tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6034478.post2717950968033889649..comments2024-03-29T10:10:39.398-04:00Comments on Doug Ross @ Journal: Journolist: All 107 (Known) Members With Their 'News' AffiliationsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6034478.post-68878489173267642952010-07-28T10:28:45.699-04:002010-07-28T10:28:45.699-04:00Great comment, ice9.Great comment, ice9.NBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07717502763392529838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6034478.post-892010225147935772010-07-27T19:10:32.947-04:002010-07-27T19:10:32.947-04:00There is no such crime as 'conspiracy to commi...There is no such crime as 'conspiracy to commit libel and/or slander.' Sadly, there is also not a crime called 'eyepopping dumbassery expressed unironically.'<br /><br />Joe McCarthy was right? Entirely, or in one thing? Because if it was just one thing, then saying "Joe McCarthy was right" is like saying "Hitler was right" or "Obama was right" or "Glenn Beck was right"--true in fact, but rather useless in any general context. Was McCarthy right to work closely with Roy Cohn? Was he right to lie about his military service, destroy the careers of hundreds and probably thousands of honest Americans, and otherwise be a huge, unamerican dick in order to be right that one, or two, or three times? <br /><br />Because there's a parallel there. If the NAACP, for example, contains even one racist, then all those lynched and burned black men from Key West to Duluth, those ones hanging from trees with a lot of white people posing in front of them and their testicles in their mouths (the dead black guy, not the grinning white people out for a picnic)--well, they are evened out and balanced into irrelevance. And one hired ACORN canvasser who cheats for cash balances out GOP vote caging, roll suppression, intimidation, and various 'bubbles in a bar of soap' hijinks for the past, oh, fifty years lets say arbitrarily. <br /><br />But McCarthy was right could mean he was right in principle, in chapter and verse. But wait--what other principle comes with that? Because declaring McCarthy right would require a bit of prove-and-fact, but let's grant him some Alger Hiss/ Rosenfeld-type props and say, sure, based on what we know now, Constitution aside, Joe was right. Opens up a problematic door that right-wingers have been trying to stuff closed, so maybe think twice, twice. See, Reagan was wrong. <br /><br />Your call.<br /><br />ice9Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6034478.post-64039040525640078752010-07-27T11:07:51.502-04:002010-07-27T11:07:51.502-04:00Despite the popular yarn to the contrary, Joseph M...Despite the popular yarn to the contrary, Joseph McCarthy was later proved right.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6034478.post-1238209722740919222010-07-27T05:47:23.509-04:002010-07-27T05:47:23.509-04:00Joe McCarthy redux:
"Journolist: All 107 (Kn...Joe McCarthy redux:<br /><br />"Journolist: All 107 (Known) Members With Their 'News' Affiliations"<br /><br /><br />The (Journolist) is infested with communists. I have here in my hand a list of 205—a list of names that were made known to (Tucker Carlson and Jonathon Strong) as being members of the (Journolist) and who nevertheless are still working and shaping (opinion) in the (blogosphere)."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6034478.post-71014320330801774462010-07-27T02:10:28.848-04:002010-07-27T02:10:28.848-04:00Mantis, the First Amendment does not protect those...<i>Mantis, the First Amendment does not protect those who conspire to commit libel and slander.</i><br /><br />Thankfully, in your case, the First Amendment does protect abjectly stupid speech. Please cite the conspiracy to "commit libel and slander". Especially when we're talking about <b>private</b> conversations on a <b>private</b> listserv.<br /><br /><i>It does not protect those who knowingly pass off disinformation as news, when this does harm to America's allies or America's war effort, or serves the interest of America's enemies.</i><br /><br />Again, care to cite a source for your bullshit fantasies? Probably not. But I digress. . . <br /><br /><i>And if anybody on that list aided and abetted the leaking of secret information that is of importance to national security, the First Amendment does not protect that either.</i><br /><br />You wouldn't know the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America if it ran you over and bit you in the ass.<br /><br />Stay angry and stupid, ya dipshit, the GOP and the investor class are counting on people like you.Buffalo Rudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14768100719217225716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6034478.post-19681167511142092072010-07-26T21:39:51.308-04:002010-07-26T21:39:51.308-04:00Mantis, the First Amendment does not protect those...Mantis, the First Amendment does not protect those who conspire to commit libel and slander. It does not protect those who knowingly pass off disinformation as news, when this does harm to America's allies or America's war effort, or serves the interest of America's enemies. And if anybody on that list aided and abetted the leaking of secret information that is of importance to national security, the First Amendment does not protect that either.1389https://www.blogger.com/profile/04335705483244616965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6034478.post-33815513022306347572010-07-26T14:44:03.182-04:002010-07-26T14:44:03.182-04:00Good job, little McCarthy.
'"FIRE THE 40...Good job, little McCarthy.<br /><br />'"FIRE THE 400" For abusing the first amendment;"<br /><br />The First Amendment is clearly something you don't understand.mantishttp://tehmantis@gmail.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6034478.post-72217510802396360832010-07-26T00:58:57.449-04:002010-07-26T00:58:57.449-04:00"FIRE THE 400"
For abusing the first am..."FIRE THE 400" <br />For abusing the first amendment; for deceit and intentional suppression of true and meaningful information that the American people trusted them to find and report these 400 should never again carry a press pass. And the publications that hired and gave a platform to them should be forever discredited. "FIRE THE 400"JaneLovesJesusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6034478.post-14866741917090180862010-07-26T00:58:29.151-04:002010-07-26T00:58:29.151-04:00Schaller duplicated?Schaller duplicated?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6034478.post-56112155059385633282010-07-25T20:27:47.002-04:002010-07-25T20:27:47.002-04:00Maybe the title should be changed from "All 1...Maybe the title should be changed from "All 107 Members" to "All 107 Members that we know about", since there are about 400, right?Philnoreply@blogger.com