Same as it ever was……

There has been a lot of media talk in recent months about the nature of much of the criticism that Obama has received from the public and the conservative blogosphere. Some voice concern that the passion and volume of the anger toward him and his administration is unprecedented and unbecoming to the office of the Presidency. Chris Matthews once again repeated this point today, with the recent survey that 31% of Republicans think Obama is a Muslim. He also showed a recent tabloid cover that promoted pictorial “proof” that Obama was a Muslim. Chris acted perplexed about why there was so much looniness being expressed out there among the wacky right-wing.

I’ll give him this much. Yes, there are quite a few angry people out there who say a lot of odd and ugly stuff about Obama. The thing that I have to laugh at is the way this tone is such a revelation to so many liberal talking heads and bloggers!

It’s like the years 2000 to 2008 never happened!

A Rasmussen poll in 2007 (2007, mind you!), showed that 35% of Democrats believe that President Bush knew about the specific 9/11 attack and choose not to stop it.

A number of tabloids and partisan bloggers pushed the theory that Bush had become mentally unstable and began drinking again. Kitty Kelly put out a book that described Bush using cocaine at Camp David during his father’s term in office. A Chicago-based artist exhibited an Artistamp painting of Bush with a gun pointed at his head. A British film-maker created a documentary-style movie depicting the assassination of Bush (and won an award at a Toronto film festival). You can go to the blog at zombietime and see some truly heinous protest signs, t-shirts and bumper stickers.

I could go on further, but I think you get my point.

Some also may say that death threats against Obama spiked as high as 400 percent higher than the average amount around the spring of 2009, but a Newsweek article in November of that year indicated the the threats had since lowered to the same levels of the Clinton and Bush years. It may have risen again over the last year, but I’ve seen no data to confirm it.

Anyway, my main point is that part of this polling regarding conspiracies involving Obama and Bush can be attributed to one thing. And it is basic Psychology 101. The halo effect. A person with one perceived trait, good or bad, is assumed to have a range of other such good or bad traits. People may not even be sure it is true, but if it is a negative halo, they refuse to give the person the benefit of any doubt. Dislike of either President can often translate to other negative perceptions across the board.

I will say this too: Eugene Robinson (also on Hardball) did admit one thing that I’ve felt that Obama flubbed a long time ago. He has never picked a church to attend in the D.C. area. Even if it is mainly for show, the media clip of a President leaving church and shaking the minister’s hand has become a fairly standard and “comforting” (for lack of a better word) scene for many Americans. As Eugene says (and I agree), some (not all) of this “Is he a Christian” stuff could have been tamped down early on.

Many of you may say “who cares”, but an astute politician should.

154 Responses to “Same as it ever was……”

  1. Smith Says:

    “Even if it is mainly for show, the media clip of a President leaving church and shaking the minister’s hand has become a fairly standard and “comforting” (for lack of a better word) scene for many Americans. As Eugene says (and I agree), some (not all) of this “Is he a Christian” stuff could have been tamped down early on. ”


    Throughout the campaign, Obama’s opponents were able to simultaneously bitch about Rev. Wright and label Obama a “secret Muslim”. If associating him with a Christian religious figure would have been enough to end this idiocy, then the entire Rev. Wright debacle should have prevented the Muslim nonsense from ever coming up in the first place.

  2. shcb Says:

    But Wright had too much baggage to be a normal religious figure.

  3. jbc Says:

    I think this item leans on the scales a bit in order to make the equivalence argument. The information I’ve been able to find on the 2007 Rasmussen poll says that 35% of Democrat respondents believed Bush had information about the 9/11 attacks in advance, but I don’t see anything to indicate that the question included “and chose not to stop it.” That opens the possibility that in that 35% (or in the 22% of respondents overall, regardless of party, who chose the “had information in advance” choice) are people who interpreted the question as “had any information about the attacks in advance.” Since it’s documented that the Bush administration was informed in advance about some aspects of al Qaeda’s plans to launch a large-scale terrorist attack in the weeks before 9/11, I think it would be reasonable to assume that a chunk of that 35% consists of people who were actually rational and well-informed, but simply interpreted the response differently than someone who is a full-on “Bush KNEW!” 9/11 conspiracist.

    I’m fine with Craig’s larger point (that peoples’ likes and dislikes tend to influence their interpretation of reality, and drive them to take positions that fly in the face of reality). And I’d certainly acknowledge that large-scale belief in things that are demonstrably irrational is not restricted to either major political party. I think there’s a higher bar that would have be cleared, though, before I’d agree that the amount of lunacy on left or right is exactly equivalent, or that particularly egregious examples (like the number of Republicans who believe Obama is a Muslim) are unworthy of comment because they are just “the same as it ever was.”

    Yes, there exist surprising numbers of delusional people on the Left as well as on the Right. That doesn’t make their respective delusions less noteworthy. It still is worth our attention if there are much larger numbers of Republicans than Democrats who believe (mistakenly) that Obama is a secret Muslim, or that global warming is a myth, or much larger numbers of Democrats than Republicans who believe (mistakenly) that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job, or that vaccines cause autism. All those examples lead to interesting questions about how partisans obtain and process information. When digging into how that process works, I think we should be open to the possibility that along with the similarities between the various examples, there might also be significant differences.

    I’m not saying, “Ha! Some Republicans are nutjobs. Therefore, all Democrats are sane.” I’m saying, “you know, some Republicans are nutjobs. And some Democrats, too. And they tend to be nutty about different things. Why is that? What are the consequences of that?” For me, those are interesting questions.

  4. knarlyknight Says:

    I am interested in those questions too. But first, can you (or anyone) provide any basis so we can actually make one of these claims with any degree of confidence:

    1. if there are much larger numbers of Republicans than Democrats who believe (mistakenly) that Obama is a secret Muslim,
    2. that global warming is a myth,
    3. much larger numbers of Democrats than Republicans who believe (mistakenly) that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job,
    4. that vaccines cause autism.

    As for #3, a quick scan of people calling for a new investigation into 911 (they may not think it was an inside job) seems to contain more republicans (when their affiliation can be surmised) so I’d be especially interested if that were so.

  5. shcb Says:

    The reason they tend to be nutty about different things is simply priorities, what is important to one group or individual is less than the another. In many cases these priorities actually define the group. The more important an issue is to someone the closer they get to reacting emotionally, but somewhere between ambivalence and emotional wackiness most people pass through a phase where they are rather well informed but are still able to see things rationally, the trick is balancing on this ever moving sphere, it is easier to step off the ball to one side or the other.

  6. Craig Says:

    The question was apparently worded as “Did Bush know about the 9/11 attacks in advance?” To me, specifically mentioning the 9/11 attack itself implies whether or not he knew about that particular plan going into motion. Not just, “should he have take more action on the terrorist operations intel available to him?” I suppose it could have been crafted a little more specifically to get at the essense of the question, how much did Bush know and when did he know it?”

    But opinions on the question used certainly could vary.

  7. shcb Says:

    As I recall one of the complaints with that question when it was asked was it could be misinterpreted, I think there were more detailed internal questions that were asked in that poll (or one similar) that gave a spread closer to JBC’s explanation. Only a small number of people thought he knew enough specifics to make it an inside job, most that answered yes thought he had general information but nothing actionable.

  8. Craig Says:

    Additional poll from 2006 (Scripps Howard). This one was very specific in its wording. It is combined with a 2009 poll released by Daily Kos/Research 2000 regarding the birther issue.

    So, even if there were some conflation issues with the Rasmussen poll, the basic trend seems similar here.

    I could also argue that since this was a birther question in this poll (as opposed to the Muslim question in my original post), that the Republican answers may or may not read slightly differently, based upon the question being asked.

  9. Craig Says:

    Yet another poll that more specifically zeros in on Bush, instead of the Bush Administration.

    Again, the trend of believers (and the unsure) is strong along party lines. The birther percentage is bigger among Republicans in this survey, and this post gives a few reasons for the jump.

    And again, these Republican numbers may read differently if the “secret Muslim” question was being asked instead of where Obama was born.

  10. NorthernLite Says:

    Considering it’s a verifiable fact that Bush received a national security memo in August 2001 titled, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike the U.S. Using Airplanes” I find it strange that only 35% believe he knew about the 9/11 attacks before hand.

    It should be 100%.

    I think the whole Obama\Muslim thing is part of the larger religious war taking place in America right now. All I hear from the Republican leaders (Beck, Palin, etc.) these days are calls for more faith and religion in American politics.

    Which is kind of ironic considering their favourite enemies and enemy states are total religious nut jobs. Why they think they are any different with all their crazy religious speak I’ll never understand.

    All of ‘em scare me!

  11. knarlyknight Says:

    Amen to that.

  12. knarlyknight Says:

    JBC, here’s a book you may be interested in reading as it aligns with your “conspiracy theory” rhetoric (and apologies in advance for flogging this, at least I have no financial stake in it):

    Shortly after taking office on January 20, 2009 President Obama appointed Harvard law professor (and personal friend) Cass Sunstein to the post of administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. In June 2009 Sunstein published an essay in The Journal of Political Philosophy entitled “Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures,” in which he provided an “analysis” of conspiracy theories, viewing them, as his title indicated, as “caused” by psychological conditions and requiring “cures”, i.e., elimination. The article led to an outcry by civil libertarians of all political stripes, who especially singled out for protest Sunstein’s call for covert “cognitive infiltration” by government agents of organizations the government deems “conspiracist”.

    Scroll down to read the full Review of the book “Cognitive Infiltration: An Obama Appointee’s Plan to Undermine the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory” here:

  13. knarlyknight Says:

    Hold on to your hats, the damn has broken:

  14. NorthernLite Says:

    Hey knarly, sign this petition and make sure all your friends and family do as well. Harper had a secret meeting with Fox News owner Ruport Murdoch last year about setting up “Fox News North” (SunTV News) and so far the CRTC has rejected the application but we need to make sure it never happens.

  15. knarlyknight Says:

    Thanks NL,

    Konrad von Finckenstein now has Knarlyknight’s full support.

  16. NorthernLite Says:

    Awesome! Thanks knarly, means a lot.

    (sorry for having to post that here, but I need to :)

  17. knarlyknight Says:

    Oh, it’s not going to stop there. I’ll pass along to friends, we’ll amass an army to annihilate adversaries of the esteemed Konrad von Finckenstein.

  18. shcb Says:

    Ha Ha, you gotta love socialism.

  19. shcb Says:

    I will grant you this, it fits this thread

  20. knarlyknight Says:

    shcb, you must understand the context. First, this is the most recent salvo in a long bid to dumb down our media with ever increasing funding cuts and program dismantling of what used to be our beloved CBC stations (now they’re approaching sort of bleh in their impoverished operating climate. Second, if you have a name like Konrad von Finckenstein it goes wihtout saying that your life will be an uphill battle and you need all the help you can get.

  21. NorthernLite Says:

    Their application was rejected because Fox North wants our regulator to force our cable and sat providers to carry the channel for 3 years so the propaganda machine can “effectively expose and promote its programming to viewers across Canada.” The regulator said “no”. If your programming is appealing people will but it. Capitalism, no?

    And the movement by the people to prevent this garbage from spreading across the border comes from a deep desire by the people to keep that crap out of here and the poisonous politics that comes with it.

    Not sure how either of those fit into “socialism”. In fact, looks like democracy in action to me.

  22. knarlyknight Says:

    “socialism” has a new meaning in America these days, it means anything that gets in the way of corporate power and profits.

  23. knarlyknight Says:

    and by “corporate” they only mean politically well connected corporations.

  24. knarlyknight Says:

    and by “well connected” they mean reliable sources of campaign contributions or significant financial / political favours.

  25. shcb Says:

    If people want it they will watch, if people watch, it gets ratings, if it gets good ratings companies buy advertising so the people watching will buy their stuff and the circle is complete. No “regulator” paying with taxpayer money nor is their a regulator deciding what the people want, that is capitalism, what you are describing is neo socialism, the government decides if private industry is allowed to opperate based on whether the someone thinks it will “dumb down” the airwaves, I think the airwaves are pretty dumb when govenment gets to be the sole decider and people let it.

  26. knarlyknight Says:

    shcb, you misunderstood NL’s post. Fox was not asking to compete they were asking for a government subsidy in the form of a regulated forced access to cable at the expense of others.

  27. NorthernLite Says:

    Yeah. They were actually asking for socilaism, or government interference.

    It’s funny, because on one side we have Murdoch and on the other we have helping with the petition to stop this. The war has spilled accross the border! lol

    Sorry for hijacking the post. I’m done now. knarly and I will continue this fight north of the 49th parallel :)

  28. shcb Says:

    Would or do Fox’s competitors receive a similar subsidy?

  29. knarlyknight Says:

    Not that I’m aware of, if CTV (the non-public) network loses viewers they are toast.

  30. shcb Says:

    I’m still confused, it sounds like Fox wants a three year contract with your cable and sat companies (who are privately owned?) that sounds reasonable. Who is this “regulator”.

    This “hate” phraseology is sort of a tip off to the mentality we’re dealing with, which ties into what Craig started this thread with. How is Fox more hateful than CNN or CBS, NBC etc? But save that for now, I’m still interested in the mechanics of this deal that is somehow being subsidized by the Canadian people.

  31. knarlyknight Says:

    Simple question shcb, huge topic.

    BTW, I was wrong about CTV – they have a category 1 licence; but most others do not.

  32. knarlyknight Says:

    Rather than accepting the need to compete on a level playing field like Al Jazeera English and other broadcasters do, Quebecor applied to the CRTC for a coveted Category 1 License — meaning cable operators across Canada would be forced to carry this Fox-style channel, which would amount to a subsidy of millions, maybe even tens of millions, of dollars.
    As blogger Jesse Betteridge noted, for the CRTC to give into Quebecor it would have had to go back on its own principles and precedents, including a ruling denying Category 1 carriage for a proposed channel focused on diversity and multiculturalism called Canada One TV. Despite the involvement of a key Conservative operative, and the political pressure that inevitably comes with that, it appears the CRTC is listening to the public interest community. In July the CRTC sent a letter to Quebecor denying them Category 1 carriage until at least October 2011. Quebecor is not likely to give up, but for the time being this decision prevents them from getting special treatment and the subsidy.

  33. knarlyknight Says:

    Bad, bad, nasty politics:

    Public engagement is key
    When I bumped into another not-so-friendly CRTC commissioner recently he quipped that the CRTC makes its rulings and the government overrules them if they don’t like them. “That’s how it works,” he said. This was an interesting and unsought admission from what is supposed to be an independent regulatory commissioner — that he accepts the government’s ability to undercut the authority of the expert body that is intended to regulate our media.

    Excerpt above was also from the vancouverobserver

  34. knarlyknight Says:


  35. Smith Says:

    Also, “neo-socialism” means anything shcb does not like but cannot understand enough about it to explain why.

  36. knarlyknight Says:

    Thanks Smith, I always miss something; that was good.

    shcb, if u were 2, & mb u weren’t , but b4 launching into a tirade about too much gov’t. regulation as evidenced by the crtc, stop for a second and reflect that Canadian LIKE quite a bit of regulation, it keeps the creeps from ruining stuff. On the topic of the crtc, it’s very central to what hlps us keep our Cdn identity, so when one starts talking about bringing a Fox News up north our ears prick up a little bit and we say “err, okay so long as they’re not going to start running the national agenda.” So when our neo-con near fundamentalist close minded prime minister seems to be pushing some strings on this initiative for a fox news north to get a golden 3 year bullhorn into the nation’s living rooms then he’s going to have to negotiate his way thru a lot of fast moving rotten tomatos. It’s sort of like if Obama tried to push a half hour reading of the Koran in all public schools every morning to balance the subversive Christian element.

  37. shcb Says:

    Fine, we were having a nice discussion. Too bad Smith had to ruin it.

  38. NorthernLite Says:

    shcb, in a nutshell they wanted the cable and sat providers to provide them with a Category 1 license, which means the channel is included in the ‘basic’ or default package. This means they would be subsidized by customer fees, even if the customer doesn’t want the channel. No other 24/7 news channel up here is a Category 1. You want it? Pay for it. Don’t make everyone pay to carry your garbage against their will.

    The whole thing is shady, with our Prime Minister meeting with Murdoch, the channel being run by our Prime Minister’s former communications director, asking for special treatment…

    The CRTC is our version of that entity you have down there that used to give Eminem such a hard time. Or if someone swears on TV, or has a wardrobe malfunction they get involved. I forget what they’re called.

  39. NorthernLite Says:

    Oh, the FCC!

  40. Smith Says:

    “Fine, we were having a nice discussion. Too bad Smith had to ruin it.”

    Facts ruin everything, don’t they? ;-)

  41. enkidu Says:

    Them pesky liberal facts. Reality has such a liberal bias.

    thx for the link NL, sent on to my relatives in TO. I sent it to my wife and asked her to send on to other friends up north. Also, its pronounced “Frunkenshteen” ;)

    nice post craig/malkin. You let me know when a liberal goes on a murderous rampage due to his ‘political philosophy’. Enjoyed your link to zombietime! That handful of hippies or some nutter in europe is certainly equivalent (or worse!) to the nutbars bringing assault rifles to rallies and tea party candidates braying about 2nd Amendment remedies. Not to mention an illegal war of aggression and greed is equivalent to passing a watered down healthcare reform bill? Socialism?

    Insane as it ever was indeed.

  42. knarlyknight Says:

    Don’t ever leave this site.

  43. NorthernLite Says:

    Thanks for helping out enk, much appreciated.

  44. shcb Says:

    I’m wondering Smith, what facts you referring to, I was still trying to understand the situation. The guys from Canada were doing a pretty good job of helping me understand the issue, but you just had to butt in and make some snide comment about my intelligence. Then Enky smells blood in the water and has to pile on, the guys from Canada who up to this point have been decent follow suit and become ugly, not an ounce of integrity from any of you.

  45. Smith Says:

    Waaaaahhhhh, I tried attaching labels to things based on my preconceived notions rather than waiting until I was actually informed on the matter, and then the mean people on the Internet made fun of me. Woe is me. Instead of taking this as a sign that perhaps I should reserve judgment until I am reasonably aware of the subject matter in question, I will simply bitch and moan about how poorly I am being treated. Damn those neo-fascilists. All my idols on the AM radio are able to decry matters about which they possess inadequate information and attach inappropriate labels as they see fit, so why can’t I?

    (I am having connection issues, sorry if this post is a duplicate.)

  46. shcb Says:

    no just a couple mean people, the rest are fairly nice, they just need to grow a spine.

  47. Smith Says:

    Why are these spineless fascists mean to me? I never say anything bad about them.

  48. enkidu Says:

    bwahahaha! careful Mr Smith, he’ll be yelling “asshole” and threatening you with death (or worse!) if you don’t let him vomit up a few more redneck anecdotes about how libz it teh stoopid.

    hey NL/knarly, looks like you boys are on your way to becoming the 51st state! welcome to the union, now prepare to have fox ‘news’ shit in your infostream…

    If anyone tried this w the US, ol wwnj would be howling about sovereignty! sociamalism! communism! factcism! demons in the tee-vee! commies in the schools! monsters under my bed! mooslmen in congress! n!ggers in the white house!

  49. shcb Says:

    Just for the record NL and Knarly, after looking into it a bit more I think you are right, Fox shouldn’t be granted a Category 1 exemption.

  50. Smith Says:

    See how things change when you actually take time to research, instead of just making snap judgments? This a big step for you. Maybe someday you will turn off your radio and develop your own worldview, rather than just parroting the talking heads.

    (However, if you were to imitate the Talking Heads, that would be an improvement over where you are now.)

  51. knarlyknight Says:

    For the record, I’m not sure who warrants a Category 1 licence and how often that gets reviewed but thanks for the info on your opinion shcb, except who are you calling ugly?

    Your Homelad Security Act gives your Feds crazy powers over information, and our politicians in BC are too stupid to clue into it. All our health records – which includes basically everything – in British Columbia are being dealt with by an American data firm that has promised our politicians they will not be released to any third party. Good enough for the morons in charge. Problem is, that promise was made in Canada and the data is beign stored in USA computers that your Feds, by the Homelad Seculrity Act, have full access to review in complete secrecy.

    So now your feds know that my ex-wife’s adopted half brother Rudolf has Syphalis, Aids, and arthritis for which he has been prescribed copious amounts of medical marijuana. It’s hell for him now to get into Graceland for his performances.

  52. shcb Says:

    Smith, nothing changed. My snap judgement of this agency being neo socialistic was confirmed with my research, I didn’t know enough about this catagory 1 classification, that is why I was asking the guys about it, doing research.

    Knarly, no one can ever call a good lookin guy like you ugly

  53. Smith Says:

    “neo socialistic”

    So you confirm that you still don’t know what you are talking about. At least you are being honest now.

  54. shcb Says:

    I think I know what neo socialistic is, do you?

  55. Smith Says:

    “I think I know what neo socialistic is, do you?”

    Sure, “neo-socialism” means anything shcb does not like but cannot understand enough about it to explain why. I think I already explained this.

  56. shcb Says:

    pretty childish

  57. shcb Says:

    Knarly and NL,

    I read some on the way the Category 1 and 2 licenses work and it seems it is just a way to protect certain networks that your country has deemed necessary, they seem to be old networks, legacy networks. It seems this category is or should be somewhat locked up, Fox just doesn’t fit here. My guess is Fox is asking for something they know they shouldn’t have so people get all excited about this and then aren’t so upset when Fox gets what it actually wants, like say a 5 year contract with a number of providers as a Cat 2. The problem with this being so centrally controlled is the regulator can tell the providers what to do, so if the regulator make this deal with Fox it is forced on the providers. I’m guessing here a little but that is how it usually works.

    What bothers me the most here is this Cat 1 issue seems to be a way to stop Fox from broadcasting at all based on the petition and what you two have said. Just like Fox is trying to play a little bait and switch here, I think you guys are as well. I just don’t like that kind of censorship. It sounds good right now to not want Fox to “dumb down the airwaves” but then how do you know what your competition is saying? If you don’t allow your competition to speak you risk falling into the clutches of the first lesson in warfare, underestimate your enemy at your own peril. And always remember Fox may be out of favor in your country now but at sometime in the future your point of view may be out of favor, would you want it squashed?

  58. NorthernLite Says:

    I don’t have a problem with them being a speciality channel like the other news networks up here, including CNN, Fox, MSNBC and our Canadian versions of those – CTV News, CBC NN…

    I’m not saying ban them from ever broadcasting.

  59. shcb Says:

    Welllll, you kind of are…

    And the movement by the people to prevent this garbage from spreading across the border comes from a deep desire by the people to keep that crap out of here and the poisonous politics that comes with it.

    From your petition.

    “Fox News North” to mimic the kind of hate-filled propaganda with which Fox News has poisoned U.S. politics.

    Goes a little past Catagories, and who should get which.

    This is the problem when the line between private and public becomes blurred. Now it’s your country, as Knarly said, you have different priorities than we do, and you can afford to censor a little more since we still have some rights down here. But just remember, someday the shoe may be on the other foot. Suppose Toronto and Montreal were both wiped off the face of the map by Arabs and the overriding sentiment were to “kill ‘em all” in your country, but you still thought it we should just handle it as a police matter. Would you want the “regulator” to decide your side shouldn’t be heard?

  60. Smith Says:

    “Would you want the “regulator” to decide your side shouldn’t be heard?”

    Hmmmm…..Neither of the quotes you posted indicate that NL wants the regulator to prevent Fox from airing on Canadian TV. All you’ve shown is that NL dislikes Fox News and wants other Canadians to demonstrate their opposition to the regulator forcing the channel down their throats. “I don’t like Fox News because it is garbage” is completely different from “I want the government to ban Fox News.” Though I guess any negative comment direct towards your Lord and Savior, Rupert Murdoch, is blasphemy in your mind.

    Is this yet another instance of shcb making claims for which there is no factual basis?

  61. enkidu Says:

    FauxNEWS wants a ‘socialist’ handout from the Canadian gov so it can poison another country, but it is all about the great and powerful evil Regulator? Faux is the propaganda arm of modern conservatism. I thought they were all about the free markets, except when they think they can get their bullshit broadcast for free (ooops, on the taxpayer’s dime)

    Also, what a ridiculous hypothetical. Them damn dirty A-rabs!

    Actually Mr Smith, wwnj and facts seem to be mutually exclusive terms.

  62. Smith Says:

    “Also, what a ridiculous hypothetical.”

    He’s getting desperate. He tried doing his usual “hurf durf socialism” nonsense, but all he did was reveal how little he understood. He knows he lost this one, but he refuses to let it go.

  63. NorthernLite Says:

    Yeah, basically I don’t want the government giving them special treatment because A) it ain’t right and B) this isn’t an organization that reports the news with a conservative point of view…

    It flat-out lies and distorts and preys on people’s fears. It’s what today’s conservatives are all about.

  64. NorthernLite Says:

    “since we still have some rights down here.”

    Unless you happen to be a Muslim and want to build a place of worship.

  65. shcb Says:


    I agree with A)

    B) is your opinion and you are welcome to it (even though it is untrue) but how do you you accomplish the goals of the two quotes I mentioned at 8:07 without censorship?

  66. knarlyknight Says:

    NL – Especially if that place of worship is a floor or two on top of a 9 story community centre building with basketball court and other facilities that is at least three blocks away from ground zero – in that case the wwnj media will scream about a Mosque being built at Ground Zero (factually incorrect and designed to incense the ignorant.)

    shcb – in reference to B) – tell me how did Fox News report on this supposed “Mosque” did they make it clear it was not actually a Mosque (or even suggest that Mosques are not actually bad) or did they for the most part simply fan the flames of hate and misinformation?

  67. knarlyknight Says:

    Also, did they clarify that it was being proposed several blocks away from ground zero, would look like pretty much any other building in the area and would not be visible from ground zero due to other buildigns blocking the view?

  68. enkidu Says:

    And which rights have been taken away from Dumberikkkuh?

    I can’t believe we are actually considering extending the bush tax cuts for billionaires. Funny how the deficit hawks aren’t talking about the multi-trillion dollar hole these giveaways to the richest might actually fill.

    3 percent (note: sky not falling)

    Tell you what, I’ll volunteer to pay 3% more in taxes if the top few percent do so as well. We’re at war dammit! etc

    Oh right, the R plan is more tax cuts, larger deficits, dismantle socialist security, Medicare and Medicaid (the Ryan plan). Which country are we going to invade to pay for President Palin’s boondoggle? hypothetically speaking, I hear Iran has lots of oil. Or if we want to screw up closer to home we could invade communismical Canada.

  69. Smith Says:

    “how do you you accomplish the goals of the two quotes I mentioned at 8:07 without censorship?”

    I’d imagine it could easily be accomplished through the same mechanism described here:

    “If people want it they will watch, if people watch, it gets ratings, if it gets good ratings companies buy advertising so the people watching will buy their stuff and the circle is complete.”

    Just change it from positive to negative. Urge people not to watch, ratings tank, network is unprofitable. Capitalism in action.

    Perhaps you could explain how the 8:07 quotes could be construed as a call for neo-islamofacisocialistic censorship in the first place? Because from where I am sitting, you’re looking more and more like a desperate fool.

  70. NorthernLite Says:

    The people aren’t asking the government to stop it, they’re asking that the government not give it special treatment and an unfair advantage.

    But when you read about secret meetings involving our PM and a CEO of a controversial (agree or not, it is) “news” organization from another country involving the launch of a channel being run by the PM’s former communications director, even passive Canadians get a little pissed off.

    Again, launch the channel like everybody else. If people want to watch it, they’ll have to subscribe and pay for it. I’m sure there’s a few idiots that will in order to receive a hug with their daily dose of “news” but I think the majority of Canadians won’t. Which is why they’re asking for the channel to be included in people’s basic TV packages and be subsidized by the masses.

    knarly, they’re also fighting the building of a mosque in Tennessee so it really has nothing to do with “ground zero”. It’s about different rights for different people based on the what they look and who they choose to pray to. Land of the free…

    You also bring up a good point. Fox has been leading the misinformation campaign about it. All the while leaving out the part about a majority shareholder in Fox is a Saudi Prince. The same prince donating money for the community centre. A prince from the same country where the 9/11 highjackers hailed from.

    And with that we have a prime example why Canadians from coast to coast to coast are standing up and saying hell no Fox. Hell no.

  71. shcb Says:

    If that is what you actually want, I have no problem with it, it will be interesting to see what happens if it is a hit, will there be a hue and cry to ban it because Fox is telling “lies”. Remember, the “experts” didn’t give it a chance of survival here when it started up either, and they were yelling that it was owned by a non American back then too.

  72. shcb Says:

    Knarly, they said it was “near” ground zero, I haven’t read much about it, just some headlines, maybe one article, just isn’t a hot issue for me.

  73. NorthernLite Says:

    That’s all I want shcb, for the channel to be treated like all other news channels and if it thrives, so be it. I might puke as I watch our democracy fall victim to misinformation and hate mongering, but I’ll have to deal with it.

    As for the community centre thing, it’s been dubbed “the ground zero mosque.” This is what most headlines cal it. To be fair, I don’t think it’s just Fox calling it that. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen that term being used elsewhere.

  74. enkidu Says:

    Funny how faux is trrrrrrizing the dumb and the gullible about ‘the ground zero mosque’ (which – if facts be known – isn’t at ground zero and isn’t a mosque per se). What shadowy evil figure is behind it all? Oh, faux’s second biggest investor? This just in! Paris Hilton caught with some blow in Vegas! Lets go to Super Sarah Palin’s tweet on this! have we checked her FaceSpace page? hit refresh! refresh!

    along the same lines:
    fox news rupert murdoch hires North Korean company to develop software at slave wage prices. Employing someone in the western world would hurt the bottom line of that bowling app donchaknow. The Dude would be bummed.

    fox isn’t a ‘news’ channel
    it’s the propaganda organ of a bunch of rich über-reichwingnuts

  75. NorthernLite Says:

    Geez, might as well just piss on his rug ;)

  76. shcb Says:

    Ok, but you can understand my skepticism when I read “stop hate filled lies/propaganda Fox News (from getting a class 1 license)” stuff in paraphrases is spoken real low. As opposed to “stop Fox News from getting a class 1 license but by all means give them a voice, we relish the opportunity to engage them in a spirited discussion.” Maybe I’m being over sensitive here but I heard a lot more of the first than the second in the petition and you and Knarly’s original posts, maybe you are less emotional now than then, nothing wrong with getting fired up about an issue you care about.

    I think the Mosque issue is a local matter, if the New Yorkers want it, build it, if they don’t, don’t. I do think it is a little insensitive of the Muslims to want to build it that close, but where do you draw the line, 6 blocks, 50, 20 miles? 3 blocks in NYC is probably farther away than 20 miles here in the west.

  77. enkidu Says:

    I think you meant to say piss on his prayer rug
    like that drunk wingnut in NYC?

    hey wwnj, did u recently take a cab in nyc?
    looks like you’ve gained a little weight there

    btw that TN mosque has already had one arson attack

  78. shcb Says:

    Not me, the last drunk I’ve encountered was Knarly :)

  79. knarlyknight Says:

    Hey! My post made more sense than most of your ramblings shcb, but at least mine was a temporary condition.

  80. shcb Says:

    lol! good point!

    I thought you were one of my facebook friends, this is mild post of hers:

    “really? dam near a grand for a bike? wow!!! it should be in lined with gold… glad to hear your doing okay. last tm i read frm u, you were waiting on test. didnt want to read any more, guess i think if i ignore things- bad doesnt happen. was afraid to read up on you, stay healthy Jamie, keep on biking!! so to speak….”

    She completed almost twice as many words in this post as she usually does, it’s like reading a foreign language. Oh, by the way, the bike he was talking about was $8,500 not $850 as she thought, I don’t remember her that well, been 35 years since I’ve seen her but obviously drugs weren’t kind to her.

  81. NorthernLite Says:

    Well if they do end up getting on the air (it won’t be a category 1 channel, riots will erupt) our next course of action will to subject them to our campaign finance laws and political advertsing rules.

    After all, if it’s going to be like Fox News is down there than it will be nothing more than a 24/7 political commercial. And for that, we have laws in place.

    Shit’s gonna git interesting :)

  82. shcb Says:

    Ha Ha! There you go! neo socialism at its best!

    It will be interesting…

  83. NorthernLite Says:

    How is upholding our laws “neo socialism”? It is also neo soclialist when we arrest drug dealers for selling cocaine to kids?

    If they’re going to do what they do down there – fund raise for candidates, promote events, etc. – then they’ll be breaking the law and will be shut down faster than an underground rave.

  84. shcb Says:

    It is Neo Socialistic because your solution to your possible future failure is to have government regulate it back to a victory. On one hand you say you want this to be a fair fight, let the best man win, but then in the next sentence you say, but if we don’t win, pass laws making it illegal. In a Neo Socialistic society this is acceptable to the people, yes you have the right to pass those laws, and yes they may seem prudent, but only in an atmosphere that allows it, Neo Socialism, the government doesn’t own the means of production, they just regulate it to the point of micro management control.

    In a society where the belief is that everyone should be given the chance to succeed, there must also be a chance of failure, and there must be a chance that if the other side succeeds, your side may fail, but in either case the belief is the government shouldn’t interfere other than to ensure a level paying field. BTW, this doesn’t mean both sides have to win or lose, sometimes both sides win and sometimes both sides lose.

  85. Smith Says:

    Don’t you get it NL? In a free society, Fox News is above the law.

  86. NorthernLite Says:

    But we already the laws in place. Our campaign/lobbying laws are pretty tight and everyone seems to like them that way.

    So one more time, I don’t have a problem with an actual news channel operating under the same rules as everybody else and reporting the news, even if its opinion shows are completely conservative.

    But I WILL have a problem if said news channel turns out to be nothing more than a media arm of a political party (any party for that matter) that does nothing more than fund raise and promote one political party over the other.

  87. shcb Says:

    Ok, we’ll see, I know you are saying the right things here, but I’m hearing a little different tone. Sure if there is law that says no media banners at a political rally and there under the podium is FOX NEWS, we report/you decide, you have them dead to rights, it is the more subtle “laws” I fear will be used, or new laws will be written to single them out. It is just the tone of discussion of you, Knarly, and the petition, it is this “Fox must be stopped!” instead of “Fox shouldn’t get special treatment”, you say Fox shouldn’t get special treatment after you have said they must be stopped because they are evil, they are a 24/7 arm of a political party, if so, then so are CNN and MSNBC!

    When I was looking at the mission of the “regulator” can’t remember the acronym right now, they said one of their jobs was to ensure, ensure mind you, low cell phone rates for the citizens, but above that they said they don’t regulate prices of cell phones, well how do you do one without the other? I suppose you make a recommendation to parliament and they regulate prices. This is what I see happening here, there are already laws that will not allow American commercials on Canadian airwaves without equal time, probably justifiable, but I can see something similar being used against Fox. I can see Parliament saying “I know the network has to be owned by a Canadian company it be allowed to broadcast, but we all know that is just a shell game, Fox is really an American company (owned by a non American) so this rule or that applies to them but not Canadian CNN because they are really a Canadian owned company (owned by a real American).

    But as you say, we’ll see. I might be right, I might be wrong,

  88. NorthernLite Says:

    Yeah the tone is pretty hyped up because frankly the thought of having a version of Fox News up here scares the shit out of a lot of people. Basically 24/7 news channels have poisoned poltical discourse.

    And yes, I’ve said here before that I beleive MSNBC is a mouthpiece for the DNC, just as I believe Fox is the same for the RNC.

    However I will say that I’ve never seen MSNBC promte and fund raise for a particular candidate (they may have and I’ve never seen it) and there are numerous examples of Fox doing this, which is fine if they call themselves RNC TV, but they don’t. Then they have the nerve to use “fair and balanced” as their tag line, when clearly, and I hope you can at least agree with me here, they are not. It would be like MSNBC using that tag line.

    I actually think CNN is pretty middle of the road, especially compared to the rest. You really don’t think so?

  89. Smith Says:

    Anything less reactionary than Reagan is a bleeding-heart, liberal, islamofascisocialistic propaganda machine. Don’t you spineless Canadians know anything?

  90. enkidu Says:

    Saint Raygun couldn’t survive a Rethug primary these days: he’s too far to the left (or more accurately, the right has lurched so far to the right that Dutch now looks like a pinkocommiefag).

    newscorp/fox just donated a million bucks to the RN governors association. So now every time a R comes on, they’ll disclose their contribution right? (crickets)

    shorter wwnj: hurf durf socialism!
    so, what rights has The Great Evil Islamofascist Hussein Obama taken from you poor poor little right wing nut jobs? Was it carrying guns in National Parks?

  91. Smith Says:

    Correction on my previous comment: “islamofascisocialistic” should be “neo-islamofascisocialistic”

    That is all.

  92. shcb Says:

    I think CNN and the news portion of Fox are pretty equal. The problem is CNN is more news and Fox is a little news and a lot of opinion. Now they do a pretty good job of not blending the two together, better than say NPR where the transition is as smooth as Paul Harvey was at mixing news, opinion and commercials into one blob. The problem with Fox is that while there is a line, a commercial or station break etc the commentary is right there in the same time slot so it gets hard to make the distinction sometimes. I think CNN does a good job reporting the news fairly unbiased, but they sometimes choose to ignore or down play issues and that gives them a bias. Maybe that is just an issue of priorities and proportion on my part.

    I think Fox has gotten “worse” from your perspective in the last few years, become more blatant with their bias if you will, but I think the other networks have as well. But I’m not sure that is all bad. I think it is more important to be unbiased if there are only a couple choices, but as there are more choices bias plus bias equals balance becomes more palatable. In the newspaper age there were left center and right center papers with smaller papers picking stories from both leading to balance, I think that is ok here, as long as it isn’t out of hand.

  93. NorthernLite Says:


    What I don’t understand is why isn’t the rest of the media highlighting the fact that a large share of Newscorp is owned by a Saudi prince, since Fox is making a huge deal of where the NYC community centre is being built and how it’s being funded.

    Thankfully we at least have Jon Stewart.

    Hey, have you guys heard about the rally Colbert and Stewart might be organizing on 10-10-10 on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial? “The Truthiness Rally”?

  94. Smith Says:

    “bias plus bias equals balance becomes more palatable. In the newspaper age there were left center and right center papers with smaller papers picking stories from both leading to balance”

    hahahahaha What’s it like being that naive?

    “Hey, have you guys heard about the rally Colbert and Stewart might be organizing on 10-10-10 on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial?”

    It’s quite telling that Fox News is getting most of its direct competition from comedy shows.

  95. shcb Says:

    Maybe they aren’t making a big deal out of it because they are owned by… sometimes you just let those dogs lie.

    Just got my dollar bill for a provisional patent, only a year or two and I’ll have the real thing. Bucket list is getting more full.

  96. knarlyknight Says:

    FYI –;_ylt=AsRqyt7puHJtFH.3gW17eHQEKekE;_ylu=X3oDMTJmMm5wczhhBGFzc2V0A3VzbncvMjAxMDA5MDcvZGM2MDg3MARwb3MDMgRzZWMDeW5fcGFnaW5hdGVfc3VtbWFyeV9saXN0BHNsawNmdWxsbmJzcHN0b3I-

  97. shcb Says:

    better mark my calendar! Iwonder id there is anything really new or someone just bought a new multi media program and wants to show it off.

  98. Smith Says:

    Oh hey, Mike Gravel. I haven’t heard anything about him since he lost both the Democratic and Libertarian parties’ nomination in 2008. He had the best campaign advertisement. It had as much substance as any other political ad, but with less noise. It was probably the only ad with absolutely no lies.

  99. NorthernLite Says:

    hahahaha! that was effin hilarious! i’d rather listen to that than most babbling politicians.

  100. shcb Says:

    I never could have done that, can you imagine me not saying anything for that long?

  101. enkidu Says:

    I bet this was pretty darn close to wwnj’s HOA candidacy speech (just throw in a growled or screamed “asshole!” or “socialism!” mb a death threat or two… done) This guy is just your average every day R making his case. Note that no one says “sit down ya looney!” they just clap and move on to the next psycho.

    So wwnj, exactly what rights have been taken away from you in the last 18 months?
    Come on, edumacate us stoopid libs! Show us the tyranny!

  102. shcb Says:

    No, I have stage fright, it is all I can do to barely keep my voice from cracking. My speech was pretty sad, not a proud moment.

    Not sure what you’re talking about with the rights taken away, a little help?

  103. Smith Says:

    This is your councilman…

    This is your councilman on drugs…

    Any questions?

  104. Smith Says:

    Not sure if the Canadians had this PSA.

  105. enkidu Says:

    “we still have some rights down here.”

    So exactly which rights have been taken away?
    Come on, edumacate us stoopid libs! Show us the horrible liberal tyranny!

  106. shcb Says:

    Why 18 months? What would lead you to put that timeframe into the discussion?

  107. enkidu Says:

    Answer the question.
    What rights have been taken away (in the last 18 months)?
    I won’t answer any of your inane questions until you answer mine ;)

  108. shcb Says:

    So you get to ask questions but I can’t? Your preconceived answer won’t work very well without your being able to control the parameters, parameters that don’t exist in my original statement. Makes winning easier. Sorry not going to play that game.

  109. shcb Says:

    We’ve been talking about fair play on this thread, ask me an honest question in a civil manner and I will respond in kind.

  110. knarlyknight Says:

    Thanks Smith, we did get that PSA here.

    Enk, methinks shcb was suggesting Cdns. have lost all their rights, not necessarily that Americans have lost any. I chose to ignore that silly statement, as your “anti-terrorism” laws probably extend further into private lives than do ours and I couldn’t see how debating the subject would be in any way worthwhile. By shcb’s responses to your question, it seems he probably meant more like what you are asking and now that he’s called on it he is playing silly bugger.

  111. shcb Says:

    Not at all Knarly, I meant what I said. I don’t know enough of Canadian history to know if you have lost rights. I am simply asking why the 18 months? Can you tell me what in that statement I made sets that timeframe? Did I say we have lost all our rights during this administration or anything like that? No. This is how Enky plays the game, he has his argument all planned out, but it only works if (fill in the blank) so he rearranges my statement to fit. I’m calling him on it. He can’t take the chance of my making a good point, his bigotry against conservatives won’t allow that. Don’t give that nigger a good job, we might find out they are smart and then we’d have to give them all good jobs”. Bigotry is bigotry.

    All he has to do is ask the question without the timeframe, in a civil manner, without misspelled words and I will be happy to answer, ball’s in his court.

  112. Smith Says:

    “He can’t take the chance of my making a good point”

    Like that has ever happened.

  113. Smith Says:

    “Don’t give that nigger a good job”

    Felt pretty good didn’t it? Rather cathartic, eh?

    Now of course you are going to respond by saying that it was necessary to your analogy and intended to be somehow positive, but that seems like a load of bs to me. The analogy is little more than a “cover your ass” excuse to say that without getting called on it. Furthermore, what kind of insane persecution complex do you have that allows you to believe that being called names online is in any way equivalent to the oppression being fought against in the Civil Rights movement? Why don’t you scurry on back to StormFront, I hear they welcome your kind of thought over there.

  114. enkidu Says:

    Of course you can ask questions, which I am happy to answer.
    Once you actually answer mine.
    After you answer to *your* statement that you ‘have *some* rights left’

    so which rights have been trampled since that damn n!…er KENYAN won in 2008?

    So far: none.

  115. shcb Says:

    Smith, there is absolutely not comparison in terms of degree between what happens to a nothing like me by a couple nothings like you on a little nothing of a blog and the civil rights strife of my example but the individual mind set of people like you two and that bigot of the 60’s is the same. Not you as much as Enky, you just have a distain for people that don’t think like you, my feeling is Enky really hates them.

    See Knarly, Enky won’t ask the question straight, he did, but then he didn’t. Why the asterisks? Why the “so which rights have been trampled since that damn n!…er KENYAN won in 2008?” did I mention anything about Obama? Do I have a long record on this subject where I have mentioned Obama destroying my rights? Don’t think so, I just don’t recall this subject coming up that much. He just can’t take that chance.

  116. enkidu Says:


    “we still have some rights down here.”

    So exactly which rights have been taken away?
    Come on, edumacate us stoopid libs! Show us the horrible liberal tyranny!

    again and again the same simple question
    no straight answer, just more bullshit

  117. shcb Says:

    “we still have some rights down here.”

    So exactly which rights have been taken away?

    stop right here and I’ll answer, your blood pressure will be lower too

    Come on, edumacate us stoopid libs! Show us the horrible liberal tyranny!

    again and again the same simple question
    no straight answer, just more bullshit

    just can’t quite do it can you?

  118. shcb Says:

    actually it wasn’t the same question, you left out an entire section, the 18 months part, good boy, now let’s try it again (this is like training a dog)

  119. enkidu Says:

    yet again

    “we still have some rights down here.”

    So exactly which rights have been taken away?
    Come on, edumacate us stoopid libs! Show us the horrible liberal tyranny!

    again and again the same simple question
    no straight answer, just more bullshit

    – – – – –

    you can’t answer, can you.
    note, not a question

    you are always good for a laugh (I think most folks laugh *at* you, not *with* you… o wait, now I can’t use an asterisk for emphasis? uh oh, another question… nm) I’m with Barney: ‘discussing’ anything with wwnjs is like talking to the dining room table (except the table is probably smarter).

    Show us the tyranny! lolz

  120. shcb Says:

    Well, looks like we’ve taken this as far as it will go, he will never ask the question civilly, he just can’t. I’m as good at taking good natured ribbing as the next guy, and don’t mind taking a little from the Enkster. Enky is just hateful, and it’s in him deep.

    I’m going to answer the question now, watch how long it takes him to insert the 18 months back into the discussion.

    Here’s the question asked nicely

    “we still have some rights down here.”

    So exactly which rights have been taken away?

    To that my answer would be

    There has been a gradual deteriation of our rights for many decades, at least since the ‘60s or ‘70s, you could probably go back as far as right after WWII. Now that doesn’t mean there has been a steady decline, from time to time re regain some of the rights we have lost, gun rights were somewhat restored in the ‘90s for example. The 10th amendment is almost a distant memory with the federal government taking over many of the duties of state government in recent decades. And since you brought up HOAs, property rights, the whole HOA concept is built around subverting the Constitution by simply exempting a level of government from that constitution.

    To which a reasonable response would be

    Shcb, do you think the Obama administration has subverted your rights in the last 18 months

    My answer

    No more than previous administrations, and probably less than most, not for lack of trying, they just haven’t got the job done very well, but it is still early and they aren’t a lame duck yet

    and we would continue from there.

  121. enkidu Says:


    well, at least it’s an answer (finally)

  122. enkidu Says:

    Let me also say how hilarious you calling me a bigot really is. Anyone who disagrees with you is a ‘bigot’ or ‘asshole’ or ‘socialist’. But you and ‘Dr’ Laura shout the word n!gger and are shocked – just shocked! – that people shun you like the crazy guy on the 57 crosstown bus.

    I’ve been an independent voter all my life, but modern ‘conservatism’ has gone so far to the right, so very very far out on the bell curve of craziness, that you folks wouldn’t elect St Reagan today. But so much of reality just doesn’t fit your narrative (fed to you by hate radio and fox fox n more fox). I recall a classic example that I’ve written about before in response to your name calling and wingnuttery:
    thx goog!

  123. shcb Says:

    I’ve called you a bigot and Smith an asshole because it fit, I don’t call everyone I disagree with either of those names unless they deserve it, I have called people i agree with assholes and bigots if it fit.

  124. Smith Says:

    Much the same way that I call you a racist, because it just fits so damn well. You’re right, I do feel disdain for people who think it is ok to use terms like “anchor babies”, “mud hut people”, and “n!gger”. Thanks for pointing that out, you racist piece of shit.

  125. shcb Says:

    Ha ha, that’s a good way to start the weekend!

    I love the mud hut people thing, I was trying to coin a term that would not single out one nationality or race and got tagged a racist for trying to not offend someone, sometimes you just can’t win.

  126. shcb Says:

    BTW, you don’t have to use the ! in nigger when you are using the term clinically.

  127. knarlyknight Says:

    Smith, why don’t you tell us what you really think?

    shcb, any of our ancestors might have lived in mud huts at one time or another. Try to show some sensitivity. And have a happy 9/11 weekend, any festivities planned (a bonfire perhaps)?

    Enk, since you don’t spell certain words (!) correctly your “searches” on who uses what words the most or in what contexts do not give fair results.

  128. shcb Says:

    Actually they did, my great, great, great grandpa, might need one more or less great built a dugout cabin that was maybe 10 by 10 feet down by the river and that is where they lived for two years until they had the house built a half mile away. Two years of Kansas heat and winter blizzards, the house they built is residence to my first cousin now, the family has never lost ownership. I wasn’t using that term as a pejorative, just describing a class of people that find themselves in that situation without giving a nationality, because that would have been insensitive , you can go back and look if you like. If memory serves I was more talking about a government that keeps people in that situation as opposed to one that allows a family to rise above that and nurture generations to come in comfort a half mile away. But as is so often the case the phrase was co-opted, redefined and regurgitated by Enky until it is what it is today, sad.

    Have a good weekend my friend.

  129. shcb Says:

    as far as I can tell this is where I coined the phrase

    and it was “mud hut country” not people.

    take it, change it, exploit it, repeat, repeat, repeat

  130. enkidu Says:

    hey great link! you finally learned how to use ‘the google’!
    Only problem? You are *still* full of bullshit.
    Scroll down five comments from your link and you see my comment:

    I would say your whole mud hut and beggar nation thing is just your usual borderline racism, but that doesn’t surprise anyone here. The reason climate change action makes no sense to wwnj is that he only wishes to see it through the distorted lens of wwnj ridiculousness.

    So, just to clarify: I didn’t make it into ‘mud hut people’. You have the reading comprehension of a 3rd grader (a mentally challenged 3rd grader).

    And I was wrong, that isn’t borderline racism (I was trying to be nice) it is full on racism. And, to use Smith’s phrase, you are still a racist piece of shit (is that semantic infiltration? more like reality, which as everyone knows has a distinctly liberal bias) Your distorted hate colored glasses render you unfit to operate anything more complicated than a spork. gfy

  131. shcb Says:

    It looks like I owe you an apology Enky, you didn’t change the terminology to “mud hut people” Smith did. In an interesting study of semantic infiltration, I adopted the word “people” right after he said it, but I caught myself and restored the statement back to its original dignity a short time later. It looks like you two are like Simon and Garfunkel, Smith is the creative talent and you elevate his work to an art level. What was it that Simon said about Garfunkel “he has the voice of an angel, but the creativity of the frog”.

  132. Smith Says:

    “original dignity”

    There is so much dignity to be found in racism. Clearly, you never intended for the people living in Mud Hut Countries to be called “mud hut people”. How could anyone possibly make such a tremendous leap? I guess there would be nothing wrong with saying Africa is full of “N!gger Countries”, right shcb? It is certainly in line with your current reasoning.

    Is this really the best defense you have for your racist nonsense? You are such a joke.

  133. shcb Says:

    I don’t have to defend my statement since I said nothing wrong, if I were to defend anything it would be your misinterpretation of my statement. Trying to defend every misstatement on this site could easily become a lifetime job, and I just don’t have the time for that.

    As far as saying “Africa is full of nigger countries” I guess that would depend on the context. If one were to say “I had to give a friend of mine a piece of my mind the other day when he said ‘Africa is full of nigger countries” there would be nothing wrong with that. There of course is something wrong if you say “Africa is full of nigger countries” in a derogatory manner.

  134. Smith Says:

    So why is “Mud Hut Country” unoffensive, but “N!gger Country” is not? It is about the country not the people, right Grand Wizard? Your defense of “mud hut” is a load of shit, and you know it.

  135. shcb Says:

    so change it to whatever you want! I was describing a third world country, I was being creative, change it back to boring “third world country” i don’t care. The word nigger isn’t offensive if one black person is saying it to another in jest. It’s not the word it is the use, if you insert “third world country” and still feel offended, well, you have the right to be offended, but I didn’t mean any offense, if you insert third world county and it makes you feel better, email JBC and have him edit it out, I give you my blessing.

  136. enkidu Says:

    This is the crux of the biscuit: wwnj is really, typically, continually, well… wrong. But due to his ‘semantic infiltration mumbo jumbo hurf durf sociamalism’ viewpoint from the far far right of the reality bell curve, the problem is that he simply cannot recognize error in his views. After all, he has won every ‘discussion’ or ‘debate’ he has ever had. Hands down! pure and utter woo

    It isn’t a ‘misstatement’ to point out that mud hut countries (and, revealingly, your acceptance of the term mud hut people as being synonymous with your original racism and bigotry [you love that word, perhaps you should look it up?]) is just plain racist. You and doctor Laura are right wing nut jobs of a feather, and the less people take you seriously the better. You chose to use a, shall we say, rather colorful racially tinged epithet before and you’ve relished using similarly offensive language again and again and again on this thread (yes, yes just scream ‘there’s a n!gger in my White House!’ and get it off your chest already Mr Wizard).

    I’d like a piece of your mind, the part without so much racism in it.
    I doubt there is any left (pun intended).

    It didn’t take Smith very long to figure out you are a joke. And the only proper response to nonsense is ridicule. You can’t ‘debate’ insanity. It’s like talking with the dining room table (thanks Barney)

  137. knarlyknight Says:

    If it’s any consolation, I can’t quite entirely figure out what the hell Smith and Enky have their thongs all twisted in knots about here. For the record, some of my best friends live in mud huts.

  138. shcb Says:

    Smith has never forgiven me for calling him a fascist, and as usual, he is using his definition, and I am using mine, so that one will never be resolved, I’ve apologized, like I did here I told him to insert another word. The reason I have started using Neo Socialism is because that is the part of the definition of fascism I was talking about without the negative connotations of the part Smith was talking about, but he just can’t let it go. Enky just hates conservatives. The both just like to find some little kink in the armor and wail away at it, so you realize it has been almost a year since the Mud Hut issue came up? I gave basically the same explanation then as now, but they still have to go after me with it. They remind me of that little chicken hawk on the Warner Bros cartoons, the one that would rush into the scene and start biting Foghorn Leghorn’s leg, ole Foghorn would look down at him in disgust and say “boy, I say boy, what , I say what are you doing down there” and the little gut would say “I’m a chicken hawk!”

  139. shcb Says:

    If they ever give up on this it will only be because they have found something to replace it with.

  140. enkidu Says:

    Movement conservatism is now the guy in Blazing Saddles who is up on the roof of the saloon waiting for their new sheriff to arrive. When Clevon Little rides into view, this grizzled old-timer is shocked and he yells down “The Sheriff Is A π!@@&%!!!! (kabong! goes the church bell!!!) What did he say? The Sheriff is near he said! No dag blam it! The! Sheriff! Is! A! π!@@&%!!!!

    I’d like to offer you this laurel and hearty handshake to our new………. zomg

  141. shcb Says:

    You’re pretty out of touch with reality aren’t you? I don’t think there are any groups as racist in America as you think mainstream Republicans are, save a few way, way off in the fringes. But that is your privilage.

  142. Smith Says:

    Why won’t people tolerate my racism? Boohoo.

    “The word nigger isn’t offensive if one black person is saying it”

    I call this “The Racist’s Lament”. It’s a classic. It’s right up there with “I’m not racist, but…”

    “The reason I have started using Neo Socialism is because that is the part of the definition of fascism I was talking about”

    There is already a word for this. I have pointed it out 3 times, at least. I even linked you to the wiki article. I don’t know why you can’t get it through your pointy hood.

    I think my def of “Neo Socialism” more accurately fits your use of the term anyway, so carry on. It is a good indicator that you are out of your depth. Saves me the trouble of treating your comment as though it makes a point.

  143. shcb Says:

    What was that word, I remember reading the Wiki article but I don’t think it was quite right.

  144. enkidu Says:

    Nope. No racism here boss! I think your dog whistle is broken, everyone can hear it now. Please run this turd in 2012 (or Super Sarah, she’s an order of magnitude dumberer and thus much much funnier) Refudiate the neo-sociamalism! Also!

    “What if Obama is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together his actions?” Gingrich asks.

    And this guy? Totally non-violent. Nope. No secessionist violent overthrow of elected representatives here boss. hurf durf

  145. NorthernLite Says:

    I’m a chicken hawk, huntin’ for a chicken.
    Get paranoid when you hear my Glock clickin’.

  146. shcb Says:


  147. NorthernLite Says:

    a little Cypress Hill for ya from 1993’s “cock the hammer”

    just so ya know, they’re black. :)

  148. shcb Says:

    never heard of them, on youtube I supose? is this a comedy troupe or a tv show? movie?, I can look it up.

  149. NorthernLite Says:

    a hip hop group that mainly sings about smoking weed…


  150. NorthernLite Says:

  151. Smith Says:

    “just so ya know, they’re black. :)”

    I thought most of the group was Latino? Never got into them, but I remember seeing them on a few TV shows.

  152. shcb Says:

    Not my type of music, but it was a good line.

  153. NorthernLite Says:

    “I thought most of the group was Latino?”

    I think you’re right, there’s some latino members.

    shcb, didn’t think it’d be your cup of tea, but they do have several really good lines in there songs. I’m thinking you’re more of a goat ropin’ kinda guy when it comes to music.

  154. shcb Says:

    Yeah, I like both kinds of music, country and western (blues bros). I like some blues, some jazz, southern rock from the 70’s, hate to admit it but I like a little disco as I get older. big Jimmy Buffett fan, Niel Young, Christopher Cross (especially on long flights). Kind of ecclectic, but I have to understand the words and I don’t want it in my face. Don’t like the Moody Blues or Pink Floyd because of the way they, can’t describe it, the words start in the throat and then push out mouth like they were tossing them. Don’t like songs that repeat the melody too soon, a lot of CW songs do that now, I turn the station. HATE Taylor Swift, talented but I don’t want to hear songs of her puppy love.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.