prove the point. Here is the statement in full that was a response to the tag "liberalism is a persistent vegetative state":

You TAR AND FEATHER everyone with this disingenious comment. The fact of the matter is that liberals are the most educated and most intelligent people in the U.S. statistically. What Frisch wrote was reprehensible. That certainly doesn't make us all the same, nor even one percent of us of the ilk of this persons seriously deluded psyche, whoever the hell she is. Ditto MAHA Posted by: Sine.Qua.Non at July 8, 2006 04:48 PM

Posted by: A.Patriot at July 9, 2006 04:20 PM

Southernroots,

Why do you refuse to discuss the substance of his argument rather than nitpick a few nonsubstantial changes he made?

Those "nonsubstantial changes" you mention IS the "substance of the argument." Man, how thick are you anyway? You people are the same ones that claim Rove and Libby are in the clear because neither one has been indicted on the original charge Fitz was investigating EVEN AFTER FITZ EXPLAINED WHY HE COULDN'T INDICT ANYONE OF THAT CHARGE! He said it was like having sand thrown in the umpires face while making a call. He can't make the call if he can't get to the facts because his view is being obstructed. Hence the OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CHARGE! Posted by: A.Patriot at July 9, 2006 04:27 PM

Maha:

And FYI, fascism is not a form of socialism....Hitler hated socialism

Fascism can't be a form of socialism because Hitler didn't like socialists? Is that sort of like how, because DailyKos hates The New Republic, the New Republic is not liberal?

There's no point in having a debate about fascism and socialism in this thread, but I base my point of view, in large part, on the writings of Friedrich Augustus Hayek, which I understand not everyone would agree with. The one thing that is absolutely clear, however, is that a libertarian is about as opposite to fascism, communism, and socialism as can be, so the attempt to paint certain libertarians as neo-nazis is asinine.

And, again, I found it interesting that The New Republic, a liberal news magazine that's been around for a hundred years, looked at the Kos/Greenwald element of the Left and called it fascism. I personally think calling others nazis and fascists is overdone so I probably wouldn't have used the word, but that's the word The New Republic chose after they were under fire for merely writing about legitimate issues of corruption in the DailyKos community.

I notice that many of Kos's own ranks are concerned about this, and some are being blackballed, purged, and "troll rated" for raising the issue on the DailyKos web site (see today's Kausfiles on Slate for example). It's obviously a touchy subject. So, for raising issues about the appearances of impropriety and corruption at DailyKos, The New Republic is now, after 100 years, no longer liberal. What a joke.

Put another way, the Nazis were socialists the same way the People's Republic of China is Republican.

No, the People's Republic of China is communist, which is a form of socialism as well.

And, FYI, under current ownership, The New Republic is about as liberal as you are.

Why's that? Is the current owner Jewish? Or are you just following your marching orders from the DailyKos/Greenwald Townhouse, like a good brownshirt?

The idea that The New Republic is not liberal is absolutely absurd, of course. As for me, I certainly am not a "liberal" in the contemporary American definition of the word. I'm a liberal is the classical European definition. As for the Kos movement, I'd say The New Republic has a far more legit claim to the "liberal" label than they do. The Kozoids are "progressives," that is, socialists afraid to call themselves socialists.

Rather than whining about how the progressive/socialist Left (as opposed to the Liberal Left you are waging war against) is portrayed with respect to fighting Islamism, jihad and Islamic terrorism, perhaps the Far Left in America should begin taking the side of the USA in the war. As soon as you do that, any attacks on the Left being sympathetic to, or soft on, the enemy would, obviously, not be able to stick.

Posted by: LoafingOaf at July 9, 2006 05:05 PM

Um, A. Patriot?

Do you need a warm bottle, burp, and a nap? Enormous amounts of keystrokes all to make little sense except insult.

Cyrus - I'll try to make it simpler using math.

christian=religion.
liberal=big government
conservative=small government

Following me yet? A Christian that likes big government is a liberal. A Christian that likes small government is a conservative.

Or would you call the Christians at Metropolitan Community Church conservatives too? Psst that's the gay church.

Posted by: Jeff Barea at July 9, 2006 05:14 PM

perhaps the Far Left in America should begin taking the side of the USA in the war. As soon as you do that, any attacks on the Left being sympathetic to, or soft on, the enemy would, obviously, not be able to stick.

it doesn't stick now. but that obviously hasn't stopped the flying monkeys of the partisan right from flinging it around with idiotic glee.

Posted by: cleek at July 9, 2006 05:14 PM

To Loafing Oaf:

Hitler was the leader of the National SOCIALIST party. Getting it clear now? He hated COMMUNISTS.

I'll make this so clear even A. Patriot can understand it.

Think of how Stalinists and Trotskyites hated each other so much they kept killing each other.

Want another example? Spain. Another? China vs. Vietnam. Do I really need to post more examples?

Posted by: Jeff Barea at July 9, 2006 05:19 PM

Cleek:

The Far Left fool no one and it does stick. But you keep purging Joe Leiberman from the Democratic Party simply because he's on the side of the USA in the war.....

Posted by: LoafingOaf at July 9, 2006 05:23 PM

Why are conservatives on the side of raping and killing innocent children, and sending innocent young American men to their early death? conservatives hate America, hate our troops, hate everything that is good and pure in the world and want us to loose. Pathetic.

Posted by: John at July 9, 2006 05:31 PM

The Far Left fool no one and it does stick.

actually, it doesn't. well, maybe it does here, where you're flinging it at straw mock-ups of what you consider to be "The Far Left". but out in the real world, you're just a bunch of crap-flinging flying monkeys.

But you keep purging Joe Leiberman from the Democratic Party simply because he's on the side of the USA in the war.....

Leiberman has many other problems besides his positions w/r/t the Iraq war. and, to call the electoral process a 'purge' suggests that you either don't understand or don't like democracy in action. give them a choice, and let the people vote. got a problem with that?

Posted by: cleek at July 9, 2006 05:43 PM

John said: Why are conservatives on the side of raping and killing innocent children, and sending innocent young American men to their early death? conservatives hate America, hate our troops, hate everything that is good and pure in the world and want us to loose. Pathetic.

See, now that's an example of a charge that doesn't stick. But we understand you're quite upset Saddam Hussein is in a cage, on trial, awaiting execution. I'm sure the policy you supported for Iraq in 2002 would've made Iraq a paradise of peace as they awaited Uday Hussein taking over the reins of the dictatorship from his daddy and Iraqis could look forward to another generation of Baathism. Well, not all Iraqis. Some of them would've been ethnically cleansed off the face of the earth, as the Far Left considered the No-Fly Zones protecting the Kurdish people to be "illegal." I don't know if your ilk truly believes you're "anti-war" but it's objectively a lie.

And we know the Far Left wants America to lose in Iraq and nothing good to be achieved there, just as they oppose everything and anything, domestically and overseas, in the larger War on Terror. And they pick leaders to speak for them, such as Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moron, who overtly refer to Zarqawi and Baathist insurgents as "minutemen" and "freedom fighters" rather than standing in solidarity with the millions of Iraqis who voted despite being under threat of being blown up at polling stations by the Saddamists and Al Qaeda barbarians, and rather than standing behind the American soldiers bravely fighting against pure evil. If you think this doesn't open you to the charges you're being hit with, I can only laugh. So, no, you're not fooling anyone. But because I'm fair I'm always careful not to lump all Democrats in with that. The Democratic Party is currently being hijacked. The good news for the majority of Americans is that, although the Far Left can hijack the Party by taking over candidate funding thru web sites like that creep, George Soros's, MoveOn.org, and although their brownshirts can swarm on decent Democrats, the Far Left simply cannot get anywhere in general elections. Thus, either the good Democrats will take back their party, or they will leave it for another. That is, of course, what the Joe Leiberman race is really about. If the hijackers of the Democratic Party purge him simply because he wants America to succeed in the war, he will run as an independent.

Posted by: LoafingOaf at July 9, 2006 08:39 PM

Jeff,

To Loafing Oaf: Hitler was the leader of the National SOCIALIST party. Getting it clear now? He hated COMMUNISTS. I'll make this so clear even A. Patriot can understand it. Think of how Stalinists and Trotskyites hated each other so much they kept killing each other. Want another example? Spain. Another? China vs. Vietnam. Do I really need to post more examples? Posted by: Jeff Barea at July 9, 2006 05:19 PM

Here's another example. Jeff Barea and everyone else.

Posted by: A.Patriot at July 9, 2006 10:03 PM

Hey Jeff,

Having problems with the amount of information I provide? I know it's rough when you have to read your own words, while at the same time having them explained to you. Sorry if I caused you any mental discomfort. I like the nap idea. I think I'll take you up on it except with a cold bottle or two, or more, a burp or burps, and a nap. Hey, maybe I'll throw in a fart or two for good measure.

Posted by: A.Patriot at July 9, 2006 10:18 PM

p.s.

at least you allow comments on your site before you delete them, unlike michelle malkin!

Posted by: Shorter Rightwing Meanies at July 9, 2006 11:00 PM

I haven't kept up with Hunter, but Glenn's recent posts speak for themselves. He doesn't make charges without providing arguments in defense of his charges.

Er, he charged outright that Zenergle MADE UP the infamous e-mail from Gilliard and titled a post asking if Zenergle is another "Stephen Glass". So, than charging that someone intentionally made up something and therefore intentionally put forth a fabrication in order to pursue a story (as opposed to having multiple sources who simply erred) I guess you're right...sort like saying "except for when the sun is up, it's always dark".

There's still the opportunity for that apology, btw, Greenwald. You were wrong. Step up and apologize for the accusation....you can still be right about the e-mail not existing while admitting error for your attempted smear (although, that's what you do, isn't it? In between obsessing over Glenn Reynolds, that is).

Posted by: RW at July 10, 2006 08:27 AM

BTW, there still seems to be some question as to her title. Greenwald says he's seen that she's a "temporary worker from Oregon" while she says:

"“I play a dangerous game by being a professor and also having a very rabid left-wing blog and also posting nasty inflammatory comments on other people’s blogs,"

Link

I must say that this story has provided one thing if no other: seeing Glenn Greenwald pooh-pooh the notion that people demanding apologies/outrage from the opposition, since that's part of his one-trick-pony act (a segment of "yeah, but what about those damn Republicans" routine).

Posted by: RW at July 10, 2006 08:57 AM

Sooner or later (obviously later), some of the netroots folks are going to learn that I don't particularly care for a certain kind of language, and that is why their profanity-laced tirades keep disappearing.

Gentlemen, you are presumably adults.

Act like it.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 10, 2006 09:44 AM

Geez CY - you brought out the vast left-wing conspiracy mongers on this one.

What Frisch did is inexcusable. Good riddance to her. Is she typical of the left? I don't think so. I think that PATRIOT is far more typical of the left blogosphere - interweaving insults and name calling in every single post. Resorting to vulgarity when presented with fact. Not really making great arguments but spewing hate when he types. You can feel the anger behind his writing. As if the hanging chads were our fault! I think he takes things way to personally in the political arena.

But is it all of the left? Obviously not. But I have been around for a very long time in these types of debates, and I must say that there are more hate-mongers, curse-throwers, and vitriol-slinging folks on the left than on the right - And I read both sides.

As far as Ann Coulter goes - yes she rants and raves and many, many on the right don't like her style. But she brings up valid issues.

The address issue is tricky. I know that a lot of you are against Malkin for posting, but remember that she had her personal information posted a few months back, with information about her children. If you will remember, it was after the SAW group attacked the armed services recruiters at a career day on campus. The SAW group had a website that had the names and email addresses, along with other personal information about SAW's leaders. That information was pointed to by Malkin and propagated throughout the blogosphere. In response, her home address and the other persona information was posted. Now - Where was the rationale? Sure - she posted their stuff which was publicly available on their own site. But hers wasn't. It was a revenge thing.

I don't think posting the photographer's name/address was correct. But I have no problem with Keller or Pinch - they brought that on when they decided to do the same the other way. The photographer was only the tool (sorry - very dehumanized term, but true) they used to forward their political agenda.

Posted by: Specter at July 10, 2006 09:48 AM

Mr. Yankee, how do you feel about "political correctness?" Is your position on "political correctness" consistent with your position here? Just curious...

Posted by: Father Figure at July 10, 2006 09:51 AM

You should define that more narrowly FF. It is hard to fathom which definition you speak of.

Posted by: Specter at July 10, 2006 09:53 AM

"Political correctness" is a (arguably mythical) perceived "movement" to restrict or eraditcate certain forms of speech. One form is labeled "hate speech." Many people on the right have publically derided "political correctness" because of its perceived chilling effect on speech, and concomitantly, meaningful debate.

Posted by: Father figure at July 10, 2006 10:55 AM

I am becoming more and more convinced that, other than legitimate commerce, it is not at all clear that the internet is on the whole a good thing. For every rational discussion or exposure of corruption or slipshod reporting in the MSM, there seem to be about five spleen venting tirades and schoolyard "I know you are but what am I" spitting matches.
How many manhours are wasted by lonely, smoldering goofballs thinking up just the right epithet for their evil, unseen cyber-interlocutors? Goofballs who might otherwise be gainfully employed and contributing to society, I might add.
I'd say there are way too many people with way too much time on their hands with way too much venom in place of their cerebrospinal fluid.
Think I'll go do something real.

Posted by: Barney Frank at July 10, 2006 11:17 AM

um, yeah. Like my last comment that you deleted, which had no curse words.

I think you are a coward, that's all. I am an adult, calling you a big coward who can't actually respond to what I have to say.

since you have no real arguments or rational reasons to back up your lack of intellect, you feel it is necessary to make up an affront (you used those big mean curse words), then simply delete the comment, rather than actually, you know, debating.

Posted by: Shorter Rightwing Meanies at July 10, 2006 11:26 AM

All this just proves Penny Arcade's theory.

Normal Human Being + Anonymity and Other Protections of the Internet = Raging F__kwad

Posted by: Michael Andreyakovich at July 10, 2006 12:33 PM

Patriotboy of Jesus' General a liberal humor site, denounced Deb Frisch's toddler threatening garbage.

In the comments on her blog though not his own blog.

Posted by: spacemonkey at July 10, 2006 01:13 PM

Yeah, I know random_guy, it all boils down to those damn righties. I'm guessing your inauguration party wasn't what you had in mind?

Posted by: RW at July 10, 2006 02:33 PM

What she said was disgusting, and she is probably a disturbed woman, but it was not a death threat — please cut the bullshit.

If you do consider saying that she’d rejoice in hearing of the kid’s death to be a death threat, what’s your take on this tid-bit by Thomas (admin of RedState, one of the biggest conservative blogs, not some obscure unknown nobody like this woman):

“I repeat: Should the entire American Left fall over dead tomorrow, I would rejoice, and order pizza to celebrate. They are not my countrymen; they are animals who happen to walk upright and make noises that approximate speech. They are below human. I look forward to seeing each and every one in Hell.”

By you standards of what is an expression of murderous intentions, isn’t Thomas up there with Hitler and Stalin? Or even worse -- those two never tried to murder half their countries' population, you have to go to Pol Pot for that.

This stuff is regular fare in mainstream conservative blogs — those with the largest audiences. On the liberal side you’ll only hear it from people on the fringes that nobody reads (and thank God for that).

Posted by: mikezw at July 12, 2006 01:17 AM

mikezw,

According to the Special Agent I spoke with Monday at the Phoenix Field Office of the FBI, it is indeed a death threat, and within their jusrisdiction as it was an interstate threat. Goldstein merely needs to decide if he wants to press charges or not.

As for what Thomas said at Redstate, it is reprehensible, but it is not a death threat by even the most open definition.

Death threats require an actual threat; he made none.

As for your attempted history lesson, I find it even more disgusting than Thomas' comments.

Hitler never attempted to wipe out half his countries population... just all jews, gypsies, and other minoritites, and many mentally ill and physically handicapped. I guess they weren't people to you?

Stalin murdered millions or drove them in human waves into combat; sometimes unarmed, with his officers ordered to kill those who retreated. Between Hitler and Stalin, 23 million Russians died.

Stalin's Great Purge killed millions; hundreds of thousands by firing squads, simply for not being loyal to the communist party. Some 400,00 were thrown to the wolves for being communists that weren't loyal enough. Almost all of the Boleshiviks were executed, along with almost every member of Lenin's government. Total estimates of those killed range as high as 100 million people, though a more commonly accepted number is about 20 million.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and you have very little indeed.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 12, 2006 08:09 AM

A few shots here.

Will - your screed, if you substitute liberal for conservative, and Democrat for Republican would read eerily similar to the original.

Beef cakes - please, please make sure you shout your "story" from the highest treetop!! We want you to be front-and-center and make sure your ideas get the light they so desperately need shined upon them.

A. Patriot - is it your contention that you require an accurate accounting of each voter's political affiliation and whom they voted for in 2000? That would take a large amount of time would it not? Since none of us has that much time on our hands we are left to interpret the data as is presented. Would it not be fair to conclude that in one of the most partisan of elections ever that the vast majority of Democrats voted for Gore/Lib and not for Bush/Repub? Would it be fair to conclude that the vast majority of Republicans voted for Bush/Repub instead of Gore/Lib? Given this assumption that one must make if they are to come to any conclusion (even a flawed one) then it is possible to conclude that an even distribution of party crossers across the demographics of education would still show that Bush/Repub garnered more people with a HS and College degree would it not? And if it does not, then YOU or others on the left cannot continue to propagate the hoax that the Left is "more educated" than the Right, since you also have no "proof" given this same set of data.

Finally - A. Patriot - I love how you mis-use the definition of Ad Hominem. Go back to college and take Logic 101. The Ad Hominem attack is a logical fallacy. It typically takes the generic form of the following;

Person A makes a statement of Z.
There is something "objectionable" about A.
Therefore statement Z is false.

You notoriously engage in the use of argumentum ad personam which is the abusive form of Ad Hominem that describes insulting one's opponent instead of attacking the logic or facts underpinning your opponent's statement. To claim that you are not engaging in ad hominem attacks when you clearly are is baffling... albeit not unexpected.

Posted by: Thaiphoon at July 12, 2006 11:00 AM

Tangoman said: What a howler. Here is data that refutes your claim.

Inasmuch as the stats you provided are specific to one political race polling "voters" only, the evidence is shaky at best.

If you intend to pick a voter survey as the gist of your argument, at least post one that has broader and valid statistical evidence to support your claim. I believe you may see what I mean, but don't let the facts get in the way of your spurious opinions.

Insulting ass.

Posted by: Sine.Qua.Non at July 13, 2006 07:53 AM

Abu Ghraib torture was the work of "a few bad apples," clearly not the result of corrupt administration.

BUT, Deb Frisch?! She was reading Democratic Talking Points!!

very nice.

Posted by: poodiddle at July 14, 2006 08:50 AM

Ragin' at strangers
Death threats in cyberspace
Making fools of themselves
Page after page

Donkeys and Elephants
Sittin' in their underpants
Acting their shoes size
Never their age.

Posted by: Good Grief at July 15, 2006 12:47 PM