Blunder Twins: The hilarity continues
posted at 12:56 am on February 9, 2007 by Bryan
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Greetings, fellow godbags! I’m hoping you can help me out with something.
When you hear that someone’s been “smeared,” what do you think has happened? Do you think
a) someone took something the person in question said entirely out of context and mischaracterized it; or
b) someone took something the person in question said and just quoted it, word for word?
I could be wrong–what do I, a simple godbag, know?–but all along I’ve thought that a smear is more related to a) than b). Which is to say, that a smear is when you take someone’s words out of context and make those words mean something that the person never intended, or when you just accuse a person of doing or thinking a thing that they have never done or thought.
Liberal blogger Digby has a different idea about smearing, though.
The Edwards campaign is standing by their bloggers as they came under assault by the rightwing noise machine and good for them.
But this is going to be the pattern unless the news media recognises that they have a substantial number of readers who will not tolerate a reprise of the kind of rightwing smear job collusion we’ve seen in the past.
It proceeds from there to question Bill Donohue’s motives (which some might define as a smear) and then descends from there into some kind of how-to manual for reporters to march to bloggers like Digby’s tune from now on. But it’s that “rightwing smear job” bit that’s so interesting, at least to me. All Donohue and others did was recite Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan’s own words, verbatim, in criticizing them. So accurately quoting someone is now, in the mind of Digby, a “rightwing smear job.”
Which carried to its logical end, means that journalism as we know it is dead. As is history, biography and anything else in which people might be quoted accurately for some purpose or another. It’s all just one big “rightwing smear job” now. Including the accurate quote I just pulled from Digby’s own site, I suppose.
Meanwhile, over at MyDD Chris Bowers isn’t content merely to redefine the smear. He’s out to redefine the word “staunch.” Check it out, my fellow godbags.
On Wednesday, Bowers had this to say about L’Affaire Blunder Twins:
I also wish to make something else clear. While there is no way I will support Edwards with Amanda and Melissa are fired, I will immediately become a staunch Edwards supporter if they are not fired.
Well, as we all know they weren’t fired. So has Bowers staunched up the Edwards support? Well….
I am so relieved for Amanda and Melissa. I am just as relieved for John Edwards, who I really did not want to write off my list of potential candidates to support in the primary. Now, I will happily identify myself as an Edwards supporter. The only way I could imagine that changing is if another candidate shows a superior ability to help grow the movement. While there are a few more with that potential, no one has really come to close stepping up yet. (emphases added)
Unpacked, Bowers is saying “if another candidate comes along who pays even more attention to ME ME ME and our little kingdoms on the fringe, that candidate will get my support. Sorry, John.”
Those two posts were written about 45 hours apart, by the same person. The dictionary defines “staunch” as “firm and steadfast,” not as “waiting until someone else strokes my ego a little better.” But on the left, staunch does not mean what the rest of us think it means.
Edwards didn’t buy himself a thing by keeping on those two bloggers. The netroots who are hailing him today are already prepared to forget about him once it’s convenient. To be clear, he didn’t actually lose anything either, at least not yet. He’s not yet enough of a factor to cause Hillary! or Obama to kiss off the netroots by attacking him over his choice of bloggers. The only way they use the Blunder Twins against him is if they get desperate, and while they might get desperate, it won’t be because of him. The blogstresses would only become a liability in and of themselves in the general election, and Edwards isn’t likely to get that far. They can, however, become liabilities if they’re not kept under constant adult supervision when they’re blogging away. In that way, they’re a couple of timebombs ticking away inside the Edwards camp, most useful in that role to Hillary! and Obama than anyone else. And they can provide entertainment for us godbags as long as Edwards is in the race and keeps them around. But they’re not going to factor into the grand scheme of things very strongly. They ought to, as keeping them around says quite a bit about Edwards and his choice of allies, but we’re dealing with a party that no longer cares whether its meetings are prayed over by a Hezbollah-supporting imam. They’ll make the nation dance over the meaning of “is.” Why should they care if a few godbags of the right dislike a couple of bigoted bloggers of the left belonging to a white, male Southern candidate who has little shot of actually winning anything in ‘08? Their bigotry is of a politically correct nature, so most Democrats are likely to ask “What’s the problem?”
As I wrote the other night, the win for our friends on the left here is a pyrrhic one. They won themselves a silky pony that they’re already prepared to sell out for a little flattery. The blogstresses kept jobs that’ll end ignominously in a year or so. The netroots as a whole circled the wagons around a couple of people who, in declaring their impassioned work of several years “satire,” took all their supporters and readers for chumps. And the Blunder Twins and their netroots pals have exposed themselves once again as people whose only loyalty is to themselves and the relentless pursuit of power. Theirs is a movement that will turn on itself, eventually, in loyalty tests and purges. Which means that Bowers got at least one thing right in the brouhaha: This isn’t over.
Update: Yes, we’re aware that liberal blogs are digging through the old Allah is in the House archive to trash Allahpundit. I can’t even say we’re surprised. But here’s the thing. Allahpundit’s schtick was obviously satire at the time it was written, as over the top pseudonym and the disclaimer on his site made obvious. For Marcotte’s writings to have been satire all along as she now claims, she would secretly have to be a rightwing Bush supporter who attends Mass regularly nearly to the point of being a nun, and actually thinks the Duke defendants are innocent. And she never really thought that President Bush knew all about 9-11 beforehand but did nothing to stop it, since it would help get his devious plans underway. How likely is that? She was either taking Edwards and her loyal readers for fools then, or she’s taking them all for fools now.
Additionally, no presidential campaign that I’m aware of has decided to put Allahpundit qua Allahpundit on its staff so there’s really an apples and oranges thing going on here. Not that I’d expect such fine distinctions to register on people who think accurately quoting someone constitutes a “rightwing smear job.”
Like the word “smear,” our friends on the left would do well to look up the word “satire” and understand that a) Allah is in the House was brilliant satire and b) Marcotte’s writing was neither satirical nor brilliant.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: [1] 2 »
Well done Bryan. Although I don’t think Hillary will have to be desperate to reveal John’s little timebomb. She’ll just have to be taking flack from the left. Which will come in about three months as Hillary drifts back to support
the warI mean the troops because the current offensive will be extremely successful and will prove that in war patience brings rewards. They are already cashing in intelligence gathered in days past. Carry on.Griz on February 9, 2007 at 1:11 AM
So, this whole thing was one big misunderstanding. The Breck Girl has hired/fired/hired satirist bloggers to lead the charge of the nutroots, which means they can never be taken seriously by anyone because everything they’ve ever done was and is simply satire.
…seems appropriate
SilverStar830 on February 9, 2007 at 1:21 AM
Down with Edwards. He’s a moron.
The “Twins” are going to get a hammering that they cannot possible imagine, the 1st time they cross the line. And they will cross the line.
They’re too STUPID and VICIOUS to control their words.
georgej on February 9, 2007 at 1:57 AM
They’re too STUPID and VICIOUS to control their words.
Edwards will get a hammer he can not possibly imagine if the Islamofascists smell his weakness and Attack America
The time for foolish words is over.
Sal Leno on February 9, 2007 at 2:04 AM
If Clinton taught us anying the defination of “smeared” could mean answer b.
F15Mech on February 9, 2007 at 2:04 AM
It all goes back to Howard Dean and the money in ‘06…. he is going for his base. Don’t forget we still have two years to go…… give him a year and a half, and he will morph into the center, in the mean time, get the pop corn, and watch the “show”……. PG-13 to R rated, it will not be safe for the kids……. with the MSM behind them all the way.
PinkyBigglesworth on February 9, 2007 at 2:07 AM
The leftards will eat themselves alive. Let them go at it!
R D on February 9, 2007 at 2:10 AM
If a conservative criticizes a liberal, it is a “smear job.” If a liberal criticizes a conservative, it is “free speech.” If a conservative responds to a liberal’s criticism of the conservative, then the liberal’s free speech rights are being violated and the fourth reich has begun. Or something like that.
It is late and time for this little godbag to hit the hay…
Mallard T. Drake on February 9, 2007 at 2:13 AM
In honor of Phil Hartman…
Bryan.
Your world frightens and confuses me! My primitive mind can’t grasp these concepts.
But there is one thing I do know - My client was smeared when “someone took something my client said entirely out of context and mischaracterized it”.
For that my client is entitled to no less than two million in compensatory damages, and two million in punitive damages. Thank you.”
F15Mech on February 9, 2007 at 2:16 AM
Liberals live in a world of self delusion. Of course they have to because their ideas don’t mesh well with reality. After reading some of the things that the blunder twins wrote, i was struck that they have the same smug, looking down their nose at everyone tone, that most liberals have when they speak. They either have an unfounded sense of superiority, or they’re very insecure. Probably both.
forged rite on February 9, 2007 at 2:27 AM
Big deal like Edwards was ever a real serious candidate.
Heck didnt Libby Dole take his seat ?
William Amos on February 9, 2007 at 2:32 AM
If you want to know why liberals think the way they do, read this. And don’t stop at the picture, the links are really revealing, and scarey,
http://nukegingrich.wordpress.com/2007/02/08/no-to-liberals-thats-my-namewear-it-out/
R D on February 9, 2007 at 2:40 AM
c) vilified
Not that it wasn’t deserved (at least in the case of Marcotte… I’ve not seen what McEwan said).
He gained nothing, but he prevented himself from losing their support, temporary as it may be.
I don’t know… Edwards is scaring me. Obama is too green to get the nod this time around. Hilary has enough popularity to get the Democratic nod, but enough liabilities that she may have trouble in a national election (especially considering her support for various military actions). Edwards may end up being “ahh, just right” candidate to the Democrats. Right now, anything that hurts his chances seems good for America.
Mark Jaquith on February 9, 2007 at 2:41 AM
This is happening in real life, right? I’m typing into a computer after reading an article about a liberal who uses the term “godbag?” I think… I may be trapped in a Will Ferrell comedy… It’s just so perfectly barely not funny…
Savage on February 9, 2007 at 3:33 AM
Two Lizzy Bordens involved in public contact in Edwards’ campaign?
The Edwards campaign machine is on self destruct.
He does not really want to win, does he?
Self sabatoge!
William
William2006 on February 9, 2007 at 4:19 AM
What is “godbag?”
Amanda used it in her article, didn’t she?
If it means something that Amanda hates, such as sone who believes that we are created and sustained by a higher power who many people refer to as God, then count me proud to be a “godbag.”
When we there be a “Godbag Pride” parade?
William
William2006 on February 9, 2007 at 4:21 AM
I recently did a post here about a local gallery show: the usual stuff — bloody red GOP elephants pissing on the flag, nailed to crosses, sitting atop thrones of skulls, holding crosses/swastikas in their trunks. Nothing new.
And of course, the gallery director’s money quote in the press: “it’s not an anti-Christian show.” Just like the Blunder Twins: oh, we never meant to offend Catholics! No, we love them! We’re just trying to start a dialogue.
You know, I can almost respect the Islamofascists for stopping short of claiming 9/11 was satire.
saint kansas on February 9, 2007 at 4:23 AM
Sounds less like staunch and more like mercurial…
elgeneralisimo on February 9, 2007 at 8:45 AM
Maybe a nutroots thesaurus is in order here. That way the rest of us could understand what is really being said. There, problem solved and no more missunderstandings. (I really kill myself sometimes)
oakpack on February 9, 2007 at 8:58 AM
Just to clear it up, “godbags” is (well, was) Marcotte’s pet term for Christians. Lovely, isn’t it.
Bryan on February 9, 2007 at 9:01 AM
Just curious - have any liberal bloggers out there openly reached the obvious conclusion: that it’s just way beyond embarrassing that these twits took back every last word they’ve written for years and years … just to keep a political job?
Are any liberals even noticing that fact?
Can you even imagine someone like, oh let’s us Michelle Malkin as an example, publicly saying: oh - everything I’ve said and done in the last 5 years was, well, either satire or a lie …
Maybe I have too much faith in them, but some liberal must have noticed this. And been honest enough to have been either disturbed or amused.
Professor Blather on February 9, 2007 at 9:05 AM
c) something to do with peanut butter?
Think of it this way:
“{xxxx}bag”
Replace {xxx} with a derogatory word dealing with feminine hygiene.
Lawrence on February 9, 2007 at 9:27 AM
Wouldn’t that be something?
Griz on February 9, 2007 at 9:44 AM
My local radio station was even talking about Edwards and Marcotte this morning and people who don’t normally read blogs are getting a taste of the lefts vitriole. No doubt many will hit the keyboards to see for themselves. This shines a very bright light on something that I’m sure preferred to stay in the dark. Perhaps the nutroots will help the exposure process by spitting out even more venom at anyone who peers into their closet.
darwin on February 9, 2007 at 9:45 AM
Rightwing smear job ….. bloggers quoting facts
Rightwing conspiracy ….. federal prosecutor investigating a democrat
Staunch ….. unrelenting, if things go my way
Superior ability ….. compliments the BS on my blog site
Standing by their bloggers ….. temporarily committed, subject to polling data
Conservative Christian ….. godbag
Liberal Democrat ….. windbag; acceptable alternative, douchebag
fogw on February 9, 2007 at 9:59 AM
When the polls open, Edwards will be looking down an empty hall…waiting for all of those votes, that have gone to others.
He is a fool for depenending on fools.
One misstep, and his stauch supporters will tear him apart, and leave him…for another fool.
Amanda would put f**ing in front of each fool.
right2bright on February 9, 2007 at 10:05 AM
A quick look thru Sadly this AM you can tell they are trying their best not to use profanity but it is killing them. Like that cookie jar on the counter…..(’gee….mom ain’t looking….)…sooner or later spoiled Johnnie is gonna try his luck. Civility just isn’t part of their DNA.
Limerick on February 9, 2007 at 10:06 AM
“she’s a blogger, writing humor that can offend and please different people. Personally, I never took her words too seriously because I found them to be mostly satyrical.”
on 2/08/2007
From the John Edwards blog. Apparently the Marcotte “satire” angle has been faithfully accepted. Just unbelievable.
darwin on February 9, 2007 at 10:08 AM
It’s not like anyone here was going to vote for Edwards anyway, so I say let him have the most offensive of the left be his personal blogger. It’s not like I am going to chance my vote from a no to yes because he hires a godless femi-nazi to blog for him.
I’ll all for all the Dems to pick the most offensive from their ranks to blog for them.
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on February 9, 2007 at 10:09 AM
So they ARE “staunch” supporters of our troops. I get it now.
Troy Rasmussen on February 9, 2007 at 10:14 AM
I’m delighted they are staying on, simply for the entertainment value they will provide me.
Having them write for two years without being able to swear, denegrate religion, spew hate against white males etc will be like telling Adam & Eve they can eat anything in the garden but the @#!%&*! apple. heh heh a fitting punishment for their naughty ways.
Alden Pyle on February 9, 2007 at 10:15 AM
It’s the Lee Sisters. Ug and home…
Wade on February 9, 2007 at 10:18 AM
You are aware that these guys are digging up allahpundit posts from web archive, right? At least he declared that to be satire in advance, not retroactively as with Amanda and The QCOFM.
carlitos on February 9, 2007 at 10:26 AM
I think we should have a countdown til the blunder twins blow up and cause massive embarassment (but lots of love from the moobats) to the Edwards campaign
Defector01 on February 9, 2007 at 10:38 AM
“You are aware that these guys are digging up allahpundit posts from web archive, right?”
Yeah … the desperation is palatable.
darwin on February 9, 2007 at 10:39 AM
My digg comment:
Go digg this article, HA commenters, fight back on their turf.
shooter on February 9, 2007 at 10:44 AM
Hot Air introduced me to Allah. Can someone explain to me why that could be seen as a bad thing?
And aparently he had a disclaimer at the top of his site?
I mean is there really any leg to stand on with this one?
And I’ve tried to see the vile written about Christians on that girl’s site as being satire, but it just doesn’t make any sense as satire. I mean I’m left with either finding her incredibly incompetent when it comes to writing, or I’m left to believe she meant what she said when she said it.
Esthier on February 9, 2007 at 11:01 AM
Allah’s campaign comics were hilarious.
Howard Dean vs. Wesley Clark was LOL.
“MASTER OF THE SHORT STACK” indeed.
Kai on February 9, 2007 at 11:11 AM
I read to my wife the “Plan B” question and answer comment, and she looked at me and said, “Never repeat that again.” I got to thinking about it and she was right. I don’t think that even if I sat down and thought really hard, I could come up with something as vile as that.
Matticus Finch on February 9, 2007 at 11:16 AM
Don’t forget the people AP satirized are known to behead satirists. The blunder twins took wussy Christians, who just turn the other cheek and say “Thank you may I have another”.
That’s more like the difference between apples and juicy red steak.
Iblis on February 9, 2007 at 11:19 AM
Excuse me?
We turn the other cheek for two reasons, and neither is lack of .
1. The Lord commands us to.
2. It shows a strength of character, a moral courage that most people never know, to shrug off such attacks and continue to have empathy for your fellow man.
Have a nice day.
Freelancer on February 9, 2007 at 11:36 AM
SOmeone posted the Iowahawk parody parody at the Silky Pony’s website.
I infiltrated myself and am having some fun. Sign up and join the hilarity.
JammieWearingFool on February 9, 2007 at 11:45 AM
So. Lemme’ see if I understand this correctly. If I am a “godbag” because I have “God,” and if Amanda has no “God,”
then I guess that just makes her a plain old…
(Ding! Yup. You guessed it.)
CyberCipher on February 9, 2007 at 11:57 AM
Bryan, Allah, and Michelle can ban us — but can they ban all our HotAir accounts?
We are Spartacus!
Sal Leno on February 9, 2007 at 12:21 PM
Hey Bryan,
I just noticed something. Since returning from Iraq, your posts have become much longer. The length of the posts are driven by your closely-reasoned and coherent arguments. In short, you are becoming a truly amazing essayist.
This makes me extremely suspicious. You have previously portrayed yourself as a southern white male military-veteran christian conservative (or at least a conservative who was raised by a christian family). My years of training by the mainstream media tells me that someone who writes as well as you do cannot possibly be any of those things.
In short, you are clearly trying to deceive us all — and perhaps, tragically, yourself as well. I demand that you out yourself as a transgendered northeastern atheist pacifist Democrat. Stop living a lie — it’s just not healthy, man.
Anton on February 9, 2007 at 12:23 PM
Yes, yes we can, Spartacus. And so can John Edwards over on his own now ridiculous blog.
Bryan on February 9, 2007 at 12:24 PM
Another word they abuse is satire. Satire may be humorous, but it is always serious.
Their writing was neither.
a4g on February 9, 2007 at 12:33 PM
I agree that it is no surprise that they are now digging through conservative/republican blogger’s posts to find stuff to attack them with.
What they don’t understand is that no one is complaining that they wrote this stuff when they were on their own. What they wrote became an issue when a ‘major’ political candidate hired them to write his blog. At that point, their previous body of work becomes an issue. If he had hired them to make phone calls, no issue…but he hired them to write blog postings.
When Allah gets hired by a major candidate to write their blog, feel free to dig through his previous posts.
On the other hand, perhaps if these people get a taste of real satire, they will understand why no one but Edwards is buying the ’silly readers, it was just satire!’ lie.
JadeNYU on February 9, 2007 at 1:12 PM
Since Bryan bans us whenever we try to speak, in accordance with his principles of open debate, I’ll answer this with some directness.
As you watch this argument, the goalposts keep shifting. First there’s outrage that Amanda was ‘attacking people’s religion.’ Now, as we see that Allah has made his entire career by doing the same thing, it’s about ‘parody’ — and then about ‘being employed by a political campaign.’
If Allah were hired for a campaign tomorrow, the debate would shift instantly. It’s always about the other person’s egregious misdeeds, and never about the screamingly wrong claims that Malkin, Bryan, Allah, and the rest of the crew try to float from day to day — always with some new rationalization about how what they said yesterday somehow doesn’t apply to what they say today.
Sal Leno on February 9, 2007 at 1:29 PM
I suspect that more than a few libs are painfully aware of what you see, Professor. But what it comes down to is that even if they do recognize the contradiction, their ideology forbids them to acknowledge it.
Think of it as “The Emperor Has No Clothes” on steroids.
Put another way, for all its avowed pacifism the political left is no stranger to the concept of “total war” and the anathematization of the enemy that it entails. And the left sees itself engaged in a total war not against foreign jihadis or foreign totalitarian regimes, but against conservatives.
In total war, it’s anathema to recognize any redemming qualities in one’s foe; conversely, it’s equally impossible to admit one’s own failings for fear that doing so might lend aid or assistance to the enemy. Thus the left’s inability to acknowledge its own contradictions or hypocrisy is simply the flip side of the coin with which it cannot recognize the possibility that the right can actually be “right.”
George Orwell observed this same kind of hate-based, nearly infinite capacity for distortion and denial among the British left in WWII:
- From, “Notes on Nationalism” (emphasis added)
Freshen up the defeatism to reflect the Iraq conflict instead of WWII, and substitute “domination of the world’s oil supply” for suppressing an English revolution as the proffered rationale for deploying American troops, and Orwell’s observation is just as pertinent today as it was sixty years ago.
Spurius Ligustinus on February 9, 2007 at 1:30 PM
check out the Charlotte Observer now reporting on this, I hope you guys look at this and tear the Observer a new one.
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/16658617.htm
The Observer has been trying to get Edwards in the whitehouse since 1998.
jp on February 9, 2007 at 1:44 PM
Actually, the problem was ALWAYS that she had been hired on Edwards’s campaign. No even mentioned her or her “satire” until Edwards had hired her.
If you can’t get that from what has been posted here or Michelle’s acting, then I can understand why you might be one of the ones calling this a “smear job.”
Esthier on February 9, 2007 at 1:57 PM
From the Charlotte Observer (thanks jp) ……
Reminds me of that scene from Blazing Saddles when the black sheriff points a gun to his own head and says, “Don’t make a move, or I’ll shoot”.
fogw on February 9, 2007 at 2:00 PM
Oh, and Sal Leno, what Allah did, as far as I can see, was never aimed at Muslims but at terrorists. His persona as “Allah” was the “Allah” that the terrorists who try to kill Americans worship.
This isn’t something he said after being hired by Michelle. This is something he said at his own site, which through the magic of wiki I was able to discover for myself.
Also, he repeatedly made it known that not all Muslims were like this.
Amanda cannot be bothered to even do something like that.
Esthier on February 9, 2007 at 2:00 PM
Oh. Well, Amanda didn’t say those things at Edwards’s site; she said them on her own site. So okay then.
Ha. Okay, so the goalposts now stand thusly:
Michelle, Bryan, and Allah can scream and shout about anything they want, but as soon as someone is hired as a blogger for someone’s presidential campaign, boy, that’s when the screws come down.
Here’s a Bryan-banning-us moment: Are you aware that Michelle and HotAir are financed by right-wing foundation money? Or, for instance, that they turn out a new ‘liberal outrage’ every biweekly pay cycle?
Sal Leno on February 9, 2007 at 2:23 PM
Bryan, you’re not banning us here. What’s wrong with our relationship?
Sal Leno on February 9, 2007 at 2:48 PM
What? Michelle and HA are conservative, and are supported by conservatives. Why the nerve of them.
Sal, I am so glad you pointed this out, or as Amanda says “what are you, a f***ing idiot?”.
BTW, I am a Christian, and Allah is an agnostic…he does not believe what I believe, I don’t agree with him. He states his beliefs, he allows me (thank you) to respectfully state mine. Allah does not erase his posts, Amanda hides hers.
So Allah doesn’t agree with me, and Amanda doesn’t agree with me, about my most valuable belief. I think I would want Allah on my side, you can have Amanda. Allah will defend my rights and beliefs, Amanda will attack and abandon her best friend if her friends beliefs did not match hers. That is a basic difference between conservatives and liberals. We are tolerant, Amanda and her supporters are not. Read the posts and the words they use. And look who and why is actually banned from those posts.
right2bright on February 9, 2007 at 2:53 PM
No, that’s not what I meant.
Allah admitted that his work was satire (and really, that shouldn’t have been needed) back when he was running his own site. He did not make this admission just because he was asked to apologize by Michelle.
Amanda however, did not apologize until asked to by Edwards, making her “satire” explaination make much less sense.
You see, I wasn’t talking about the things that either Allah or Amanda wrote. I was only talking about the timing of when they explained their writing.
Had Amanda done as Allah and claimed repeatedly that her work was not to be taken seriously before she had a monetary reason to do so, things would be different.
Esthier on February 9, 2007 at 2:59 PM
Please provide evidenece that anyone at hotair was ever outraged by what the ditzy twins wrote before they were hired by Edwards. You’re implying that at first we picked on what they wrote (which, personally, I would have found offensive regardless of who they were hired by, but I showed it by staying off their sites). Do you have evidence of this? You claim the goal keeps shifting? From what I’ve seen, it’s been the same from the beginning. I’m waiting for you to enlighten me with EVIDENCE though.
As for the sinister ‘foundation money’ you expect us to be shocked at, I for one am shocked, shocked! I thought the HotAir team was paying for this out of their own pockets. Imagine my surprise at finding out that a conservative-leaning blog has funding from conservative foundations. Next you’ll be telling me that they’ve placed ads on the site to make money off of dirty, advertising, capitalist pigs!
Furthermore, I believe you meant that they expose a new liberal outrage every biweekly pay cycle. That seems more accurate. As for the biweekly thing, that probably has more to do with the news cycles than with HotAir as they post multiple liberal (and even *gasp* some conservative) outrages here on a daily basis.
Finally, stop whining and asking for a banning. You have two options. Either, A, do something truly offensive which is what people actually get banned for here. Or, B, stop coming here and just brag to all your friends that you are “banned in hotair”. We promise that, if they ask, we will talk you up really big to them. In return, you have to promise to stop trying so hard.
JadeNYU on February 9, 2007 at 3:01 PM
He said that he can ban you, not that he was going to.
It seems maybe you’ve pegged him wrong. They don’t ban people who simply disagree with them.
Though you seem to be begging for it, so they might make an exception in your case.
Esthier on February 9, 2007 at 3:02 PM
As the last post he ever wrote, I believe, before he zeroed-out the site and fled.
Of course, it’s hard to say because he tried to erase the entire site after someone called him on it too hard, so people have to look at it via the Internet Archive. I see that the update entry on the satire-warning is August-something, 2003 — right about when the site was aabandoned and erased.
But go on. I believe you were saying that Allah is okay-good and Amanda is baddy-bad, because of some recent moving of the goalposts.
The original claim was that Amanda offends religious people. What’s the claim now?
Sal Leno on February 9, 2007 at 3:08 PM
Blogging is a “career?” A-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Now that’s funny.
Why would anyone hire him? Seems like every comment here is how either Allahpundit is a anti-Muslim racist propped up by BushCo money stolen by KKKarl Rove scrambling to cover up his a sooper seekrit Nazi past or he’s a sucky anti-godbag hack that should be replaced by Ace.
Make up your mind, jacksauce. You can’t have it both wa–
Oh, sorry. Can I say “jacksauce” on HotAir?
ScottMcC on February 9, 2007 at 3:09 PM
Oh, he’s banned us about two dozen times before. I think this time it’s a little more complex.
Sal Leno on February 9, 2007 at 3:10 PM
Seems like every comment here is how either Allahpundit is a anti-Muslim racist propped up by BushCo money stolen by KKKarl Rove scrambling to cover up his a sooper seekrit Nazi…
Sal Leno on February 9, 2007 at 3:18 PM
Seriously, Sal, the man spoke as if he was Allah himself (which should have been the only hint needed to clue someone in that it was satire) and repeatedly mentioned how not all Muslims are “radicals” long before his disclaimer.
What leg are you trying to stand on here, because I don’t see anything?
Let me guess, you think Jonathan Swift really wanted to eat poor Irish babies.
And you didn’t take the hint? Big surprise.
Esthier on February 9, 2007 at 3:22 PM
Wow, oddly, an entire conversation just disappeared about the foundation money that Michelle and Jesse Malkin receive for HotAir.com and michellemalkin.com, and how Bryan and Allah are paid from it.
Let’s test this once again. I’m posting, Bryan. Are you on the button again?
Sal Leno on February 9, 2007 at 3:23 PM
Is that the royal “us”? Or do you have multiple personality disorders?
Did someone at HotAir turn you down when you asked them out to the prom, or do you just like being where you are (if what you say about being banned multiple times is true) not appreciated?
I’ve never known Allah outside of HotAir, so, I can’t speak one way or another about his previous blogs.
I can however say that, from the beginning of the issue being raised at HotAir, it has always been about the multiple hateful/inappropriate things that Amanda wrote in her blogs.
The first one I remember seeing mentioned on HotAir was a post about CNN being horrible because they were saying that there was more evidence in the Duke case….at which point, Amanda said something along the lines of “Can’t a white mail hold a black chick down and F*(K her without people getting upset….”
Then, there was the Vent that quoted multiple postings of Amanda’s. Most of those were along the lines of “F#&K Bushco”!
Then there was mention of the religiously offensive things that she said about ‘godbags’ and Jesus’ mother.
All of which is offensive and probably not great to be linked to if you are a presidential candidate.
From the beginning, the focus has been on John Edwards hiring them. There was no mention of them before he hired them. No one here cared overly much (if at all) about them until they were hired by a former VP candidate and current Pres candidate.
So, again, the issue wasn’t that they said something offensive about religion. From the beginning it has been that they wrote extremely offensive stuff AND had been hired by John Edwards to write his blogs.
You’ve yet to provide any evidence to the contrary about moving goal posts.
JadeNYU on February 9, 2007 at 3:24 PM
Banned for posting self-righteous, smarmy, illogical rhetoric or because you dropped f-bombs and other WMDs in with the self-righteous, smarmy, illogical rhetoric?
Oh, the sheer complexity of it all makes us stupid godbags’ heads asplode!
And if I get banned for “j—sauce”, I’ll understand completely.
ScottMcC on February 9, 2007 at 3:27 PM
HuffPo: Primarily funded by a consortium of wealthy businessmen
Air America: Primarily funded by a consortium of wealthy businessmen
MoveOn.org: Primarily funded by a consortium of wealthy businessmen
If being primarily funded by a consortium of wealthy businessmen is wrong, I don’t wanna be right!
ScottMcC on February 9, 2007 at 3:34 PM
So we have a lying smear artist among us accusing us of deleting comments and being paid by a foundation, both of which are false accusations. Eeeenteresting. That kind of thing is actionable, ya know.
As for “Sal,” you want to be banned? That can be arranged. But I’m content to watch you hang yourself first. I know you’re a sock puppet, and I’m pretty sure I know who you actually are. You’re not too skilled at covering your tracks. So be a good little boy and buzz off before you cross a line.
Bryan on February 9, 2007 at 3:46 PM
Perhaps a bit OT here, but does that then make it okay to routinely say that not all Christians are paedophiles?
MKR on February 9, 2007 at 3:52 PM
Are you kidding? People constantly do the “priests molest little boys” bit without making that disclaimer.
Allah did it himself.
Yeah, priests have molested boys. It’s sad and pathetic. Make all the jokes you’d like.
Esthier on February 9, 2007 at 4:00 PM
He didn’t say you were being paid by a foundation, Bryan.
That was a very clever dodge.
MKR on February 9, 2007 at 4:01 PM
Other people might have a different opinion on this than me. However, my feeling is, if the vast majority of acts of pedophilia worldwide had been traced back to Christians (as the vast majority of terrorist acts worldwide have been traced back to Muslims) then something like that might be o.k.
Especially if (in our hypothetical) the only Christians that bothered speaking up said things like “Of course we don’t support pedophilia, but, in certain situations, it is justified.” or “It’s not pedophilia if they brought it on themselves.” or other manners of saying “We don’t agree with it *wink*, but, we’ve also defined it to not include everything that we do support (such as pedophilia).”
That having been said, how else was he supposed to state that he was satirizing terrorists and their supporters and that he was aware that not all Muslims are terrorists?
JadeNYU on February 9, 2007 at 4:01 PM
Simply scroll up, Sal.
Or here, I’ll make it easier:
It’s still there.
Esthier on February 9, 2007 at 4:02 PM
Perhaps I’m missing something here MKR, but I pulled this from his 2:23pm post
It looks to me like he was saying that they are financed by a foundation. Or was that just satire?
JadeNYU on February 9, 2007 at 4:03 PM
I missed that comment, and I agree, that comment alleges that a foundation pays money directly into HotAir and subsequently onto Bryan.
The comment I had read was…
… which I think you will find is a little closer to the truth.
But I agree, he did foolishly say what Bryan says he did, and I am wrong on that account.
MKR on February 9, 2007 at 4:16 PM
Interesting that my comment has been screened.
What was the trigger word, I wonder?
MKR on February 9, 2007 at 4:17 PM
What do you mean by screened?
Esthier on February 9, 2007 at 4:25 PM
Next time, try “Sally Know.”
Jim Treacher on February 9, 2007 at 4:27 PM
Meaning that it did not immediately appear and was thus waiting for some sort of approval.
The comment I was specifically referring to was the one I made at 4:16PM, which has since appeared, but not before the one I made at 4:17PM.
MKR on February 9, 2007 at 4:28 PM
That’s happened to me several times, but not on any questionable comments. I didn’t think anything of it.
Once I even got the message that I needed to slow down before posting again.
Esthier on February 9, 2007 at 4:30 PM
Don’t break his little heart. Let him go on believing that he’s hit the big time and is now on perma-screen status.
JadeNYU on February 9, 2007 at 4:33 PM
no presidential campaign that I’m aware of has decided to put Allahpundit qua Allahpundit on its staff
THAT IS THE CANDIDATE I WOULD VOTE FOR - hands down!!!
Lehuster on February 9, 2007 at 4:46 PM
Actually, there is no truth to “Sal Leno’s” contention that any foundation has paid a dime of Hot Air’s expenses in any way. So what we have are two commenters, “Sal Leno” and MKR, who are lying about Hot Air’s finances. You can continue along that line if you choose, but you are lying and you are fully aware that you are lying because you are making things up, and it is obvious that your intent is malicious. And we know who you are.
Bryan on February 9, 2007 at 4:51 PM
Again you continue to hide behind careful language.
I have not alleged that a foundation has paid *any* of HotAir expenses.
MKR on February 9, 2007 at 4:54 PM
Are you threatening me Bryan?
MKR on February 9, 2007 at 4:56 PM
Only with being banned.
Bryan on February 9, 2007 at 4:57 PM
Oh no, that’s not what you meant at all.
Of course you know who I am, my name is emblazoned on my comments. If your threat was an intention to ban me you would be foolishly under the impression that I believe my comments are anonymous.
No, you know that your comment was a veiled threat. I am fully aware that my IP address is logged with my comments which is why I am careful with what I say.
So Bryan, what exactly are you threatening me with, legal action for commenting on another poster’s comments about HotAir’s financing? What are your grounds? Do you have any?
Hot air indeed.
MKR on February 9, 2007 at 5:01 PM
MKR’s getting too close to the truth! Initiate Operation: Comment Latency.
Jim Treacher on February 9, 2007 at 5:03 PM
Too late, he’s already opted with Initiate Operation: Threaten Legal Action!
MKR on February 9, 2007 at 5:07 PM
True. Our adversaries know nothing about character or moral courage. They hide behind word games, innuendo, and carefully crafted half-truths. But just because we don’t attach back in kind doesn’t mean they are fooling anyone.
Lawrence on February 9, 2007 at 5:10 PM
I was suggesting that you stop suggesting that there’s some foundation behind Hot Air, and that if you continue it’s possibly legally actionable. But I’m not a lawyer, just a simple godbag, so what do I know?
That’s all, nothing more. Just a polite suggestion to stand down.
As to the banning. The above post is, after all, about the credibility of Digby and MyDD, not anything having to do with Hot Air or its finances. You have failed to stay on topic, and I’ve banned people for that alone. To go into allegations passed off by sock puppets and interpret everything as I say as some kind of dodge is also grounds for banning. I don’t allow commenters to come in here with bad faith accusations against other commenters, other blogs and certainly not our own blog. You are making bad faith insinuations about us that are off-topic and untrue. It’s our bandwidth that you are using here. We don’t have to continue to allow you to use it if your purpose here is to sling accusations against us.
So the choice is yours. Knock it off or get banned. There was never any physical threat implied or suggested in any way, ever.
Bryan on February 9, 2007 at 5:10 PM
MKR on February 9, 2007 at 5:01 PM
I’m almost done feeding the trolls for the day.
Stop looking for conspiracies and threats where there are none.
All I read from Bryan’s comment was that you and Sal were edging towards being banned. His “we know who you are” comment seems directly related to Sal’s earlier comments about having been banned many times (”Bryan, Allah, and Michelle can ban us — but can they ban all our HotAir accounts?”) but this time being different because it is more ‘complex’ (Oh, he’s banned us about two dozen times before. I think this time it’s a little more complex.)
Those may have been things that Sal said and not you, but, at this point, I think it’s safe to say you’re both in the same boat in most of our minds.
JadeNYU on February 9, 2007 at 5:13 PM
MKR - I take back my above post. It would appear that your legal action threat detector is much better than mine.
JadeNYU on February 9, 2007 at 5:16 PM
It’s obvious Bryan is the bag man that transports the millions of dollars required to produce HotAir.com from the international banking cabal. However, in his comments Bryan has been carefully dodging this fact by saying things like politically-conservative think tanks and foundations have not paid a dime of Hot Air’s expenses in any way.
See? A total dodge! CONSPRIACY!!!
This is so blatant; why are all of you stoopid godbags unable to see it?
ScottMcC on February 9, 2007 at 5:16 PM
By the way, I’ll be away from the computer for a while fulfilling a promise to my kid (laser tag!). For what it’s worth, there’s nothing wrong with taking foundation money if that’s how your site is run, as Media Matters and a lot of other sites are run, but Hot Air hasn’t taken any foundation money and none of us are paid by any foundation. We’re not owned or funded by any foundation. So what MKR and the sock puppet Sal Leno are spreading are malicious lies. They know that they’re lies but they don’t seem to care. It’s all ultimately about getting some kind of attack in on Michelle, since she owns and is to a great extent the face of Hot Air. They’ll be banned if the continue. We have plenty of great commenters here, so those two won’t be missed.
Bryan on February 9, 2007 at 5:18 PM
Comment pages: [1] 2 »