Banana republic it is..

All I have to say is if some college had done this to students attending a political event of a republican speaker, I guarantee you there would be hell to pay. But this is our new emperor and the people they fucked over were republicans, so who cares. From the article we find out:

WARRENSBURG – Ten College Republicans were dubbed a security threat and refused admittance to President Barack Obama’s speech at the University of Central Missouri on Wednesday.

Despite the fact that the students had tickets to the event, security personnel turned them away at the door to the recreation center where Obama gave a speech on economic policy, telling the group it wasn’t about their politics but the president’s safety, State Treasurer of the College Republicans Courtney Scott told The College Fix.

The students, some of whom donned Tea Party T-Shirts and others who wore patriotic or Republican-inspired clothing, had protested the president earlier in the day on campus, but had put away their signs and said they were ready to simply listen to Obama when security shut them down – and even told them to leave the vicinity and stay several hundred yards away from the rec center.

The students had waited in a long line and under the hot sun to wind their way to the front of the line two hours in advance of Obama’s scheduled 5:30 p.m. remarks. Still, they were rejected.

“It just didn’t make any sense,” Scott told The Fix. “A lot of us traveled several hours to watch the speech. We were very disappointed not to be able to attend.”

The small group of College Republicans were confused as to why such extreme security precautions were directed at them – but not at the 2,500 other audience members who were granted admission to the event, Scott said.

Seriously? If Obama is such a fucking pussy people protesting his idiot policies are a security threat maybe the mother fucker should stay holed up in his castle in D.C. Despicable, and the parents of these students are paying for the school to fuck them over this way.

Comments are closed.

  1. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 12

  2. Hal_10000

    The Democrats have done this sort of thing for a long time. There was the infamous “free speech zone” at their Boston convention. It’s just an extension of DHS’s targeting of right-wing groups. Because if you oppose the President, you have to be a threat.

    Thumb up 9

  3. HARLEY

    well, we have democrats “on record” as stating that the Tea Party are Terrorists, or like al quadia.. some shit like that. We had state police telling officers that anyone with Tea party logos or 2nd amendment logs need to be watch as agents of right wing terror… soo

    Thumb up 13

  4. stogy

    I have questions about this story – there are no statements from the police or the college concerning reasons why they were turned away. Were there specific rules issued by the college that the students weren’t following. It sounds like there were, as the article says there was a no posters rule – the kids actually went and put away their placards. But was it actually a no political signs of any kind rule as well? How do we know that these particular students weren’t behaving like jerks while lining up – singing songs, lecturing others loudly about what a douche Obama is. And it says security personnel: who’s security personnel? Was it college police? What if the security personnel saw them acting out and decided it was for their own protection, and told them that? Do we know that Obama actually even knew about this and authorised it?

    Well regardless, the students have got some national coverage, diverted attention away from Obama’s speech… worked out perfectly for them after all.

    Hot! Thumb up 9

  5. AlexInCT *

    I have questions about this story – there are no statements from the police or the college concerning reasons why they were turned away.

    Seriously Stogy? You think if there was any real security threat from them that they would have actually just been turned away instead of been in the hands of the secret service? They would also have been suspended if not kicked out outright. They were turned away because they didn’t want the conservative kids putting Obama on the spot at this infomercial to pretend he now cares about the economy for the umpteenth time. It was political. And then the people that turned them away then lied about why they did it.

    Thumb up 11

  6. stogy

    They were turned away because they didn’t want them putting Obama on the spot. It was political. And then they lied about it.

    Your psychic told you that?

    Hot! Thumb up 10

  7. CM

    Your psychic told you that?

    Nah, it’s an Alex Fact. His sources would never lie about something so serious.

    I see the thumbs are as partisan as it’s possible to be ;-)

    Hot! Thumb up 10

  8. AlexInCT *

    Nah, it’s an Alex Fact. His sources would never lie about something so serious.

    It is really funny how often you have dismissed me or my sources only to eat crow later, CM. Practically every time I pointed out a malfeasance by team blue which the LSM sat on or ignored, you dismissed me and the source, only to have it turn out the way I pointed out. But you still haven’t wizened up. Then again, since you still can not let your misplaced faith in the cult of AGW or the rest of progressivism go, it’s par for the course. The problem isn’t with me dude: it is with you and your inability to admit the people you keep trying to defend are the world’s greatest scumbags.

    Hot! Thumb up 11

  9. CM

    It is really funny how often you have dismissed me or my sources only to eat crow later, CM.

    Point to some examples. Or is this YET ANOTHER unsupported accusations.
    The FACT is: you claim any old thing as FACT when you’ve got no idea. All it needs to do is fit your narrartive and it’s automatically THE TRUTH.

    Practically every time I pointed out a malfeasance by team blue which the LSM sat on or ignored, you dismissed me and the source, only to have it turn out the way I pointed out.

    “Practically every time” even? Wow, that’s awesome.
    I won’t hold my breath for some evidence of this.

    But you still haven’t wizened up.

    Why would it considering what you’re claiming is complete nonsense?

    Then again, since you still can not let your misplaced faith in the cult of AGW or the rest of progressivism go, it’s par for the course.

    There you go again with your obsession with climate change. Leave it alone for five minutes for crying out loud ;-)
    Yes, yes, I’ve signed up for the entire progressive mindset. There is no middle, only extremes. You’re so clever.

    The problem isn’t with me dude: it is with you and your inability to admit the people you keep trying to defend are the world’s greatest scumbags.

    Yes, I should just accept everything the right says, and dismiss everything the left says. Not based on anything else other than it’s a fight of good versus evil.
    It must be fun living in a Star Wars binary universe. Well it should be, but you don’t ever seem to be enjoying yourself (other than when you’re talking about how amazing you are at drinking, exercise, sex, your job, etc etc).

    Hot! Thumb up 9

  10. stogy

    It is really funny how often you have dismissed me or my sources only to eat crow later, CM.

    Heh. Does that include all the ones you don’t read properly and then you are forced to go all passive-aggressive when it is pointed out to you that they actually support the opposite view?

    And your sources here have only provided one view here: that of the rejected students. Again, I ask you what additional information you have that allows you to conclude that Obama was all in on this vast conspiracy?

    Hot! Thumb up 9

  11. CM

    Heh. Does that include all the ones you don’t read properly and then you are forced to go all passive-aggressive when it is pointed out to you that they actually support the opposite view?

    He has an uncanny ability to post links to things that undermine what he’s struggling to say. That most recent one in the ‘You Can’t Peddle Prosperity’ thread is a perfect example, which you clearly demonstrated.

    And your sources here have only provided one view here: that of the rejected students. Again, I ask you what additional information you have that allows you to conclude that Obama was all in on this vast conspiracy?

    Yeah Alex, clue us in.

    Hot! Thumb up 8

  12. Section8

    Welcome to Right Thinking, one of many venues where you can watch the left point out they now excuse everything bad about Bush in the form of Obama, and then some. In fact quite a bit of some. It’s fun watching hypocrisy run amok isn’t it? Oh well we watched the left shoot their wad about being the “adults in the room”, the “intellectuals”, the “reasoned crowd”, only to watch them reveal themselves yet again as the leftist fruitcakes we said they were and always will be. Kind of like having their masks pulled off in a Scooby Doo episode. Well at least this scam won’t happen again anytime soon, and the plan wasn’t even foiled by meddling kids, they just pulled off the masks themselves because they can’t help it.

    Thumb up 9

  13. CM

    Are you sure you’re in the right thread? I think perhaps yours is the mask that’s come off Section 8.
    Did you notice that Alex is claiming this is evidence of a banana republic?
    Personally I don’t have strong opinion on the issue (who the President is doesn’t change that, I can appreciate arguments for and against stopping people attending a Presidential speech).

    Hot! Thumb up 5

  14. stogy

    Welcome to Right Thinking, one of many venues where you can watch the left point out they now excuse everything bad about Bush in the form of Obama, and then some.

    Heh, actually, I was just following CMs prescription to see if worked. :)

    1. The sources are biased, we can’t rely on (the left wing equivalent of) ‘The College Fix’ or the State Treasurer of the College Republicans to provide an unbiased account of what actually happened.
    2. We can’t trust the students when they say “they were ready to simply listen to [insert Republican name here]” as they had protested earlier and still had the clothing on.
    3. Profiling is only appropriate in certain circumstances, such as when there have been break-ins in the area.

    Clearly it did, and very easy to do. CM was pretty much spot on. I actually wondered if anyone would pick up on it. I used to see these three steps here all the time. Still do sometimes, I suppose.

    Hot! Thumb up 8

  15. Section8

    Are you sure you’re in the right thread?

    As far as watching the leftist spin with “well Bush did it too.”, which is by no means limited to this blog, any thread will do for my statement. I just happened to feel like posting it in this one.

    I don’t really care whether or not you guys want to stay in denial regarding this or not, you being the left in general, it hurts the leftist cause in this country far more than it helps which is fine by me.

    Thumb up 8

  16. stogy

    you being the left in general

    I’m not left. I’m center. I don’t mean this as a perception of my own political values – I mean I support centrist politics as defined by swings between left and right parties. I might be socially more liberal (gay marriage, human rights etc), but in economics, I am definitely a centrist.

    As far as watching the leftist spin with “well Bush did it too.”, which is by no means limited to this blog, any thread will do for my statement

    My list of grievances against the Obama administration is growing by the day. Electronic eavesdropping on foreign nations, persecution of Snowden, healthcare, woeful climate and energy policies and all-round incompetence in so many areas.

    Yesterday I pointed to two completely new scandals that have gained no traction here (the Keystone environmental impact report was clearly a conflict of interest, and selling out to the drug companies to get support for Obamacare).

    But today I wanted to add the fact that the White House is going to make no decision about whether there was coup in Egypt or not, because that would mean that they would almost certainly have to manditorily suspend aid (including the sale of F16s). In other words, they are simply covering their ears, eyes and what have you in order that the law won’t come into effect. You want respect around the world? You live by your principles. You don’t play favorites in other countries’ democratic processes – whether they are pro-Islamic or not. It’s dumb policy that always comes back to bite you. So no coup. shhhh.

    So don’t lecture me on my supposedly misguided support for Liberals.

    Trouble is, I don’t see conservatives as being any better on most of these things at the moment. I am supposed to give them a free pass because they are not Obama?

    Hot! Thumb up 10

  17. Iconoclast
    All I have to say is if some college had done this to students attending a political event of a republican speaker, I guarantee you there would be hell to pay. But this is our new emperor and the people they fucked over were republicans, so who cares.

    Nah if it was the other way around you’d dismiss this immediately with:

    Let’s assume you’re correct just for the sake of argument — it still doesn’t actually address Alex’ assertion, which, quite simply, is that we would likely hear endless whining from the MSM if it were a case of Democrat students being barred from a Republican’s speech. If the tables were so turned, this story would not be confined to a left-wing student paper as seems to be the case here, where it’s confined to a right-wing student paper. No, if the tables were turned, this story would very likely be picked up by the national MSM, where we would likely be hearing how this is proof positive of just how fascist and cowardly and evil Republicans are. There would likely be demands from across the nation for disciplinary action against the Republican event organizers, and so on. But, since it’s those evil and dangerous Republicans being barred from a Democrat’s speech, we hear nary a peep from the MSM.

    That is the point I believe Alex is making. His alleged dismissal of a hypothetical inverse case is irrelevant.

    And, of course, we have an example right here on this blog where no benefit of the doubt is given to the Republican students. On the contrary, bad behavior on their part is hypothesized. In addition, we have the SOP response from leftists here on this blog: “But but but but BUSH!”

    Thumb up 16

  18. AlexInCT *

    That is the point I believe Alex is making.

    No need to believe anything sir: that’s the point I made. It’s always about the double standard and how Team Blue plays dirty and then pretends the other side is the only one doing it. That and the fact that the excuse given for this abuse, that “these guys are a threat to the president” just is so ludicrous as to defy logic.

    Thumb up 6

  19. Hal_10000

    The Secret Service and the Republican group are also making contradictory claims:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/354557/mo-college-republicans-treasurer-says-obama-speech-not-capacity-contra-secret-service

    I do know from having Obama speak at my university that it is standard procedure that you show up WELL in advance for security screening; at least an hour (I didn’t go to his speech; but blanket e-mails were sent to the entire campus about the procedures). That applies even if the President is late (which he was in this case). If the President was speaking at 4:00 and they showed up at 3:40, there is no way they would have been admitted, regardless of their political affiliations.

    Thumb up 5

  20. salinger

    I do know from having Obama speak at my university that it is standard procedure that you show up WELL in advance for security screening;

    My son’s girlfriend graduated from the OSU this year where Obama spoke – they had to be in place HOURS before the ceremony.

    Thumb up 4

  21. CM

    Let’s assume you’re correct just for the sake of argument — it still doesn’t actually address Alex’ assertion, which, quite simply, is that we would likely hear endless whining from the MSM if it were a case of Democrat students being barred from a Republican’s speech.

    Alex’s assertion is that “it was done”. He knows that it happened.
    Perhaps nobody else reported on it because preliminary investigations revealed what Hal has posted.

    And, of course, we have an example right here on this blog where no benefit of the doubt is given to the Republican students. On the contrary, bad behavior on their part is hypothesized.

    Sorry but claiming it as FACT goes far beyond giving anyone the “benefit of the doubt”. Giving “benefit of the doubt” is entirely dependent on the existence of doubt. Alex is so outraged because it’s FACT (there is no doubt) and therefore should be widely reported. But clearly there is significant doubt, once we here what others have to say. Alex either never waits for others, or dismisses them on the basis that they subscribe to a different political philosophy.

    In addition, we have the SOP response from leftists here on this blog: “But but but but BUSH!”

    No, not very often. Much more often it’s brought up by Alex or someone else (being whiney). E.g.in his opening post in this thread (whereas stogy and I have taken a non-partisan position). The left most certainly doesn’t have a monopoly on making comparisons to Bush, and certainly not on this blog.

    Hot! Thumb up 9

  22. stogy

    It is really funny how often you have dismissed me or my sources only to eat crow later, CM.

    So Alex, how is that crow tasting?

    Hot! Thumb up 9

  23. Section8

    I’m not left. I’m center. I don’t mean this as a perception of my own political values – I mean I support centrist politics as defined by swings between left and right parties. I might be socially more liberal (gay marriage, human rights etc), but in economics, I am definitely a centrist.

    It depends on where center is defined. From a world perspective where forms of government run from one end to the other, maybe you are centrist.

    From an America political view you are certainly not centrist, and given this is an American blog that’s the benchmark from which I make my assessment. I’ve seen your posts here over the years. You are certainly an advocate of more government interaction with private
    enterprise as a solution to problems, and then bitch about when — surprise! now it turns out it’s corrupt as hell with crony favors, corporate welfare, and deals everywhere.

    The right to gay marriage is minimal compared to all the other restrictions on freedoms you have advocated here over the years in the name of what’s best for society (in your view).

    I just find it interesting that so many on the left never want to say they are on the left. Why is that? Why not just be proud of it?

    Yesterday I pointed to two completely new scandals that have gained no traction here (the Keystone environmental impact report was clearly a conflict of interest, and selling out to the drug companies to get support for Obamacare).

    You just noticed that deals were made with pharma companies for Obamacare? Your “new” scandal might not have gained traction here because this was already a problem, which I recall Hal talked about quite a bit before Obamacare was passed. It’s very old news. Maybe it should have been taken more seriously by the left when this was pointed out before this monster was passed.

    But today I wanted to add the fact that the White House is going to make no decision about whether there was coup in Egypt or not, because that would mean that they would almost certainly have to manditorily suspend aid (including the sale of F16s). In other words, they are simply covering their ears, eyes and what have you in order that the law won’t come into effect. You want respect around the world? You live by your principles. You don’t play favorites in other countries’ democratic processes – whether they are pro-Islamic or not. It’s dumb policy that always comes back to bite you. So no coup. shhhh.

    Our respect? We won’t get it regardless, certainly not from folks like you. You are bitching we aren’t stopping the flow of money now? Why not bitch when Morsi, democratically elected or not, decided to make decrees regarding his unquestionable authority?

    Fact is we hand out money, which I’m against anyhow, but when that happens any spin can be put on it. You chose to spin the coup part, I chose to point out the authoritarian angle, which why didn’t that bother you as being undemocratic? Is it because once voted in that’s as far as democracy matters, and any action thereafter is irrelevant? So the flow of money at the point of very undemocratic like authoritarian measures didn’t matter to you? It mattered to me. Or would it matter to you later on when handing over money even with the authoritarian style of decrees could work in your favor, but the coup angle works better at the moment? Of course sending no money to any country at any time puts us in the greedy and self-absorbed category. Don’t worry, we’re well aware our friends around the world have their bases covered with the complaint angles.

    At the end of the day the world will bitch about us to bitch about us. Like I just demonstrated here, any spin can be made if you want to hate someone or something. I agree the world these days has no problem making us the asshole on the block, but also have no problem coming over knocking on the door with their hand out. Maybe some day we’ll wise up and say go fuck yourself when someone shows up knocking.

    Thumb up 7

  24. Iconoclast

    Alex’s assertion is that “it was done”. He knows that it happened.
    Perhaps nobody else reported on it because preliminary investigations revealed what Hal has posted.

    Again, none of this is relevant to the point being made. The story’s alleged lack of accuracy is a non-issue, given how the MSM appears to flagrantly indulge in inaccuracy when advancing an agenda. Case in point is the Zimmerman trial, and all of the overtly manufactured racial overtones attached to the story. None of that represents “accurate” reporting. Hell, a whole new race of mankind had to be manufactured out of whole cloth in order for there to even BE a story — hence the “white Hispanic”.

    Bottom line: Don’t bother preaching to me about “inaccuracy”.

    Giving “benefit of the doubt” is entirely dependent on the existence of doubt.

    So then, you’re saying that there was “no doubt” that the Republican students were behaving “badly”? Evidence? And no, being late to the party doesn’t qualify. I was responding to this, specifically:

    How do we know that these particular students weren’t behaving like jerks while lining up – singing songs, lecturing others loudly about what a douche Obama is.

    stogy, July 25, 2013 10:51 PM

    That was an example of hypothesizing bad behavior when there was zero evidence of such behavior presented. In other words, plenty of doubt about how “bad” they were, but no benefit of that doubt.

    No, not very often.

    Often enough to qualify as a “Standard Operating Procedure”, at least from where I stand, your denials notwithstanding.

    The left most certainly doesn’t have a monopoly on making comparisons to Bush, and certainly not on this blog.

    Kindly point out where I ever claimed they did. Saying that it’s SOP for the left is not saying it’s exclusive to the left, nor is it saying it’s absolutely universal from the left. You tend to read stuff into what it written and responding to that, rather that what is actually written, which is to say you argue against straw men.

    Thumb up 11

  25. AlexInCT *

    Again, none of this is relevant to the point being made. The story’s alleged lack of accuracy is a non-issue, given how the MSM appears to flagrantly indulge in inaccuracy when advancing an agenda.

    Good luck getting these morons to see any off that Iconoclast. Like I said: I trust stories from no name publications a lot more than I trust anything from the MSM, especially when it is to advance the agenda of the left or to denigrate people on the other side, because nobody lies, ignores, and gets it wrong more than the fuckwads in the LSM.

    I stand by my point that I am not going to be surprised when this government gets accused of abuses of power, and that I will readily believe they are doing it, and that’s because, well, there is a long and distinguished list of incidents that show exactly that. Anyone pretending otherwise is a fucking moron. Team blue might want to get the low information voters and the partisan fucks to believe these are phony scandals, but they are anything but. A republican would have been forced to resign or been indicted by now for the shit these leftards are allowed to get away with.

    Kindly point out where I ever claimed they did. Saying that it’s SOP for the left is not saying it’s exclusive to the left, nor is it saying it’s absolutely universal from the left

    Iconoclast, this is kind of the same logic that drives the left to tell anyone that says what we need is far less government than we have, because our government is out of control and too large, that what we want when we demand smaller government is Somalia style anarchy, because there is nothing else in between, according to them.

    You tend to read stuff into what it written and responding to that, rather that what is actually written, which is to say you argue against straw men.

    Popular tactic with that kind, unfortunately. They want to argue what fits the narrative, after all.

    Thumb up 4

  26. Iconoclast

    And there what is in a nutshell, allegedly?

    Like I said, a lack of accuracy doesn’t seem to impede the MSM any, so the original point still stands; even if the students were legitimately late, it wouldn’t necessarily prevent the MSM from running with the story, had the political roles been reversed. THAT is the point, here, and everything else you and CM have been attempting to bring up amounts to little more than diversion and non sequiturs.

    Thumb up 11

  27. CM

    THAT is the point, here

    No, the point was that if it happened in reverse, there would be hell to pay.

    The story’s alleged lack of accuracy is a non-issue, given how the MSM appears to flagrantly indulge in inaccuracy when advancing an agenda.

    Weak, and irrelevant to Alex’s point.
    If his point had been “although this is probably nonsense, I bet the MSM would have reported it anyway had the roles been reserved”. But it wasn’t, not matter how hard you now try to make it so.

    Bottom line: Don’t bother preaching to me about “inaccuracy”.

    Way to miss the point.

    So then, you’re saying that there was “no doubt” that the Republican students were behaving “badly”?

    No. You said:

    And, of course, we have an example right here on this blog where no benefit of the doubt is given to the Republican students.

    Alex had no doubt that they were wronged, based simply on a single account from a partisan source where only the partisans were spoken to? There should be room for doubt every-which-way on this story. Stogy reasonably provided some, Alex had provided none. And yet you have an issue with Stogy’s doubt.
    In order to give the students the benefit of the doubt, doubt has to be accepted as possible. Who in their right mind would rule it out? The answer would be Alex, but I think whether he’s in a ‘right mind’ is highly debatable.

    That was an example of hypothesizing bad behavior when there was zero evidence of such behavior presented. In other words, plenty of doubt about how “bad” they were, but no benefit of that doubt.

    It wasn’t unreasonable doubt at all, for a number of reasons. Rejecting any doubt is unreasonable, which is what Alex was doing.
    Why would you have an issue without raising a reasonable doubt, but not have an issue with someone pretending the story was the definitive truth?

    Often enough to qualify as a “Standard Operating Procedure”, at least from where I stand, your denials notwithstanding.

    You love banging on about denials, as though the very act of denial provides evidence of something. Exactly how is that meant to work?
    Anyway you said:

    In addition, we have the SOP response from leftists here on this blog: “But but but but BUSH!”

    As I said, Alex did that. I was responding to it. Not sure why you thought it a good idea to alter the context to try and demonstrate the exact opposite of what happened.

    Kindly point out where I ever claimed they did.

    Sheesh, are you really wanting to circle down the pendant drain yet again? It was a general comment. But this thread provides a good example of what I mean.

    Saying that it’s SOP for the left is not saying it’s exclusive to the left, nor is it saying it’s absolutely universal from the left.

    You didn’t say SOP for the left, you said SOP from ‘leftists’ here (i.e. me, stogy and salinger).
    Again it was Alex that made the comparison to what would happen if it was a Republican speaker. You can’t do that and at the same time also complain that “the SOP response from leftists here on this blog: [is] “But but but but BUSH!””
    Well you can, but I don’t know what you’d want to.

    You tend to read stuff into what it written and responding to that, rather that what is actually written, which is to say you argue against straw men.

    Wow, now that’s some serious pot/kettle action going on there. This from the guy who took an acknowledgement of mine and tried to turn it into something nasty. Impressive.
    And yet again, there are people like Alex here who don’t even bother reading what they’re responding to, they just chuck out yet another boiler-plate extremist rant. Yet I’ve not seen you complain once about that, let alone point it out.

    Thumb up 3

  28. CM

    Like I said: I trust stories from no name publications a lot more than I trust anything from the MSM,

    And look where it gets you Alex, for crying out loud.

    …what we want when we demand smaller government is Somalia style anarchy, because there is nothing else in between, according to them.

    Oh. My. Fucking, God.
    Brilliant, that’s just brilliant.

    Thumb up 3

  29. AlexInCT *

    And look where it gets you Alex, for crying out loud.

    Coming frm you that’s one laughable statement CM. That you miss the point is par for the course. You still refuse to understand that the real problem is that our media is so biased and lame, totally in the bag for the idiotic progressive movement to the point they are covering for criminal activity you expect in a banana republic, that tabloid publications are more reliable when it comes to news than they are.

    Don’t get me wrong. i understand perfectly why you like things the way they are, but that says more about you having issues than anything about me.

    Oh. My. Fucking, God.
    Brilliant, that’s just brilliant.

    Q.E.D.

    Thumb up 0

  30. Seattle Outcast

    Two things come to mind..

    1) The National Enquirer is one of the most accurate sources available for the last 20+ years because their corporate culture after a series of lawsuits is to not print anything they can’t prove in court.

    2) CM is in total fucking denial about when he called Somalia a libertarian paradise

    Thumb up 1

  31. stogy

    Once I read through the new comments on this thread, I found I was having a hard time suppressing actual laughter. So I am not going to.

    Hahaahahahahahahaha!

    The story’s alleged lack of accuracy is a non-issue,

    This is about the dumbest thing I have ever read on this blog, and there have been some pearly pearls to compete with.

    Fact is, Alex, although you are never going to admit it, you pretty much staked your already failing reputation on its accuracy when you said:

    Practically every time I pointed out a malfeasance by team blue which the LSM sat on or ignored, you dismissed me and the source, only to have it turn out the way I pointed out.

    And now that we have your unsourced story on a group of young republican brats who were caught out lying turning belly up and sinking to the bottom, you find you have to switch the goalposts. Yet again. They lied. The mainstream media actually did its job for once in not running an story that had not been properly sourced.

    CM nailed it when he said:

    Again it was Alex that made the comparison to what would happen if it was a Republican speaker. You can’t do that and at the same time also complain that “the SOP response from leftists here on this blog: [is] “But but but but BUSH!””

    You have shown that your bias is such that you are willing to believe any tripe as long as it matches your very basic political agenda. By continuing to defend a non-point, you are merely adding extra pepper sauce to all that omelet your face is currently wearing. Just admit you fucked up and move along.

    Thumb up 2

  32. stogy

    It depends on where center is defined. From a world perspective where forms of government run from one end to the other, maybe you are centrist.

    No it doesn’t. To say this is to misunderstand the principle of centrism that I am talking about. Where I stand on any one issue is irrelevant. The centrism that I am arguing for is one in which strong societies, economies and peoples are the result of regular changes of government between major different parties. No one major party should be in power for too long, because that leads to corruption, and no major party should be out of power for too long, because once they finally get in, they they won’t have any experience in governance.

    Parties should compete on ideas for votes (so I’m not arguing for automatic transitions of power). But if an opposition should be able to pull itself together enough to make government every ten years or so. The balance should (but doesn’t always) keep fixed interests from taking over politics, maintains a balance between workers’ rights and business opportunities, and reduces levels of corruption.

    It’s a long time since I was based in the US, but I do my best to keep up with what has been going on. But I tend to see regular changes of power in the US as a good thing (even if I don’t always agree with individual policies). Power needs to change when the balance of stupid and corruption becomes overwhelming. 8 years is generally enough, but divided houses can be a blessing for the main party in power.

    I’ve seen your posts here over the years. You are certainly an advocate of more government interaction with private enterprise as a solution to problems, and then bitch about when — surprise! now it turns out it’s corrupt as hell with crony favors, corporate welfare, and deals everywhere.

    Yeah, but that all just happens when big business runs the government as well. That’s what the examples (including the Obamacare one) I posted on another thread showed. It happens to some extent with all parties, but as above

    I missed the Obamacare stuff from you and Hal (perhaps it was during my period in the wilderness). But when I raised it the other day, I was using it in reply to a request by Xetrov for examples of how businesses influenced voting in Congress. I consider it scandalous whenever it happened – they raised prices for people for medication and handed this to drug companies.

    Our respect? We won’t get it regardless, certainly not from folks like you. You are bitching we aren’t stopping the flow of money now? Why not bitch when Morsi, democratically elected or not, decided to make decrees regarding his unquestionable authority?

    Fact is we hand out money, which I’m against anyhow, but when that happens any spin can be put on it. You chose to spin the coup part, I chose to point out the authoritarian angle, which why didn’t that bother you as being undemocratic?

    No. The fact is that there is a law in the US against this – a coup means that aid in a country is automatically cut off. I am no big fan of Morsi either, but the fact is, the WH is ignoring a law because it suits it to do so. And that sets an unacceptable precedent.

    Thumb up 2

  33. stogy

    Here’s an excellent example of how the LSM are letting standards slip while pursuing of ‘activist’ and progressive agendas:

    On Tuesday, we reported that a former Reuters climate change correspondent, David Fogarty, charged the publication was openly hostile to climate coverage. Turns out Reuters proved Fogarty right in a major climate story this week, “Seas may rise 2.3 metres per degree of global warming-report.”

    Here is what Reuters feels compelled to insert into their piece:

    Scientists say global warming is responsible for the melting ice. A U.N. panel of scientists, the IPCC, says heat-trapping gases from burning fossil fuels are nudging up temperatures. A small number of scientists dismiss human-influenced global warming, arguing natural climate fluctuations are responsible.

    Thumb up 1

  34. CM

    You still refuse to understand that the real problem is that our media is so biased and lame, totally in the bag for the idiotic progressive movement to the point they are covering for criminal activity you expect in a banana republic, that tabloid publications are more reliable when it comes to news than they are.

    Except you’re unable to demonstrate that, and as stogy said you end up believing any old shit you can find, simply because it’s not being reported by the mainstream media. And you don’t even see the problem with that.

    Don’t get me wrong. i understand perfectly why you like things the way they are, but that says more about you having issues than anything about me.

    How exactly do I like things Alex?

    Q.E.D.

    OPP

    2) CM is in total fucking denial about when he called Somalia a libertarian paradise

    Hahaha. This is fast turning into one of the best threads for a long while.
    Riiiiiight. Except for the fact that I think the opposite, nobody else remembers it, and nobody can find it. Oh, and it didn’t happen. Aside from all that, you nailed it.

    Thumb up 1

  35. CM

    Here’s an excellent example of how the LSM are letting standards slip while pursuing of ‘activist’ and progressive agendas:

    Climate reporting is absolutely woeful with the whole false balance thing.

    Thumb up 1

  36. Iconoclast

    No, the point was that if it happened in reverse, there would be hell to pay.

    Sheesh, are you really wanting to circle down the pendant drain yet again? It’s a general expression.

    Weak, and irrelevant to Alex’s point.

    Hey, I’m not the one who brought it up — I’m just pointing out that it is indeed irrelevant, and you are actually agreeing with my observation, alleged “weakness” notwithstanding.

    But it wasn’t, not matter how hard you now try to make it so.

    But it was, no matter how hard you now try to make it not so.

    Way to miss the point.

    There was a point?

    No. You said:

    I’m aware of what I said, thank you.

    Alex had no doubt that they were wronged, based simply on a single account from a partisan source where only the partisans were spoken to? There should be room for doubt every-which-way on this story. Stogy reasonably provided some…

    Oh, of course, that’s what being partisan is all about, stogy’s claims of centrism notwithstanding. Of course leftists like you and stogy will have doubts about a right-wing source — that’s to be expected, but if you are really trying to sell us on stogy’s centrism and your objectivity/impartiality, that would mean that you would immediately express doubt if the roles were reversed; if Democrat students were turned away from a Republican speaker event, and if that is all we knew from an MSM source, we are all expected to believe that you and stogy would “reasonably” assume bad behavior on the part of those Democrat students if no such information was provided? You would immediately cite that as a possibility? Sorry, I’m not buying it.

    Why would you have an issue without raising a reasonable doubt, but not have an issue with someone pretending the story was the definitive truth?

    There is a world of difference between having doubts about a partisan source, and hypothesizing bad behavior on the part of those being reported on when there is really nothing to indicate such. Assuming that we didn’t get the whole story is one thing, fabricating hypothetical scenarios out of whole cloth is another.

    You love banging on about denials, as though the very act of denial provides evidence of something.

    It provides evidence of denial, and my alleged “love of banging on” about it is irrelevant. You seem to love being in denial.

    As I said, Alex did that. I was responding to it. Not sure why you thought it a good idea to alter the context to try and demonstrate the exact opposite of what happened.

    Umm, the first person to bring up Bush was you, with your “YAWN” link from July 25, 2013 8:11 PM. The one trying to “demonstrate the exact opposite of what happened” would appear to be you. Your forthcoming spin should be quite entertaining…

    Sheesh, are you really wanting to circle down the pendant drain yet again? It was a general comment.

    Playing the duplicity card yet again, I see. I cannot remember how many times you flat-out denied things I never claimed you said, even though what you did actually say clearly implied what you denied.

    You didn’t say SOP for the left, you said SOP from ‘leftists’ here (i.e. me, stogy and salinger).

    Well, you are the one who did it this time, your incessant denials notwithstanding.

    Yet I’ve not seen you complain once about that, let alone point it out.

    I’m not the one pretending to be non-partisan, nor do I pretend to be centrist or impartial. That would be people like you and stogy.

    Thumb up 11

  37. Iconoclast

    This is about the dumbest thing I have ever read on this blog, and there have been some pearly pearls to compete with.

    I never claimed that there was anything inherently “smart” about the truth. If you can prove the statement wrong, have at it, but all I have to do is remind us of the Zimmerman story to illustrate the truth of my observation. “White Hispanic”?? Seriously? That represents “accuracy of reporting”? Or the flagrant doctoring of the audio tape of Zimmerman’s phone call?

    In my view, being in denial about the flagrant bias and the utter lack of accuracy is what qualifies as “the dumbest thing” someone can do, but then, that’s just me I guess….

    Thumb up 12