Quote of the day

posted at 11:00 pm on February 27, 2007 by Allahpundit

“I’d rather not hurt the label of any political persuasion that my opinions may relate to by identifying too closely with it.”

Breaking on Hot Air

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

Their stories offer a cautionary tale about the danger of putting too much personal information on the Internet, about the corrosive nature of debate in the blogosphere, and about what can happen when people jump to conclusions as quickly as they click from one Web site to another.

…as if the problem is/was the info on the Internet…and not a guy having gone nuts…

“corrosive nature of debate in the blogosphere” – from which side is it most corrosive?

Entelechy on February 27, 2007 at 11:15 PM

that guy needs to buy a whole bunch of a***ole offsets.

see-dubya on February 27, 2007 at 11:17 PM

Translation:
I know I’m friggin batsh#% crazy but I don’t want to taint the party by saying I’m member, so let’s just pretend I’m not”

bbz123 on February 27, 2007 at 11:18 PM

“Hopefully, if Mel Gibson can go on to make a blockbuster, my career will be unaffected as well.”

Okkkkkkkkkkkkkayyyyyyyy!

Future= cardboard condo

Limerick on February 27, 2007 at 11:19 PM

And people wonder why Allahpundit so carefully protects his anonymity?

Lawrence on February 27, 2007 at 11:19 PM

Even my wife, who herself is a liberal, agrees that the left side of the political spectrum is far more unhinged than anything on the right side.

aunursa on February 27, 2007 at 11:21 PM

The man accused in the attack refuses to call himself a Democrat but acknowledges that his actions were “dumb.”

Is the author implying something like Democrat=dumb here?

mikeyboss on February 27, 2007 at 11:23 PM

What a really,really……..interesting way to write up that story.
Love how it ends with a dig at Michelle Malkin at the end.
Although the moonbat does have an intriguing idea

Michelle Malkin, Secretary of Homeland Security

billy on February 27, 2007 at 11:24 PM

The last two lines were really the best. First, this one:

Stone said that if Malkin “was heading up Homeland Security, I guess I’d be getting water-boarded right now.”

It made me laugh out loud. Then this piece of banality nailed the lid on his coffin of hypocrisy:

“If this is their top story,” he said of conservative bloggers, “it’s pretty clear that their public influence is waning.”

Like so many on the left, he wishes this were true. His buffoonery is made complete.

thedecider on February 27, 2007 at 11:25 PM

Translation: “I’m a moonbat but I don’t want to give moonbats a bad name.”

hahaha You can’t make this stuff up!

csdeven on February 27, 2007 at 11:27 PM

Their stories offer a cautionary tale about the danger of putting too much personal information on the Internet, about the corrosive nature of debate in the blogosphere, and about what can happen when people jump to conclusions as quickly as they click from one Web site to another.

What Entelechy said. Plus the fact that the whole story is meant as a cautionary tale to anyone that still strongly supports the war. If you do, you will get punched, and we (in the media) won’t give a damn about you.

spmat on February 27, 2007 at 11:30 PM

bbz123 on February 27, 2007 at 11:18 PM

I’m still laughing over your comment. Too funny and yet so true.

thedecider on February 27, 2007 at 11:31 PM

Stone hopes to go into filmmaking. He said he occasionally works for the Capitol Police in Richmond, getting arrested in training drills. He praised Fredericksburg police for their professionalism in arresting him.

You just can’t make this stuff up.

B Moe on February 27, 2007 at 11:32 PM

Andrew Jefferson Stone.
Good name for ‘im –’cause he’s as dumb as a box of rocks.

CyberCipher on February 27, 2007 at 11:42 PM

Perfect industry for the likes of this little shite.
Hollyweird, here he comes. (Unless, of course, he has the misfortune of trying this crap at MY house. Lucky for him, I’m in NC.)

tickleddragon on February 27, 2007 at 11:43 PM

The book “Indoctrination U.” by David Horowitz, not only exposes moonbattery from the highest levels, but offers how to file complaints against them, and win.

Entelechy on February 28, 2007 at 12:05 AM

Even my wife, who herself is a liberal, agrees that the left side of the political spectrum is far more unhinged than anything on the right side.

Eh, maybe she’s just lulling you into a sense of false security. All I’m saying is watch your back, you dirty war-monger. :P

Of note, is that pretty much any conservative will do for the release of moonbat hostility. I’ve noticed in my own experience that if you’re a known or suspected conservative and you don’t bash Bush and/or the war, you’re guilty — a hypocrite war monger. And, now, apparently, eligible for random acts of violence.

kace on February 28, 2007 at 12:48 AM

First they came for the Campus Republicans
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Campus Republican.
Then they came for the conservative bloggers
and I did not speak out
because I was never had a personal blog.
Then they came for the Republican voters
and I did not speak out
because I was an Independent Voter.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

So…I pulled out my .45 ACP and put two rounds of Hydroshock into the chest of each one of these leftist brownshirted f*cktards, and dialed 911.

[With apologies to Pastor Martin Niemoller]

georgej on February 28, 2007 at 12:53 AM

These dumb unhinged liberals are going to end up attacking a gun carrying conservative one of these days – it’s only a matter of time before we see that splashed all over the news.

Rick on February 28, 2007 at 12:55 AM

Whhy is this not a “hate crime”?

honora????

PinkyBigglesworth on February 28, 2007 at 12:56 AM

Me thinks Stone was hoping Pannell would convert to moonbattia and join him for some nude protest…

GoodBoy on February 28, 2007 at 1:02 AM

Whhy is this not a “hate crime”?

honora????

PinkyBigglesworth on February 28, 2007 at 12:56 AM

It’s not hate when it’s directed at Republicans, or conservatives in general – it’s justified because it’s the proper response to those that do hate (Republicans and conservatives…aka Nazis).

Rick on February 28, 2007 at 1:02 AM

@GoodBoy
ROTFL

I submitted the source story to digg here with a reasonably neutral sounding write-up. I think the moonbats will digg this story. Didn’t Stone live their fantasy?

kace on February 28, 2007 at 1:10 AM

Rick on February 28, 2007 at 1:02 AM

Ahh…The over-obvious late-night baiting begins from the trolls. Let’s see…no point is offered, just an empty perceived accusation constructed from a chip on its shoulder. No point of view is offered. Just a worm on a hook designed to bait someone into a response. Hmmm…to ignore or not to ingore. Yes, wait and see if the troll is intelligent enough to offer a point of view. One doubts that it can because they seldom do.

thedecider on February 28, 2007 at 1:21 AM

Whhy is this not a “hate crime”?

honora????

PinkyBigglesworth on February 28, 2007 at 12:56 AM
It’s not hate when it’s directed at Republicans, or conservatives in general – it’s justified because it’s the proper response to those that do hate (Republicans and conservatives…aka Nazis).

Rick on February 28, 2007 at 1:02 AM

Thank you Rick……… but honora already doesn’t like me because I argue her statements with the facts………

PinkyBigglesworth on February 28, 2007 at 1:28 AM

thedecider on February 28, 2007 at 1:21 AM

I read Rick’s response with humor, if not, my response is still valid………

“LONG LIVE THE TROLLS!”

PinkyBigglesworth on February 28, 2007 at 1:31 AM

PinkyBigglesworth on February 28, 2007 at 1:31 AM

Sorry Pinky…I know YOU but I don’t know Rick. Sounded like the troll baiting we get late at night…you know?

thedecider on February 28, 2007 at 1:33 AM

Sounded like the troll baiting we get late at night…you know?

thedecider on February 28, 2007 at 1:33 AM

Yeap, that’s what makes HA so great!

Spot On, Brother!

PinkyBigglesworth on February 28, 2007 at 2:08 AM

Three guys. One fool. He was very lucky to be alive.

Let’s change the scenario. Most of you engaged in ad hominem attacks, rather addressing the argument. The argument: “If you support the war, you should definitely fight” does not stand. For instance, I supported the clean up effort in New Orleans, would me call me a coward if I did not go out there to help? More, the conscientious objectors frustrate me. Why would you join the military without expecting to go to war or even put your life at risk? Joining the military is a noble decision. However, not everybody is qualified to fight in a war. Becoming a good soldier requires a lot of physical training. Most of you typing here, if a poll is taking, might not survive severals hours of push ups and intense emotional pressure. Talk less, work out weekly at the gym. By supporting the effort in Iraq, you are extolling the qualities of the people who survived these intense training–encouraging them to stand for you. Putting any anybody in a war zone who merely voices support is bad idea. It is more like Mariah Carey asking her greatest fan to be her co-singer. Imagine that, it is going to be a disaster.

Ouabam on February 28, 2007 at 3:26 AM

This guy will be feeling quite stupid at 40 years old.

benrand on February 28, 2007 at 6:28 AM

Reed Pannell has maintained a sense of humor about the incident. He said his parents are politically progressive and that when he told his father what happened, Rick Pannell teased his son: “See, that’s what happens. That’s what happens [when you're a Republican].”

Let that roll around in your mind for a while.

TheBigOldDog on February 28, 2007 at 6:56 AM

There are a lot of other quotes you could have picked from that article AP… like:

“It was uncalled for, and I apologize to everyone who was offended,” he said of the slur. “Hopefully, if Mel Gibson can go on to make a blockbuster, my career will be unaffected as well.”

Aside from how annoying it is that he’s being a child and deflecting what he did by pointing to Mel Gibson’s behavior, he used the classic liberal apology to anyone who was “offended”… He didn’t admit his anti-semetic remarks were wrong, he’s apologizing to those who were offended BECAUSE HE GOT CAUGHT!

In an interview with The Free Lance-Star, she said she has heard of similar incidents. Malkin said they began with anger over Bush’s controversial victory in 2000 and have been “exacerbated” by the war.

She called Stone and others like him “terrorists.”

AP, can you contact Malkin and ask her if this is an accurate quote? I had a problem with a lot of the tone of this article, and I have a feeling that this quote, if not an outright lie, is very misleading. I’m really interested to hear what MM has to say about that.

But here’s the winner:

Stone said that if Malkin “was heading up Homeland Security, I guess I’d be getting water-boarded right now.”

This clown doesn’t want his career to be hurt by his actions? Perhaps he can learn to STFU then. He’s not keeping the debate or discourse at a civil or adult level, he’s still tossing out lines from the unhinged left’s playbook. Grow up dude… how about “no comment”? This little sh** needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent because he clearly hasn’t learned his lesson and he’s just teetering on the edge.

RightWinged on February 28, 2007 at 6:57 AM

Oh, I also wanted to mention that the article tells a completely different story than what Pannell wrote to Malkin… did anyone else notice this?

RightWinged on February 28, 2007 at 6:58 AM

Long, a 20-year-old from Alexandria who described himself as a liberal Democrat, said he was just trying to protect his roommate and didn’t care about the political argument.

It sounds as though the writer is surprised by this.

Oh, and see-dubya? A-hole offsets? We could make a fortune selling those.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on February 28, 2007 at 7:21 AM

“See, that’s what happens. That’s what happens [when you’re a Republican].”

I’ve seen this first hand, by member’s of the MI Education ASSociation…teachers.

Around the time of the 04 election, I was at a rep’s hotel having some cold refreshments and tihs place was frequented by teachers coming in for important meetings about teaching.

The rep and I were talking about Bush, etc and this little older man looked at me and said “so you’d vote for Bush huh? Why?” I went and told him why, taxes, etc. So it heats up a bit, he sulks away.

Come in for another round a little later and this older woman who this guy was sitting with came over and started quietly arguing with me, ultimately saying I needed punched in the head, she was informed of this by the little teacher guy.

One of the most pathetic experiences I’ve ever had arguing with a liberal.

benrand on February 28, 2007 at 8:55 AM

One of the most pathetic experiences I’ve ever had arguing with a liberal.

Amen. I married into Liberals, I work with Liberals, I live in MA, it’s a constant battle. It’s also heart-breaking at times, especially when I’m having a casual conversation with a neighbor or co-worker, and they slip some talking point into the conversation. Most of the time, they really have no clue, and I almost feel bad.

I am getting good at identifying the source of their misinformation, whether it’s nightly news, a late-night comedian, or just liberal urban legend. I find myself having to hold back, otherwise I’d just be correcting people all the time. There are some who react negatively to being “corrected” and that’s when I unload…

reaganaut on February 28, 2007 at 9:15 AM

He said he agreed with Stone’s assessment that those who support a war should be willing to fight in it,

When will we see Fat Bill suit up and ship out to Bosnia?

JackM on February 28, 2007 at 9:19 AM

Ouabam on February 28, 2007 at 3:26 AM

I supported the clean up effort in New Orleans, would me call me a coward if I did not go out there to help?

WTF? Your analogy is pure nonsense and your logic is equivalent to your analogy.

More, the conscientious objectors frustrate me. Why would you join the military without expecting to go to war or even put your life at risk?

WTF? Conscientious objectors are unwilling to serve in the military. They don’t join because they don’t believe in the cause, which is just another way of saying they are cowards who will not serve their country like those before them who gave their all for the freedom of all.

Joining the military is a noble decision. However, not everybody is qualified to fight in a war.

WTF? But if you’re going to go off and fight in the war, joining the military is a good starting point if you want to be qualified.

Becoming a good soldier requires a lot of physical training. Most of you typing here, if a poll is taking, might not survive severals hours of push ups and intense emotional pressure.

WTF? Got a crystal ball there Kreskin? Speak for yourself, OK?

Talk less, work out weekly at the gym.

Please, please, listen to your own advice and spare us your childlike observations.

By supporting the effort in Iraq, you are extolling the qualities of the people who survived these intense training–encouraging them to stand for you be victorious against our sworn enemies.

There, that’s fixed.

Putting any anybody in a war zone who merely voices support is bad idea.

WTF? Quick, somebody alert the Secretary of Defense. Only send soldiers who have been thoroughly trained into a war zone. Whew! Now they know.

It is more like Mariah Carey asking her greatest fan to be her co-singer. Imagine that, it is going to be a disaster.

Standby for another ad hominem attack in ….3..2..1…

You’re an idiot.

fogw on February 28, 2007 at 9:33 AM

You’re an idiot.
fogw on February 28, 2007 at 9:33 AM

Talking to yourself?

Actually the comment about Katrina was correct. You can support an effort without getting physically involved. How do you build ships during wartime if you are not at home building ships, or raising money? We have 1/4 million troops and how many tens of million of citizens…I think somebody supporting the war stays home…mathmatically speaking.
And there have been a few, in the news recently, of objectors not wanting to fight the war.

ad hominem attack

You may mean a poor analogy. Look up the words “ad hominem”.

right2bright on February 28, 2007 at 10:04 AM

Actually the comment about Katrina was correct.
right2bright on February 28, 2007 at 10:04 AM

Not cleaning up in New orleans while supporting the effort makes you a “coward”? Really, a coward? Because you are unable to have the time or money to go there, you are a coward?

Maybe you feel that way r2b, but I would never call someone who supported the cleanup but was unable to go, a coward.

Lousy analogy, poor choice of words.

I guess we’ll just have to disagree on this one.

fogw on February 28, 2007 at 10:39 AM

You may mean a poor analogy. Look up the words “ad hominem”.
right2bright on February 28, 2007 at 10:04 AM

In my final comment I was no longer addressing Ouabam’s arguments point by point. I called him an idiot.

If that’s not an ad hominem attack, I don’t know what is.

fogw on February 28, 2007 at 11:25 AM

Their stories offer a cautionary tale about the danger of putting too much personal information on the Internet, about the corrosive nature of debate in the blogosphere, and about what can happen when people jump to conclusions as quickly as they click from one Web site to another.

This has already been covered by others, but this chunk of the article really annoyed me.

So, the things to blame are putting information on the internet, those meanie bloggers & jumping to conclusions.

Perhaps I missed the line where they said Stone was to blame for being completely unreasonable and breaking the law…?

Furthermore, what do they mean by ‘jumping to conclusions’? Are they saying Stone’s mistake was that he thought the guy was a College Republican that supported the war, when he was actually not a member of the CRs and he no longer supported the war because of how it was being handled? I guess it would have been o.k. to assault him if he actually had been a war supporting CR?

Whoever wrote this article is definitely letting their bias show.

JadeNYU on February 28, 2007 at 1:52 PM

And people wonder why Allahpundit so carefully protects his anonymity?

Lawrence on February 27, 2007 at 11:19 PM

Not me. Even on forums where my name is visible, I always refer to my wife as “The Bride of Monster”, my daughters as “Monsterette 1″ and “Monsterette 2″, etc.

But I do name the dog: Angel, the Attack Schneagle. I remember telling a talkshow host that Newt should apologize after his mom revealed that he’d called Hillary a bitch, because she just doesn’t deserve that sort of insult. Angel, that is. Newt still owes her an apology.

If some moonbat were to go after one of them as a way of getting me….

The Monster on February 28, 2007 at 2:12 PM

thedecider on February 28, 2007 at 1:21 AM

Sarcasm, not trolling – Pinky’s right.

Rick on February 28, 2007 at 3:20 PM