Jon Stewart on Romney and Mormonism

[_Kishkumen]

Uh...Kish, I'm not the one running around claiming Will is the illegitimate son of Hugh Nibley.

What's your point? Your logic there is pretty shabby.

Secondly, what I've said above is settled history, and easily documented. I only use tinfoil for cooking purposes, and, not being a man of the Left, when I leave tin foil, I also leave it alone.

Go ahead and document it then. I am sure your "documentation" will involve a lot of special pleading, creative interpretation, and so forth. Dick Cheney would be proud.

[_Droopy]

Go ahead and document it then. I am sure your "documentation" will involve a lot of special pleading, creative interpretation, and so forth. Dick Cheney would be proud.

You can read the David Kay report, the Robb-Silberman report, and the final Iraq Survey Group report, all on your own. Even the fashionable continental leftist Hans Blix, a dedicated anti-American U.N. marionette, documented tonnage of missing WMD materials and the utter lack of documentation backing up Saddam's claims to have destroyed his programs.

This is partially moot, in any case, as Bush never used the presence of WMD (which virtually every major intelligence agency in the world was telling him existed) as a rationale and pretext for the invasion of Iraq (although he was worried, as he should have been, that such WMD could, at some future point, indeed become a clear and present danger).

[_Kishkumen]

You can read the David Kay report, the Robb-Silberman report, and the final Iraq Survey Group report, all on your own. Even the fashionable continental leftist Hans Blix, a dedicated anti-American U.N. marionette, documented tonnage of missing WMD materials and the utter lack of documentation backing up Saddam's claims to have destroyed his programs.

This is partially moot, in any case, as Bush never used the presence of WMD (which virtually every major intelligence agency in the world was telling him existed) as a rationale and pretext for the invasion of Iraq (although he was worried, as he should have been, that such WMD could, at some future point, indeed become a clear and present danger).

So who perpetrated 9/11 in your eyes, Loon...er, I mean, Droopy? The Illuminati? The Rothschilds? The Queen of England? You should write this crap for a living. Maybe you do and you just won't cop to it.

Why is it that so many apologists are into the paranormal, cryptozoology, aliens, conspiracy theories, paleo-conservatism and the like? Up to now I was not aware of the depth of Droopy's lunacy. Now I know. Thanks, Droops.

[_EAllusion]

Yeah, I'm not going to cite "frontpagemag" as a reliable source. Regarding the Solyndra case they refer to, Obama has recently lied about that in order to create distance between himself and the blowback. The gist of it is that he has attempted to portray the failed loan guarantees as coming from congress in a bipartisan effort. His administration just signed off on something that wasn't his program and everyone was involved in, the implication goes.

To quote him, "We are doing the all of the above strategy right. Obviously, we wish Solyndra hadn’t gone bankrupt. Part of the reason they did was because the Chinese were subsidizing their solar industry and flooding the market in ways that Solyndra couldn’t compete. But understand, this was not our program per se.

Congress–Democrats and Republicans–put together a loan guarantee program because they understood historically that when you get new industries–it’s easy to raise money for start-ups, but if you want to take them to scale sometimes there’s a lot of risk involved, and what the loan guarantee program was designed to do was to help start-up companies get to scale."

http://freebeacon.com/obama-on-solyndra ... r-program/

This is misleading as all get out. The loan guarantees in this case came from the administration pushed stimulus package. This was done at the behest of the administration and only came from congress in the necessary sense that all appropriations have to flow through congress. To say "Democrats and Republicans" put it together also is highly misleading because every single congressional Republican voted against the legislation and all but 3 Republican senators (the most moderate) voted against it. It's a technically true statement meant to mislead the wrong conclusion. This was a Democrat led venture in any meaningful sense.

As the link I offered also points out, previously Obama was attempting to argue that the loan program predates him to also get himself off the hook. This is also misleading:

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/10/obamas ... a-problem/

[_Droopy]

So who perpetrated 9/11 in your eyes, Loon...er, I mean, Droopy? The Illuminati? The Rothschilds? The Queen of England? You should write this crap for a living. Maybe you do and you just won't cop to it.

What "crap?" These are long established facts of history (unless you're Dennis Kucinich or Danny Glover, and you're still singing The International with misty eyes each morning as you slap on your Old Spice).

A particular cell of al-Qaeda, headed by Osama Bin Laden, committed the 9/11 atrocities. Where are you going with this? Who do you think perpetrated it?

Why is it that so many apologists are into the paranormal, cryptozoology, aliens, conspiracy theories, paleo-conservatism and the like? Up to now I was not aware of the depth of Droopy's lunacy. Now I know. Thanks, Droops.

I don't know, Kish, but perhaps you could tell me what on earth you're talking about, because you've lost me entirely.

Uh...what does my points about Saddam's WMD have to do with who perpetrated 9/11? How did we get here?

[_Droopy]

Yeah, I'm not going to cite "frontpagemag" as a reliable source.

Which just goes to show that you really have no idea what a "reliable source" actually is, D. Frontpage has been around for a long time, and its a clearinghouse for journalists, scholars, academics, and intellectuals from the conservative tradition, but also from the Left, to express their thoughts and ideas, debate, make their case, and let the chips fall where they may. It (and the late Heterodoxy) have long led the way for serious, conservative journalism, investigative reporting, and substantive discussion/debate of political and cultural issues.

Yeah, now send us all to RightwingWatch.

[_Droopy]

What the...

I just took a look at this again and...

Who here has said anything about the paranormal, "cryptozoology," aliens, conspiracy theories, the Illuminati, the Rothchilds, Atlantis, Mothman,(any more, Kish) or anything similar?

Have you taken your temperature lately?




.

[_EAllusion]

Frontpage has been around for a long time,

And has a lengthy history of dubious propaganda being all over it. You're better off citing something that links to the National Enquirer.

[_Kishkumen]

What "crap?"

You know, the alternate history for the ideologically insane, like you, for instance.

These are long established facts of history (unless you're Dennis Kucinich or Danny Glover, and you're still singing The International with misty eyes each morning as you slap on your Old Spice).

Droopy, most people do not hold to your interesting versions of history. One hardly needs to go to the extremes of a Kucinich to find someone who does not agree with you. Hell, one doesn't even have to leave the Republican Party to find someone who would think you are bat-shit crazy.

I don't know, Kish, but perhaps you could tell me what on earth you're talking about, because you've lost me entirely.

Uh...what does my points about Saddam's WMD have to do with who perpetrated 9/11? How did we get here?

Just checking, Droopy. Anyone who claims that W didn't use the threat of WMD as a justification for attacking Iraq may just believe, well, about any crazy old thing. I like to know exactly what kind of nut-bag I am dealing with in you. So, I thought I would ask.

It is not that you had any credibility to begin with. But there are differing degrees of absence of credibility. It was interesting to watch you cede yet more possibility of gaining future credibility than you have in the past. Not that much more, but more.

[_krose]

Static:
Did you actually read the link you provided? What a mess. I'm sure we should trust a source that counts the president saying he is a Christian as a lie.

Droopy:
Your link is just as bad. There are more lies in the article itself than it can come up with.

EAllusion:
Okay, an actual independent analysis that shows statements about the Solyndra funding were "technically true" but misleading. It's not exactly meeting the claim of "lies all the time," is it?

I would never claim that any politician I've seen doesn't word things in a way to paint himself in the best light. That's just a fact of the business, and you can call it twisting, misleading, or even lying if you want. What I'm saying is that Romney has taken it to a new level. And the funny thing about that is that most Mormons probably see him as the most honest and righteous candidate ever.