Yearly Kos: Why are Americans abusive?
firedoglake@gmail.com
The Yearly Kos discussion, unlike the MilBlogConference, will review the Plame and Iraq WMD issue. The irony is not lost. They talk about Presidential misconduct, yet the panelists have a well known reputation for misleading, smearing, misrepresentations, and creating fiction. Utter hypocrisy.
Their betrayal is to solicit others to do what they subsequently condemn. Beware how quickly Americans move without thinking, and then spend eons fabricating excuses to justify their error and inaction.
Those who suggest they want a solution or an alternative, detest reminders: They would not do it on their own. What is to be said of Americans: They mislead and "justify" actions without evidence.
10 words or less, describing American parties: [ Click] Some forecast a split; others ask if silence is an option: "Yes, Larisa, some want silence."
[ Ref ]
Congressman Conyers has heralded the likes of Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake for her netroots campaign. Hamsher is moderating the Yearly Kos panel.
What is striking is the contrast between what Hamsher does/says on her own site; and the issues at the heart of the Plame: Facts, credible arguments, and accountability.
Hamsher has a credibility issue. On all counts, the firedoglake "community" celebrates -- with its actions -- the very conduct it derides in others.
First, the site is littered with people who make baseless accusations.
Second, the site has an attitude of "we know better".
Third, are the crocodile tears of Hamsher in her piece, "It’s All They’ve Got" decrying Cole's "smear job grounded on several outright fabrications." Hay Jane, I'm all for sorting things out, but you have no credibly -- your entire site is based on the same: Outright fabrications.
Attention to the Conyers Blog: [Comment #31: Reed31463 said on 5/1/06 @ 4:44am ET... Click ]
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." 1. Write the managers at this well known site and politely ask them to have this person removed from the publication list, and forever barred from submitting articles to Arianna. 2. Contact this media agent that acts as her publicist/point of contact to let them know you are not impressed. Make them give you a very good reason why they freely choose to be associated with this kind of conduct. 3. Contact this Senator to let him know you are not impressed with his association with this person. Politely ask the Senator whether he is aware of the conduct; and why he freely chooses to associate with her. 4. Contact this blogger and politely ask him to publicly distance himself from this person who refuses to work with those who share a common goal: To lawfully remove the President from office. Ask him why he freely chooses to associated with this person, while at the same time hypocritically giving a siren song about "working with all" who support the goals. Clearly, he freely chooses to associated with those who do not meet the standard he publicly asserts. 5. Contact this this organization and let this person know that you are not impressed with their choice of moderator, and would like to see someone else moderating the event. Ask them what basis they have for choosing her; what is her expertise/legal background; and how she proposes to "moderate" something when her conduct shows she's incapable of doing just that: Moderating discussion she has asked for. 6. Contact this Union and let them know what this person is doing, and encourage them to increase the dollar amount of the bond requirements before she able to start filming in any city worldwide. Ask them to consider the union contract terms, risk indicators, and other various audit factors related to Statement on Accounting Standard 99 related to a reasonable basis to increase audit scope. 7. Contract this organization is doing, and encourage them to review whether this is a pattern of conduct which merits having her banned from the Guild, or put on probation. Politely ask the Guild to review whether her conduct is at odds with what a reasonable producer should be expected to display; and whether the conduct merits other disciplinary action. 8. Contract this union and let them know what she is doing; and encourage them to put her on the review list to evaluate whether the union will or will not provide any labor at any price to support any entertainment-related producer she is associated with. Politely ask them to review the pattern of conduct and determine whether the Union Members would be better served if they associated themselves with those who fostered a more amicable work environment related to problem solving, team building, and ensuring that common goals are achieved. 9. Discuss/share your progress/results here: [ Click Click ] |
Hamsher is not in any credible position to moderate any discussion on issues of veracity, track records, or responsible conduct. We find no evidence she has any legal training, and at best her post graduate training is possibly linked to something at the USC film school. It is absurd for anyone to embrace any notion she provide any credible basis to examine others who engage in the same alleged reckless disregard for social norms. The record below clearly shows that Hamsher's idea of moderating is to encourage others to engage in outright fabrications, lies, and falsehoods as has the President of the United States. Hamsher has no credibility. Her track record as well documented blow and elsewhere is a disaster. [ For a full opinion of her management approach in Hollywood, here's the complete Opinion: [ Click ] How's this for an endorsement: [Click ] Gray writes, "Sometimes [Hamsher's] postings are a bit confusing (just like yours), but there is no evidence whatever that she’s a muzltiple personality" Other links:
|
Let's talk specifics.
Let's start off with Jane Hamsher and what she asked for.
This note is from 30 Jan 2006, in the wake of the failed-Alito Filibuster.
Notice a couple of things:
Others to Frequently Participate [Emphasis added]
jane hamsher | Homepage | 01.30.06 - 7:08 pm | Click |
By all accounts the above comments clearly communicate:
Indeed, the aborted Alito filibuster was devastating to many on the Firedoglake community. Let's look at some specific comments.
Look at the requests for guidance and solutions:
[Emphasis added] Any suggestions on how to proceed? |
Look at the devastation:
|
Look at the concern, frustration, and worry:
I worry with cici about . . . |
Fast forward from January through February, to the end.
After the initial request for information on 30 Jan 2006, by the end of February, one month later, Constant and Hamsher are still exchanging information in public.
Notice the following:
|
If there were some "issue" between Constant and Jane Hamsher, we would have expected this conversation never to have occurred. Rather, if Constant had a "reputation" for doing anything less than what was acceptable, Jane would have already banned Constant.
Yet, there was no ban. Rather, Constant was still allowed to post, and provide information as desired and welcomed. Moreover, this means there was warm, mutual respect and admiration between Constant and Jane.
There is no evidence or link to suggest a problem, concern, or any history of any issue. No reference to any comment or any problem.
Over the course of January 2006 and February 2006, there was every indication that things were progressing quite nicely. The mutual admiration was building, ideas freely exchanged, and all action was wholly consistent with what Firedoglake was all about: Community, respect, sharing ideas, and solving problems.
Put aside the above.
Enter Valley Girl.
Below, you'll see a complete reversal:
They have completely ignored history, rewritten it, then ask the world to believe that they were the ones who are the leaders.
They are utterly useless when it comes to novel ideas, accountability, or getting going when things are down. Rather, they plead for help, then after they've recovered they destroy those who dare to take their comments seriously.
You'll see that there are regularly sweeping generations, no facts, and no links to information. This is at the heart of the problem with Plame and the WMD issue: Assertions without any credible basis.
Let's begin with Valley Girl. Continued claims that people are or are not making "numerous" "derisive" and "threatening" comments. Yet she cites nothing.
Valley Girl asserts, without providing any evidence that people have been QUOTE: "banned have brought on themselves by repeated flagrant posts that are insulting to you and/or RH and FDLers, after having been told repeatedly to "tone it down".ENDQUOTE Valley Girl | 03.27.06 - 9:36 pm | [ Click ] |
Valley Girl's comments are outright fabrications and delusional. She offers nothing to back up what she is saying.
Where are the links and backup, Valley Girl? You have none. Rather, you deliberately mislead the public, and provide nothing to warrant any confidence in what you are saying. Let's see some links, as was requested on John Coles Site.
Given you have provided no information, but assert that "it's obvious" the information is there, you should have no trouble providing the required proof of your case. Given we are under a deadline, you have one hour to provide your case. Here is the criteria your information should provide. [ Click ] You are free to post it anywhere on the internet, where the public can find it. You have one hour. After that deadline, because of your failure to "timely" provide what is "obvious," the public may make adverse inferences: Choose. |
Rather, the public should -- in the absence of any evidence you offer -- reasonably make adverse inferences:
Rather, you are delusional:
Rather, let's consider what Jane actually said:
Maybe this article about FDL is available elsewhere: http://www.law.com/jsp/pa/ PubArt...d=1140689109293 Constant | 02.23.06 - 9:49 pm | Click Thanks, Constant. Someone sent me that this morning but it was behind a firewall, I didn't know if was online now. jane hamsher | Homepage | 02.23.06 - 9:56 pm | Click ] |
Not only does Valley Girl not provide any information, but she can't explain why Constant and Jane Hamsher are on "such good terms" at the end of February.
Clearly, if there was "something wrong" Jane would not have responded, but banned Constant at this point.
That did not happen.
Moreover, there's nothing in the record that you cite to suggest there was a problem at any time.
Rather, it's something that has been manufactured, just like the President’s WMD.
The issue appears to be that firedoglike isn't serious about really getting information that it asks for.
Moreover, you provide nothing to suggest you comments are to be believed; rather you point to some "broad period of time" as if it goes back to the Middle Ages, and this "long history of abuse" is the basis for a ban.
Again, there is no basis for such a claim. You provide no links, no backup, and your argument fails to explain why Constant and Jane Hamsher had a good interaction at the end of Feb 2006.
In short, your statement of "tolerance" is not only at odds with the record at the Haloscan feed, but your post-banning discussion clearly shows you are still talking about "something that you had hoped to end." This is a problem that mirrors exactly what the President's dilemma is: His decision is at odds with reality, facts, and what was publicly stated.
On each point Valley Girl has failed, it collapses. She offers nothing. Rather, the available information clearly shows that firedoglake has a reputation problem.
They not only mislead the public with non-sense, but they say that anyone who dares point out reality is the legitimate target of a smear. You will find the comparison to Plame and the basis for the CIA to leak her name to be no different.
Just as Ambassador Wilson was targeted, so too does Firedoglake target people who do exactly what they want. The issue -- as it is with the White House -- is if someone does something that they don't like. That is not a healthy community. It is a community -- and a nation -- that would ask that you embrace fiction, in the name of a "higher good."
Overall, it is absurd that the nation has gone to war, waged illegal war, and does nothing about it. But it is more absurd to have people come forward -- to comment on the President, Plame, Iraq WMD -- as if they hold the moral high ground, only to find out that they are just as inclined and willing to engage in the same arrogant abuse of position, public trust, and moral authority.
This is vile and utterly contemptuous of reality.
To reiterate, Valley Girls' comments are without any credibility and merely more of the Rovian-like spin from the RNC:
banned have brought on themselves by repeated flagrant posts that are insulting to you and/or RH and FDLers, after having been told repeatedly to "tone it down". |
It may or may not apply to anyone. You provide nothing to warrant confidence that the above assertion is other than that -- a simple assertion, speculative desire, but wholly divorced from reality.
You fail in your argument. Your points are not linked with any comments or factual reality.
Now we see that firedoglake, fully 30 days after banning someone, still has a problem. Their commenters are now discussing issues that "should have" been resolved. Clearly, they were not resolved. Just as the President's "big case" for the invasion of Iraq was based on Fiction, so too is the entire timeline, argument, and basis for the banning.
It is utter fiction.
But not to be outdone, despite this fiction peddled on FireDogLake, we now realize that the public PR-campaign continues, with Valley Girl acting like Bush's Rove and spinning the public on non-sense:
"At least FDLers can think outside the box, and comprise a truly interesting and thoughtful community." [ Click ] |
Valley Girls' comments are absurd. The comments and community conduct are no different than the non-sense the President offers as to what America is all about. This is called retroactive justification for absurdity. It is without merit.
Compare: The Valley Girl assertions, With the FDL actions:
The simple fact is that firedoglake is abusive: It expressly discusses things, then turns around and rewrites history.
Ask them about it. They can't keep their story straight. One day they want to know; the next they ban you for giving them exactly what they wanted. This is no different than how the President interacted with the UN: "Hay, we're going to deal with the UN and discuss." What a lie.
Come to find out there was no real desire to discuss, just as there was no genuine desire to discuss the issues on firedoglake.
Given you have provided no information, but assert that "it's obvious" the information is there, you should have no trouble providing the required proof of your case. Given we are under a deadline, you have one hour to provide your case. Here is the criteria your information should provide. [ Click ] You are free to post it anywhere on the internet, where the public can find it. You have one hour. After that deadline, because of your failure to "timely" provide what is "obvious," the public may make adverse inferences: Choose. |
Here's another example of pollyanna attitude, with the goal to create fiction about what firedoglake is all about:
there may be new commenters here as a result of the train wreck at John C's site, and it's worth imo pointing out the great level of tolerance and community at FDL. - Valley Girl | 03.27.06 - 9:36 pm | [ Click ] |
The issue is that there are lurkers out there, and the issue is whether FDL really does what it stands by. If you were really "tolerant" you'd tolerate people responding to what Jane Hamsher expressly asked for on 30 Jan 2006.
Not this "community". They whine for help, and when you give it to them, they use your reaction/support/response as an excuse to say, "You are the problem."
Again, FDL has no case. There is no comment. There is no "warning." Just, "Boom," out of the blue, "Banned."
They would like the world to believe that they are tolerant, but they're only tolerant "if they feel like it."
When it comes to tolerating exactly what they ask for, they make it "someone else's issue." No different than the President over Iraq WMD and Plame.
You can see the full discussion here at this link: [ Click ]. Notice several things:
Given you have provided no information, but assert that "it's obvious" the information is there, you should have no trouble providing the required proof of your case. Given we are under a deadline, you have one hour to provide your case. Here is the criteria your information should provide. [ Click ] You are free to post it anywhere on the internet, where the public can find it. You have one hour. After that deadline, because of your failure to "timely" provide what is "obvious," the public may make adverse inferences: Choose. |
The bottom line is that FireDogLake's comments -- as we see from Valley Girl -- is merely about two things:
They don't want to admit they made a mistake.
But rather than force them to admit anything, I apologized for the confusion. That is called being diplomatic: Offer others something. That offer was rejected. Outrageous! What did that get us? Nothing but more of what the White House offers -- absurd, delusional discussion over what did or didn't happen.
Now, they would ask you believe that they are tolerant, while those who are banned are uncivil. That is delusional and wholly not supported by the record, or any "facts" that anyone on firedoglake proffers.
They have no credibility. They are delusional. They are not different than the RNC or the White House: Just as easily capable and willing to rewrite history to justify an absurd outcome that they have created.
This is a disaster sitting on the lap of Jane Hamsher's credibility and public reputation. In short, what could have been easily resolved -- as was attempted -- with an apology, has now mushroomed into a mess that firedoglake has helped manufacture.
This could have been resolved early. But firedoglake -- one month after "deciding" the outcome -- is now mired in a major public relations crisis. And it is only getting worse for them.
Just as the President has to manufacture more non-sense to explain away an initial transgression, so too does Jane Hamsher and firedoglake have to spread more disinformation to explain reality.
The problem is "their facts" and reality are not in the same dimensions. This is the core problem facing the President.
It is absurd to rely on anyone from Firedoglake to comment on the President’s veracity issues over the Plame and Iraq MWD issues. Firedoglake actively practices the same outright lies, deceptions, and historical repackaging as this war criminal in the White House.
In order to claim the moral high ground, you have to be on the moral high ground: Not firedoglake, and not Jane Hamsher.
Shifting
One of the tactics of the RNC in the Plame/Iraq WMD affair has been to shift the focus. Those who discuss the issues are pointed to as the problem.
The Firedoglake community does the same. Consider what John Casper says, and note he has nothing to back up what he says: Nothing. No links, no discussion of the questions that prompted the responses. You're being too vague John to be credible. More absurd comments:
Ref: April 11th, 2006 at 11:26 pm |
Casper's problem is that he provides no backup for what he is saying. This is exactly what the President did with Iraq and Saddam Hussein.
Yet, recall who is the one who is sulking: Casper is whining 30 days after I'm taken out of the picture.
Also, recall who was the one in the wake of the Alito filibuster that was sulking:
Look what he ignores, The whining and "poor me" on firedoglake:
|
Casper, you want the world to let jurassicpork lie there devastated; or do you want someone to offer some suggestions, hope, and a specific vision of what can be immediately be done?
In your world, you want to ignore what was going on at the end of January 2006, and pretend that Jane Hamsher never said what she said, never encouraged anyone to frequently post, and never encouraged active participation with information and contributions.
When it comes to the despair on Firedoglake, where is Casper? Casper cannot reconcile his comments with what Hamsher already discussed:
What John Casper ignores:
|
Given you have provided no information, but assert that "it's obvious" the information is there, you should have no trouble providing the required proof of your case. Given we are under a deadline, you have one hour to provide your case. Here is the criteria your information should provide. [ Click ] You are free to post it anywhere on the internet, where the public can find it. You have one hour. After that deadline, because of your failure to "timely" provide what is "obvious," the public may make adverse inferences: Choose. |
The entire Firedoglake in the wake of the failed Alito filibuster was just that: A pity party. Fine. Then it's time to jump in, and get people focus on solutions and what they can do. You're welcome.
Yet, you fail to discuss anything justifying confidence in your remarks. Hay John Casper, if you want to talk to people about whining and going on and on, tell your peers on FDL to keep their mouth shut when they express distress over the Alito Filibuster failure. Maybe the world won't seriously offer help, support, and encouragement.
If the Firedoglake "community" wants credibility, then the least you can do is acknowledge what you are doing to contribute to the responses: Whining and going on and on and "poor" me about being distressed over the failure of the Alito Filibuster; then whining when you get exactly what you ask for: Many, frequent contributions and ideas.
More comments without links
One of the many problems of the RNC and White House over the Plame and Iraq WMD issue has been the lack of evidence, and the shifting of the burden.
Again, John Casper is equally devoid of facts when he says:
Casper, you well state your problem: [a] going on and on -- here we are going on 5 weeks after the ban; more time than I was on FDL -- and [b] you have no links. Ref: FDL, April 11th, 2006 at 11:26 pm |
Just as the President is well-expected, where's the evidence:
No, on all counts you cite nothing. That's not an argument, it's just what the President did with Ambassador Wilson: smearing because nothing else worked.
Again, you fail to discuss. Your argument fails.
Given you have provided no information, but assert that "it's obvious" the information is there, you should have no trouble providing the required proof of your case. Given we are under a deadline, you have one hour to provide your case. Here is the criteria your information should provide. [ Click ] You are free to post it anywhere on the internet, where the public can find it. You have one hour. After that deadline, because of your failure to "timely" provide what is "obvious," the public may make adverse inferences: Choose. |
Mischaracterizing Information
Take this one, from BullGoose . . .it's spelled, "Toby Petzold". Maybe you're name is really, "BullCheese". . .
This fails to cite any evidence, nor does it show how the listed name was or was not a fair ban: Falsely asserting Constant "lists Toby Pelzold as a victim of an unfair ban from FDL". There's no basis for this statement. BullGoose-Cheese provides no evidence. Nor does BullGoose cite any specific text or how the comments or links were or were not incorporated. BullGoose's comment fails as a justification to align or associated Constant and Pelzoid. BullGoose appears to be the victim of his delusion and an unfair reliance on non-sense. Ref: FDL, BullGoose, April 12th, 2006 at 12:57 am |
BullGoose-Cheeseburner, you provide no link, nor cite anything. You make no credible claim that there is or is not any list; nor do you show that the information is or is not asserted to be fair or unfair. Rather, you assert without any textual reference that someone may or may not have been unfairly banned.
There is the basis for your statement. You would have the public believe fiction. You misrepresent the situation. You provide no direct commentary or textual reference. Your argument fails.
Given you have provided no information, but assert that "it's obvious" the information is there, you should have no trouble providing the required proof of your case. Given we are under a deadline, you have one hour to provide your case. Here is the criteria your information should provide. [ Click ] You are free to post it anywhere on the internet, where the public can find it. You have one hour. After that deadline, because of your failure to "timely" provide what is "obvious," the public may make adverse inferences: Choose. |
Innuendo
Then there's innuendo without any evidence, proof, or comments to warrant confidence in the statement.
BullGoose offers no evidence:
Ref: FDL, BullGoose says: April 12th, 2006 at 12:57 am The argument fails. BullGoose fails to credibly argue what "the picture" is. |
What evidence do you have that Toby and Constant are one in the same? Again, you like the President over the Plame issue merely use smear without offering any evidence. You have no credibility. You have no evidence. You are merely asking the world to accept your "conclusion" as something that deserves merit. Your claim is frivolous.
BullGoose, it's called a "link," which you fail to provide. It remains to be understood whether BullGooseStep -- in the absence of a link -- might have whined the opposite, "Oh, but you have no link." Obviously, BullGoose is a tortured soul, never happy with what delusion BullGoose embraces.
Given you have provided no information, but assert that "it's obvious" the information is there, you should have no trouble providing the required proof of your case. Given we are under a deadline, you have one hour to provide your case. Here is the criteria your information should provide. [ Click ] You are free to post it anywhere on the internet, where the public can find it. You have one hour. After that deadline, because of your failure to "timely" provide what is "obvious," the public may make adverse inferences: Choose. |
Precedent: Demanding Links
The list goes on and on, far too numerous to list here. But not to be outdone, when it comes to other boards where John Cole comments, who's the first to be there demanding links and comments? That's right, FireDogLake and the likes of Elroy.
Here’s a sample link on John Cole's site demanding a link: [ Click ] |
Elroy and others on FireDogLake have a problem. They claim that things are or are not something, but they have nothing to back up their "facts".
Elroy, as many of the others on FireDogLake who went "on and on" asking for information, but when provided that information, he [wait for it] went on and on . . . How can one respond to someone without providing the information? No answer from Fire Dog Lake. Details of Discredited FDL: [ Click ] |
Rather, they use a result -- whatever that is -- to then retroactively argue some nebulous point. This is something that Elroy has been publicly discredited on.
Given you have provided no information, but assert that "it's obvious" the information is there, you should have no trouble providing the required proof of your case. Given we are under a deadline, you have one hour to provide your case. Here is the criteria your information should provide. [ Click ] You are free to post it anywhere on the internet, where the public can find it. You have one hour. After that deadline, because of your failure to "timely" provide what is "obvious," the public may make adverse inferences: Choose. |
Again, there's precedent of FDL community and others asking for links. But what is the FDL community response? Oh, they have other things to do:
Shez says: Shez' argument is not persuasive. Rather, doing more of what the President does: "We don't have time for facts, we have more important distractions." |
Shez, you're free to provide links. Until you do, maybe you can explain why you are or are not making comments on litigation issues on behalf of Jane Hamsher.
Last time I checked, you're not licensed to practice law, nor do you have an attorney-client relationship with Hamsher to make comments on what may or may not be litigated.
Given you have provided no information, but assert that "it's obvious" the information is there, you should have no trouble providing the required proof of your case. Given we are under a deadline, you have one hour to provide your case. Here is the criteria your information should provide. [ Click ] You are free to post it anywhere on the internet, where the public can find it. You have one hour. After that deadline, because of your failure to "timely" provide what is "obvious," the public may make adverse inferences: Choose. |
Keep in mind, this is one month after they "made the big decisions" to end the conversation -- with a ban -- but what are they doing? Still talking about it. Just like the President did with the Iraq invasion: Hay, the President invaded, but here we are three years later still "talking" about what should have been a clear cut case.
Obviously, the issue isn't settled. You refuse to settle. Rather, you and the entire firedoglake have rejected not only an apology; but you've created additional non-sense that in now is connected with reality. The President knows this well. Hamsher cannot credibly moderate a discussion of the same conduct in the President.
Shez, if you've got a real basis to believe something "isn’t worth it" why are you spending your time on something that should have been resolved? Given you offer no discussion about the other issues, here's what the public should conclude:
The reversal
But the firedoglake community then did the opposite, just as the President did, and turned everything around:
Down the list, the entire conduct on FiredogLake is no different than what we had with the President. No difference.
They rewrite history. They ignore what they do. They smear others. They use innuendo.
You are hypocrites. Nobody should ever consider your request for information, assistance, support, or encouragement seriously.
Rather, it your job to define what format, length, and the comments you desire.
You need to be specific as to what you want. You have failed to be specific. That is the problem in the White House and with the Yearly Kos: Two groups asking that you believe they are "better suited" to show the way, while failing to show why they are or are not to be believed.
Absolute no credibility.
The issue is that this conduct well celebrated on Firedoglake, and which Congressman Congressman Conyers has not distanced himself -- as evidenced by the public accolades for Hamsher -- is the very conduct decried in the Administration.
If the public wants to compel the leadership to be accountable, then you need to show that your remarks stand up to scrutiny. The longer you make baseless accusations about others, the less credibility you have.
You may be right that it is wrong to go to war over things that are not real. It is also wrong to be silent about those who command others meet a standard that they are not willing to meet themselves.
If someone on any blog has a complaint with an issue or conduct, then it is your job to provide the links, provide the arguments, and prove your point.
The public is not well served when -- despite well placed concerns over war crimes in Iraq and outing of Plame's name in re WMD -- that the public is then offered something no better: Equally dubious claims, no evidence, and smearing.
I'm all for discussing the issues, whether it be for what is or is not going on. But you may not credibly discuss at Yearly Kos issues of "national importance" when the panelist not only engage in but sanction the very conduct they decry in others.
If you want credibly, then you need to provide links. If you do not want to provide links, then you may not expect that in others. If you are going to go to other sites like John Cole demanding links, then you need to expect -- and respond to -- equally credible demands that you provide links and backup.
At this point, it is clear that Jane Hamsher, Valley Girl, and the others on firedolake would ask that they be given the right to smear others -- just as this President -- all the while getting away with not providing any credible evidence -- also just as this President.
The UK -- as was with Iraq -- has already said military action in Iran would be illegal. This means the US -- as was/is with Iraq -- planning on/engaging in war crimes.
"It seems obvious that if there was a great debate over whether X was true, and most people insisted that X was true while a handful of knowledgeable people insisted that X was untrue, and it turned out that, all along, X was, in fact, untrue, a rational person -- the next time a similar debate arose -- would be more inclined to listen to those who were right, and less inclined to listen to those who were wrong" [Click ] |
If people want to exile those they disagree with that is one thing. But if the world is going to bow down to those who say, "We're better at defining and debating truth," that is another matter.
Both sides of the aisle contributed to this: First by making the offense of lying; second by refusing to call them on that to account; third by failing to rely on the full spectrum of lawful options to preserve this Constitution.
We do little to inspire world confidence when those who point fingers fail to exceed the standard they impose on others.
This nation is not on an escalator. The national leadership could have resigned; or visibly distanced itself. Rather, the nation has "agreed" to compromise on basis principles, then told -- not asked -- that all others "go along" with that result.
Whether the nation does or does not want to "listen" is obvious -- it does not. The issue is what is to be done when we further spiral into more lawlessness and abuse, despite the law and the legal community's responsibility to translate their experience and education into effective litigation. Talking is one thing; the real result is when we have an adjudicated result that compels the abusive to assent to the rule of law. We're far from that.
The American citizenry refuses to assert all its lawful options. Rather, it continues to prattle about "what should be done" all the while not asserting its power. The "leaders" of the country are unwilling to lawfully assert the needed options to compel this nation to assent to the rule of law. Some have asserted that we continue to dialog with those in Congress who do not listen; while that Congress says the dialog with Iran must not start.
Americans can either do this on their own; or they can have this lawfully thrust up on them from without. It's time to quit "trying to talk" to those who do not listen in Congress; and open a dialog with those who are been denied the chance to peacefully recognize Israel. It's more absurd for the nation to defer to the self-appointed "experts" who have no background, but simply rely on the same non-sense accusations to rally others to their cause. Their cause and approach has been ineffectual. New approaches are not needed; but this nation requires the betrayal by all sides for there to be a catalyst for lawful, more dynamic solutions.
America is not ready to listen; nor has it awoken to the fact that those who oppose this action in Iran are equally capable of abuse, misinformation, slander, innuendo, and claims without evidence. If you want to see the result, then you need to tell your friends to quit doing what the RNC does: Making statements devoid of reality; and compel the national leadership to hold all sides to account for their non-sense statements, ineffectual plans, and claims that have no evidence.
The American people are not well serviced when they are told that X or Y people are or are not doing what is wrong. The issue is that the alterative is no better.
If you want at Yearly Kos to convince others you are credible, then you need to provide a track record that you conduct is consistent with the principles you expect of others.
At this point, it is clear that Congressman Conyers appears to have sanctioned the very abusive, misleading, and baseless commentary by Jane Hamsher and her "community" at firedoglake, all the while he would decry that same conduct in the President of the United States.
I'm all for Presidential accountability and impeachment. I'm also for ensuring that public discussion is based on facts, not a selective pointing of the set lighting.
Summary
Why are Americans abusive? Because the world lets them.
Not this blogger. Whether you're in the White House or on firedoglake, don't dare believe you're going to get away with this.
You wished this.
Now, apply what you know . . .
Trainer | 10:02 am -- Here's my unrequested observation based on 10-years of internet usage, including hosting chats, moderating forums, blog author. Someone who rarely, if ever, comments drops into a thread in the wake of a sensitive event and dumps a bunch of information with what is interpreted as an upbeat or eager attitude; some of the information may be perceived by regulars as contrary to what other folks have said or heard, and can't be readily vetted with other regulars they know and trust. This commenter is likely to be viewed as a possible troll -- depending on subsequent comments. The M.O. is common in other progressive forums. The solution: post comments more often so that regulars develop a sense of trust and begin to understand more broadly the person with whom they are sharing these threads. Capice? Rayne | Homepage | 02.13.06 - 10:41 am | Click |
Solution: Accept that no matter what, they're not going to be happy.
They aren't open to "new ideas" -- they want to "feel" comfortable and maybe -- when they "get around to it" [likely never] listen.
Who are they to say, "We're the regulars. . ."
One month after the ban . . .
Duh, who thought of that? 66 justbrowzing says: April 11th, 2006 at 7:48 am 2 questions for the fdl authorities: 1) Anything brewing on censure? Is this giving Feingold new support? If not, just what the **** will get the Dems behind him? 2) Have you heard anything serious about–or do you want to start to stir up interest, a la Lieberman in CT, state legislature-sponsored impeachment? An obscure article of the Constitution would allow a heavily dem state to vote articles of impeachment that must then be dealt with immediately by Congress; everything else stops. Imagine… |
Good grief. Hello! You're only four months late.
Where have you been. Remember, I was banned for posting this material -- ideas to provide hope, solve problems, contribute -- on your site.
You guys are clueless!
Get this, 7 minutes later guess who comes back with . . . [Note: Scroll up and look for what Pachacutec has said before -- Gag! If she were a real man I'd still call her a wench.]
Pachacutec says: April 11th, 2006 at 7:54 am justbrowzing: We feel the Leaker in Chef story provides another opportunity to push an accountability agenda, and censure is our flagship issue for pushing that agenda. As we speak, local activists are arranging meetings with their senators in their home states to discuss this and other issues. The DC establishment, shortly before the leaker story, had hardened against censure as an immediate term issue but we are not accepting that. KagroX has been leading the impeachment agenda from the local level and we’re not going to duplicate those efforts. We feel one of the strengths of the progressive blogosphere is our ability to fight simultaneously on more than one front, without centralized control. Diversity of tactics and all that. Thanks for asking! |
FireDogS--tLake:
Duh!
"Strengths. . ." ha! They don't listen!
More of the, "We have our plan, and we're not going to listen to you . . ."
If only they admitted the idea -- about state proclamations -- was from someone inside the RNC, someone who despises the war criminal in the Oval office . . .
Oh, but it continues . . five weeks after the ban . . .look what they can't avoid talking about . . .
Illinois State Proclamation for Impeachment 7 sunny says: April 23rd, 2006 at 1:56 pm OK, this is waaaay OT, but remember that guy Constant-pated (or something like that?) who was alway posting about State Legislatures having the power to commence impeachment proceedings? WELL, IT’S HAPPENING!!!! OMG!! Click Bush Impeachment - The Illinois State Legislature is Preparing to Drop a Bombshell Utilizing a little known rule of the US House to bring Impeachment charges by Steven Leser http://www.opednews.com Steven Leser The Illinois General Assembly is about to rock the nation. Members of state legislatures are normally not considered as having the ability to decide issues with a massive impact to the nation as a whole. Representative Karen A. Yarbrough of Illinois’ 7th District is about to shatter that perception forever. Representative Yarbrough stumbled on a little known and never utlitized rule of the US House of Representatives, Section 603 of Jefferson’s Manual of the Rules of the United States House of Representatives, which allows federal impeachment proceedings to be initiated by joint resolution of a state legislature. From there, Illinois House Joint Resolution 125 (hereafter to be referred to as HJR0125) was born. _______________________________________________ WHOA!!! |
Hay, I might be able to "let you know more about it," but I can't -- banned off the site. Thanks alot, firedogs--tlake!
Summary
1. Don't be stupid and say, "We really want you to participate" then turn around and ban people for doing exactly what you want -- participating;
2. You have no credibility when you tout your "big network" but you fail to provide "your network" with the other options;
3. You're hypocritical when you blatantly lie about what has happened -- you're stuck with more lies to cover up the others; you have no credibility when you make statements that aren't supported by facts;
4. People are going to figure out what is going on, so quit your non-sense; and
5. Because of how you are, I no longer take your questions, comments, ideas, or "big plans" seriously -- rather, you've shown that you're not willing to look at the full range of options that need to be employed in concert to show the Senate and House leadership you are serious about asserting the rule of law.
Summation: Look at their protests; then look at what ultimately prevailed: The truth, the 603 effort. But they continue their non-sense denials with more absurdity.
How Rovian.
posted by Constant @ 10:07 AM
<< Home