DHS report: right wing = scum

varwoche said:
Stop right there. This is yet another of your asinine distortions. I claimed that Malkin supports a supremacist organization, not of being a supremacist herself, and I supported that claim. Please stop distorting my words.
Click to expand...

A distinction without a difference. Why else would you bother to continually make your false claim that MM supports "white supremacists" if that didn't mean she was one as well?
 
Cicero said:
A distinction without a difference. Why else would you bother to continually make your false claim that MM supports "white supremacists" if that didn't mean she was one as well?
Click to expand...

By this logic, the fact that you buy gasoline, some of the price of which goes to support terrorism, means you're a terrorist. :rolleyes:

Please think about this stuff before you post it.
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
By this logic, the fact that you buy gasoline, some of the price of which goes to support terrorism, means you're a terrorist. :rolleyes:

Please think about this stuff before you post it.
Click to expand...

Libs are genetically incapable of making valid analogies. Varwoche is not implying that MM is an unwitting supporter of "white supremacists," rather she is in bed with them. To use your feeble example, MM is not dealing with her local gas station, but directly giving aid and comfort to the terrorists.
 
Cicero said:
Libs are genetically incapable of making valid analogies. Varwoche is not implying that MM is an unwitting supporter of "white supremacists," rather she is in bed with them. To use your feeble example, MM is not dealing with her local gas station, but directly giving aid and comfort to the terrorists.
Click to expand...
Don't you get tired of being wrong always? A comment that someone supports, indirectly, a group's efforts in one instance DOES NOT mean that "they are in bed with them"--especially the more radical elements. For example, I support the NRA, even though I strongly disagree with some of their positions.

I'm embarrased by the "Conservatives" on this board who cannot follow logic.
Not embarrased enough to become a "liberal" however...
 
Cicero said:
Libs are genetically incapable of making valid analogies. Varwoche is not implying that MM is an unwitting supporter of "white supremacists," rather she is in bed with them.
Click to expand...
You are saying things that are obviously untrue.

Why?
 
rwguinn said:
Don't you get tired of being wrong always? A comment that someone supports, indirectly, a group's efforts in one instance DOES NOT mean that "they are in bed with them"--especially the more radical elements. For example, I support the NRA, even though I strongly disagree with some of their positions.

I'm embarrased by the "Conservatives" on this board who cannot follow logic.
Not embarrased enough to become a "liberal" however...
Click to expand...

I'm embarrassed that a supposed conservative can''t spell embarrassed.

Varwoche isn't going to the trouble to connect MM to "white supremacists" because she is doing so indirectly. The NRA is radical?
 
Last edited:
rwguinn said:
A comment that someone supports, indirectly, a group's efforts in one instance DOES NOT mean that "they are in bed with them"--especially the more radical elements. For example, I support the NRA, even though I strongly disagree with some of their positions.
Click to expand...
Agreed except what I highlighted. Malkin directly supports VDARE in the form of public statements, publishing relationship, and link on her blogroll, all of which is clearly in evidence via the link I posted earlier.

That doesn't mean I've jumped to Malkin = supremacist though, for various thread-derailing reasons not the least of which is I shy away from broad, damning characterizations except in clear cases, nor will I indulge Cicero's (constant) attempts to skip over specifics in favor of vague, broad brushery (leading eventually to Caroline Kennedy).
 
varwoche said:
Agreed except what I highlighted. Malkin directly supports VDARE in the form of public statements, publishing relationship, and link on her blogroll, all of which is clearly in evidence via the link I posted earlier.

That doesn't mean I've jumped to Malkin = supremacist though, for various thread-derailing reasons not the least of which is I shy away from broad, damning characterizations except in clear cases, nor will I indulge Cicero's (constant) attempts to skip over specifics in favor of vague, broad brushery (leading eventually to Caroline Kennedy).
Click to expand...
Sorry 'bout that.
I don't know the specifics of the group she is supporting this way, and frankly have neither the time nor desire to find out.
It may be a case similar to me giving money to the Salvation Army. Even though I don't support their basic evangelic premise, they do a lot of good in feeding and supporting folks who would otherwise be more of a problem than they are already. That part I agree with, and that's where the money goes.
 
varwoche said:
Agreed except what I highlighted. Malkin directly supports VDARE in the form of public statements, publishing relationship, and link on her blogroll, all of which is clearly in evidence via the link I posted earlier.

That doesn't mean I've jumped to Malkin = supremacist though, for various thread-derailing reasons not the least of which is I shy away from broad, damning characterizations except in clear cases, nor will I indulge Cicero's (constant) attempts to skip over specifics in favor of vague, broad brushery (leading eventually to Caroline Kennedy).
Click to expand...

VDARE publishes MM's articles on their website. But so does:

The Miami Herald,
The Kansas City Star,
Akron Beacon Journal
USA Today,
Philadelphia Daily News,
The Union Leader
The Dallas Morning News,
Desert Dispatch
The Washington Times,
The Wall Street Journal
New York Post,
Houston Chronicle,
The Modesto Bee,
The Detroit News,
The Rocky Mountain News,
The Boston Herald,
The Hartford Courant,
The State Journal-Register
The Bellingham Herald
The Asheville Citizen Times,
The Herald-Dispatch
The Press-Enterprise
The Star-Gazette
The Times
The El Paso Times,
The Great Falls Tribune
The Lowell Sun
the Lexington Herald-Leader
The Home News Tribune
The Times Herald
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution,
Florida Today (
The Advocate
The Rochester Democrat and Chronicle (New York).



"Somebody called J. Alston [email him/her/it], writing for something called the [Henderson NC] Daily Dispatch, has just attacked Michelle Malkin for linking, on her website, to our Joe Guzzardi’s column on her book Invasion. As he/ she/ it puts it incredulously, Michelle (shock! horror!)

...actually links to a review of her first book that was written by Joe Guzzardi for VDARE.com. VDARE, an anti-immigration organization based in Warrenton, Va., is recognized as an active hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Does this mean that the SPLC can officially recognize www.michellemalkin.com as an Internet hate site?”

(Actually, Joe’s column was from the unimpeachably establishment Lodi-News-Sentinel. But why spoil a good smear?)

http://www.vdare.com/blog/092504_blog.htm#b1

"In another VDARE blog entry, my friend Peter Brimelow observes that some people apparently think linking to VDARE is tantamount to a hate crime." MM

http://michellemalkin.com/2004/09/26/steve-sailer-vindicated/

That would be people like you. If you didn't think so, why bother making a fuss out of VDARE publishing MM's articles or MM even having a link back in 2004? Where is this link on her hotair.com, townhall.com or home website today?
 
Last edited:
Cicero said:
VDARE publishes MM's articles on their website. But so does:

The Miami Herald,
The Kansas City Star,
Akron Beacon Journal
USA Today,
Philadelphia Daily News,
The Union Leader
The Dallas Morning News,
Desert Dispatch
The Washington Times,
The Wall Street Journal
New York Post,
Houston Chronicle,
The Modesto Bee,
The Detroit News,
The Rocky Mountain News,
The Boston Herald,
The Hartford Courant,
The State Journal-Register
The Bellingham Herald
The Asheville Citizen Times,
The Herald-Dispatch
The Press-Enterprise
The Star-Gazette
The Times
The El Paso Times,
The Great Falls Tribune
The Lowell Sun
the Lexington Herald-Leader
The Home News Tribune
The Times Herald
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution,
Florida Today (
The Advocate
The Rochester Democrat and Chronicle (New York).



"Somebody called J. Alston [email him/her/it], writing for something called the [Henderson NC] Daily Dispatch, has just attacked Michelle Malkin for linking, on her website, to our Joe Guzzardi’s column on her book Invasion. As he/ she/ it puts it incredulously, Michelle (shock! horror!)

...actually links to a review of her first book that was written by Joe Guzzardi for VDARE.com. VDARE, an anti-immigration organization based in Warrenton, Va., is recognized as an active hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Does this mean that the SPLC can officially recognize www.michellemalkin.com as an Internet hate site?”

(Actually, Joe’s column was from the unimpeachably establishment Lodi-News-Sentinel. But why spoil a good smear?)

http://www.vdare.com/blog/092504_blog.htm#b1

"In another VDARE blog entry, my friend Peter Brimelow observes that some people apparently think linking to VDARE is tantamount to a hate crime." MM

http://michellemalkin.com/2004/09/26/steve-sailer-vindicated/

That would be people like you. If you didn't think so, why bother making a fuss out of VDARE publishing MM's articles or MM even having a link back in 2004? Where is this link on her hotair.com, townhall.com or home website today?
Click to expand...
I was wondering whether you had a point, and then I thought ... oh, hang on, the person who posted this is Cicero.
 
drkitten said:
No, the first quote was specifically directed to a joint session of Congress. I.e. American politicians, including his democratic opponents in Washington.

So once again, you are displaying total disregard for the facts. But thanks for playing. I'll let you know when you get something right.
Click to expand...

A little context...

http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/gw-bush-9-11.htm

"And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

What was that about total disregard for the facts?
 
MikeMangum said:
A little context...

http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/gw-bush-9-11.htm

"And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

What was that about total disregard for the facts?
Click to expand...
I see a period between those sentences, whereas the quote in question is attached to the second. Those be the facts.

Mission accomplished ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom