…but still, read this and tell me Orwell is not incredibly prescient–and that we are not living a great deal of 1984 more and more right here in the Land of the Allegedly Free.
It’s more that it’s a completely insane site. I used to go to it for comedy as it had very weird conspiracy theories and stuff. It’s like linking to something from Lyndon LaRouche. Although if you’re intending comedy apologies.
My comment on this badly thought through comment is not being accepted (I suspect for length reasons) so I’ve put it up as a personal blog post
Not so much ‘ritually impure’ as ‘factually challenged’.
TMLutas nails it with his blog post.
His insistence that the 2000 election was stolen blows any credibility he might have had out of the water. He is clearly ignorant of the independent recounts that took place and quite likely doesn’t understand the electoral college process. I am not a Bush fan, but I can acknowledge facts. The election was not stolen.
I agree it’s rubbish the 2000 election was stolen. And St. Thomas was wrong about the Immaculate Conception. The whole “this one error means everything the guy has to say is worthless” approach leaves a lot to be desired.
You are, of course, correct. And thanks for pointing it out. It was so easy to let that one glaring problem blind me that I fell into that mode. I really should have mentioned that I do see some good points in what he wrote. I guess there’s a bit of a lesson to be learned there. In fact, it’s a lesson I have tried to convey to my kids before.
I did not finish the line by line fisking and hit 17 separate inaccuracies at 2/3rds through the article and they weren’t clustered. How many separate errors does it take before you start backing away from a source and start looking for someone else to carry forward your point?
“hit 17 separate inaccuracies” Are you going to list them, or just assert? Until then, quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
Did you read his post? http://flit-tm.blogspot.com/2012/06/patheos-choked-on-this-mega-comment-so.html
No. Some are indeed factual errors (establishment date of the Taliban), but many more are debatable points, e.g. #3, #9, #12, etc.
And some are just outright opinions.
And here you don’t even do the courtesy of listing numbers, very nebulous.
Sure I did. That’s why the “it’s outright opinions” post is a reply to my list of numbers.
#3 If you lock on targeting radar on a cease-fire enforcement flight that is not a debatable opinion, but a fact. Do that sort of thing often enough and your cease-fire crumbles. Hussein calculated, wrongly, that he could prick the US forever in this fashion. #9 If you prefer maoism with its huge death tolls and periodic descent into outright economic insanity to the sort of deng reform fascism that has lifted up hundreds of millions out of poverty, I guess you can make the point and I encourage you to do so. Don’t hide behind a simple number challenge, please be clear about what you’re asserting. #12 I’m sorry but this is just how the US political system works. The interplay between sub-party factions is well documented as is the periodic fear that this faction or that will “sit out” the election. Most recently, the PUMA revolt on the Democrat side in 2008 is a real world example as is the threat that conservatives would sit out the same year that resulted in the nomination of VP candidate Palin who rounded up quite a bit of conservative workers and votes during her run.
Can you skip the weasel wording of etc.? I laid out 17 challenges. You’re quibbling 3. Let’s say you’re completely correct and there were only 14 serious inaccuracies of fact in one piece. My point still carries in that this is much more than ritually impure. It’s just flat out embarrassingly false and should not be relied on.
I disagree, but whatever. Mark’s blog probably isn’t the best place for us to continue arguing about your blog post anyway.
If one doesn’t get 9/11, one will attack articles like the one Shea put up, which has much more truth than error: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98
About the 2000 elections having been stolen: Not being wedded to US media in my outpost up North, I get some of my news from more objective sources, like the BBC – and they had come up with some very credible arguments about voter suppression, particularly in Florida, that would lead me to be suspicious about the final results… And some people are working very hard to help people “Regain their votes”… They must have a good reason!
Saying the election was “stolen” is to look at one instance of voter fraud out of many in Florida and across the nation. Both sides were likely playing dirty. The more important point to consider is that this didn’t result in violence as it can in other countries. The system, imperfect as it is, worked. People were mad, but abided by the result.
The Gore people were going at the military absentee vote hammer and tongs trying to throw out as many ballots as possible. How did the BBC cover that issue? Florida sits in two time zones and thus you’re not supposed to call elections until after the panhandle’s polls close. The panhandle was Bush country and several national outlets called Florida for Gore when the bulk of the state had closed but the panhandle had not. How did the BBC cover that issue? Gore wanted recounts only in counties where he would likely add votes. How is a differentiated standard of care to square with equal protection of the law and one man, one vote. How did the BBC handle that issue?
To put the issues of Florida in 2000 simplistically as GOP voter suppression is just not even within shouting distance of the truth.