HuffPo genius who called for coup: It was satire, wingnuts

posted at 11:25 pm on August 26, 2007 by Allahpundit

Uh huh. It’s the first satire in history with no discernible target. Here’s a sample of something he left in the comments to the original post that showcases his rip-roaring brand of fun-pokin’ hijinks:

I ask General Pace to do two things. One is to relieve the President of his command as Commander-In-Chief. The other is to place the President under military arrest. It is arguable as to the conflict between the Constitution and the Uniform Code Of Military Justice. One of the important legal ramifications of My Lai was the obligation to relieve a senior officer of his/her command in exceptional circumstances. If General Pace was performing a military imperative in a peaceful, non-threatening manner and simply informed Mr. Bush that he was being relieved of his military command, there would be no justification for the Secret Service to act as you suggest. Whatever the ultimate consequence, the impact of such a courageous and noble act on behalf of his nation, would be significant.

You know you’re dealing with the Big Funny when they toss in citations to the UCMJ. Hey, wanker: We’ve seen this show before and it’s no more convincing now than it was then. “Clown nose off, clown nose on, clown nose off…”

Exit question: Did he come up with this pathetic defense himself or did an embarrassed Arianna force it on him?

Update: I forgot about this. Like I said, we’ve seen this show before.


Related Posts:

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

Typical. When a liberal is called out because he makes a fool of himself, he always says “I was just joking.”

Maybe that’s why many of the big liberal screechers are “comedians.” It provides an easy cover story…

mojojojo on August 26, 2007 at 11:29 PM

Exit question: Did he come up with this pathetic defense himself or did an embarrassed Arianna force it on him?

I’m not sure she’s capable of embarrassment. He, on the other hand, is a useless twit that doesn’t deserve this much attention. In fact, in another era, he’d be up on charges — and rightly so.

ShoreMark on August 26, 2007 at 11:32 PM

Maybe he’ll volunteer to go to “rehab” for his little joke. Isn’t that the fashionable thing to do amongst libs these days? :)

acleaver on August 26, 2007 at 11:34 PM

Im sure John Kerry agrees it was just a joke

William Amos on August 26, 2007 at 11:35 PM

Joke’s on the moonbat

Defector01 on August 26, 2007 at 11:40 PM

Funny or not,i know times have been a changing,
but years ago you would never say this crap,if you did,it would be in a very quiet room,whispering this treason to some idiot that would listen.And especially you wouldn’t
utter a word openly about a sitting President.
And again,this garbage,funny or not is championed by the
left.Bottom line ,absolutely no respect for a sitting
Conservative President,or for that matter any Republican.

canopfor on August 26, 2007 at 11:47 PM

Typical. When a liberal is called out because he makes a fool of himself, he always says “I was just joking.”

Just like Alec Baldwin, who “joked” about stoning Henry Hyde and his family during run up to the Clinton impeachment.

Bigfoot on August 26, 2007 at 11:48 PM

“Satire” is always the liberal fallback. C’mon nutroots, make a fun excuse, this one’s tired, you’re supposed to be the ‘creative’ ones!

Bad Candy on August 26, 2007 at 11:48 PM

Did he come up with this pathetic defense himself or did an embarrassed Arianna force it on him? — Allahpundit

I say Arianna forced it on him. I’m sure Lewis still thinks the UCMJ governs the White House.

Maxx on August 26, 2007 at 11:51 PM

He should have taken my advice and claimed that he thought he was Turkish for a moment, instead.

progressoverpeace on August 26, 2007 at 11:56 PM


Satire” is always the liberal fallback. C’mon nutroots, make a fun excuse, this one’s tired, you’re supposed to be the ‘creative’ ones!

Bad Candy on August 26, 2007 at 11:48 PM

You hit the nail on the head!

BobH on August 27, 2007 at 12:03 AM

We’re missing a great opportunity here. We have an actual comedian running for a Senate seat: Al Franken. I’d like someone to ask him if he thinks that it was satire.
By the way, he’s insane.
I was at our county fair this weekend, and I stopped by the Democrats fair booth to say hi. (no booth babes, just two old gray guys)
I asked them what they thought of the political season so far, and they told me that the Dem politicians never listen to them, always take their votes for granted, assuming that they will vote the party ticket no matter who is running.
I asked the gray gentlemen, “Are they wrong?” and they didn’t really have an answer for me.

Doug on August 27, 2007 at 12:04 AM

It is arguable as to the conflict between the Constitution and the Uniform Code Of Military Justice.

No, it’s not.

yo on August 27, 2007 at 12:08 AM

It’s rather easy to twist yourself into a pretzel when you have no spine.

Asher on August 27, 2007 at 12:15 AM

I’m not sure she’s capable of embarrassment. He, on the other hand, is a useless twit that doesn’t deserve this much attention. In fact, in another era, he’d be up on charges — and rightly so.

In theory but not really. I mean if you read the stuff The Chicago Tribune used to publish when FDR was prosecuting WWII you’d see it’s always been US policy to give eccentric journalists the benefit of the doubt. Even Lincoln had to put up with mad, raving copperheads/moonbats. The charge of treason is generally reserved for serious enemies of America like Tokyo Rose and Adam Gadhan.

aengus on August 27, 2007 at 12:18 AM

I just wish we would get to see just how many jurists would appreciate the Satire of his comments were he to be tried for sedition.

doriangrey on August 27, 2007 at 12:20 AM

“Satire” is always the liberal fallback. C’mon nutroots, make a fun excuse, this one’s tired, you’re supposed to be the ‘creative’ ones!

Bad Candy on August 26, 2007 at 11:48 PM

QFT.

That’s been Michael Moore’s standard excuse for how many years now? He makes a film, labels it a “documentary” (silly me, but growing up, I always thought documentaries were supposed to have SOME sort of factual accuracy to them), and then whenever people compile the numerous inconsistencies, inaccuracies and flat-out lies he’s made in said film (and people are pretty quick to do it these days – looks like people are finally hip to Mikey’s gimmick), he always responds with, “Oh, it was meant to be a satire.”

Uh-huh. We don’t buy it when Moore does it, and I imagine anyone who’s not a rabid moonbat is smart enough to recognize Martin Lewis’ excuse for the BS that it is.

Vyce on August 27, 2007 at 12:24 AM

Well, if we were to dim-witted to realized it was a satire, so were the lefties who commented under the original post.
-
Unless the entire Huffpo is, by definition, self-satire, a point of view I am willing to entertain.

Herikutsu on August 27, 2007 at 12:29 AM

Unless the entire Huffpo is, by definition, self-satire, a point of view I am willing to entertain.

Heh. Made me laugh.

aengus on August 27, 2007 at 12:33 AM

HuffPo genius who called for coup: It was satire, wingnuts

Ah yes – the lefties always try this particular “It’s satire” line whenever they get busted for they get busted being stupis…the wonkette tools tried this after rather embarassingly falling for the Coptix prank in a big way and the photoshoppped Malkin photo.

Ace

Remember that rather obvious photoshop? Not only did Wonkette run it, claiming it to be real, but even after it was proven it wasn’t Michelle Malkin at all — the girl whose flickr account it was taken from identified herself — but then childishly simply refused to admit they had erred…

…The shrieking ninnies at Wonkette can’t do that, though. They can never simply admit they made an error. And thus — similar to in the case of the Malkin photoshop — they now appear to claim they never really believed any of it and and they kinda knew [Coptix] it was all a lark the whole time!

Lewis got pwned!

Topsecretk9 on August 27, 2007 at 12:43 AM

ACK

Ah yes – the lefties always try this particular “It’s satire” line whenever they get busted for being stupid.

fixed.

Topsecretk9 on August 27, 2007 at 12:44 AM

satire…yeah right.

Highrise on August 27, 2007 at 12:57 AM

I bet he got a little visit from the fbi lol.

Highrise on August 27, 2007 at 12:57 AM

One of the important legal ramifications of My Lai was the obligation to relieve a senior officer of his/her command in exceptional circumstances. If General Pace was performing a military imperative in a peaceful, non-threatening manner and simply informed Mr. Bush that he was being relieved of his military command, there would be no justification for the Secret Service to act as you suggest.

ZOMG ROFLMAO THAT IS SOME OF TEH FUNNIEST SATIRE I HAVE EVER READ! WHAT A COMICAL GENIUS!!!!!!!1111111one111

treyevans on August 27, 2007 at 1:16 AM

When the Bitch calls the shots there are no balls on the
field of play a multileveled meaning.

spike on August 27, 2007 at 1:24 AM

waiting

spike on August 27, 2007 at 1:27 AM

still waiting

spike on August 27, 2007 at 1:29 AM

deleted it. I don’t care. someone ment to see it saw it
already feathers in the wind….

spike on August 27, 2007 at 1:36 AM

Interesting…

I tried to create an account at HuffPo to comment… and it says my account is not “activated”

so much for a site that is “liberal” is its interpretation of free speech…

Romeo13 on August 27, 2007 at 1:44 AM

Hey guys, you should lighten up on this guy. It was a satire. Of liberals. After all, who else would make a post displaying their complete lack of knowledge regarding American law and government dressed as a call to forcibly end the Bushreich, then spend their time defending their own clear insanity in the comments?

We should be thanking this man, its the best satire I’ve ever seen.

BKennedy on August 27, 2007 at 2:06 AM

Satire or not I’ll bet it was enough for a electronic intercept warrant on a whole lot of folks over at HuffPo.

Buzzy on August 27, 2007 at 2:06 AM

I logged on at HuffPo and asked if it’s possible that the calls for him to be deported, shot, and so forth were satire as well. Wonder if my comment will go through?

I like his simultaneous claims that he’s “just a minor satirist on a small soapbox” but that everybody should have known he was kidding because he’s such a famous humorist who’s written so many wonderful things.

===========MARTIN RESPONDS===========

Have fun worshipping at the altar of Rove, you right-wing Swift-boat nut.

============================

Jim Treacher on August 27, 2007 at 2:19 AM

Is his reply satire, too?

How can we tell?

I modestly suggest that the writer be eaten by Irish children.

profitsbeard on August 27, 2007 at 2:27 AM

Satire? Uh, okay. . . so I zip over to dictionary.reference.com and check the definition for
satire:

a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule.

so this guy is satirizing the leftist activists who are calling for an end to the Bush Presidency, as soon as possible, because they can’t wait another 18 months?

So where was the scorn, and derision in his post?

Oh, wait, he is scorning the folly of Bush? But that would mean he was serious about removing Bush? Wait, I’m getting confused. . . .

rockhauler on August 27, 2007 at 2:28 AM

It seems similar to the defense I see from the pathological lier when caught in a lie. “I was just testing you to see if you would fall for it.” I saw it all the time in my previous line of work.

TBinSTL on August 27, 2007 at 2:35 AM

And interestingly enough? I’ve read Swift…. very little of his writing could be taken for literal…. I mean come on… where are the Giants, or Lilliputians in this guys writings??? He’s using real names, real UCMJ articles, and suggesting real people do things…

This is a blatant incitement to rebelion… this is no satire no matter how he “spins” it now…

Or is it just that us Right wing Rovophiles are unedjumacated??? Is this a Kerry type Joke???

Romeo13 on August 27, 2007 at 2:59 AM

Romeo13-

By UCMJ the satirist obviously meant:

Unpretentious Comic Making Jokes.

It’s secret leftard code.

(I broke it using Zeno’s 5th paradox, whereby laughter cannot exist because the humor potential is infinite.)

profitsbeard on August 27, 2007 at 3:20 AM

The charge of treason is generally reserved for serious enemies of America like Tokyo Rose and Adam Gadhan.

Funny that you should mention Rose. The “Rose” that was convicted of treason, Iva Toguri, actually didn’t say anything that was particularly treasonous, according to investigations. In fact, she slyly used language that would make it clear that her public animosity toward Americans was false, in effect using the subtle tool of irony to make Americans remain unconcerned about her reports and make the Japanese believe that she was cooperating. One could nearly argue that she used satire to help the American cause.

That use was so subtle it got her railroaded on treason charges. Contrast that with the Post guy. You can just picture him stealing Swift. “LET’S EAT BABIES!!” he’d say. Why is that satire? “Because I’ve never eaten a baby and don’t have immediate plans of doing so. Don’t you idiots get it?”

calbear on August 27, 2007 at 3:40 AM

Have fun worshipping at the altar of Rove, you right-wing Swift-boat nut.

I’m sure he’ll be reveling in the “genius” of that pun for weeks to come at parties where even Post readers will quietly inch away….

calbear on August 27, 2007 at 3:46 AM

Dear Martin,

Satirize this, why dontcha?

You committed 5 felonies in your “satire,” specifically:

18 USC Sec. 2389 Recruiting for service against United States

Sec. 2388. Activities affecting armed forces during war by inciting insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States

Sec. 2387. Activities affecting armed forces generally, by advising, counseling, urging, or in any manner causing or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States

Sec. 2384. Seditious conspiracy

Sec. 2383. Rebellion or insurrection

So, given that in the United States, the ordinary American has the right to make a citizen’s arrest of suspects committing or having committed a felony, consider yourself on notice: IF I SEE YOU ON THE STREET, I WILL ATTEMPT TO AFFECT YOUR ARREST. Please don’t resist.

Nah. Don’t worry. It’s ONLY SATIRE! I don’t mean it. Just like you didn’t mean it.

georgej on August 27, 2007 at 6:25 AM

It’s the first satire in history with no discernible target.

Apparently, this libtard doesn’t even know what satire IS.

The article couldn’t possibly be satire of George Bush. All Bush is doing in this story is (presumably) sitting in the Oval Office, not suspecting he might later get a farcical demand to step down. Apparently some moonbats believe that being born was Bush’s original sin, but this story doesn’t add anything new to that.

Or could this self-proclaimed Johnathan Swift be trying to “satirize” General Pace by saying he might be such a psychopath that Pace might actually take the author’s letter seriously? There’s nothing in the article (or as far as I know anywhere else) to make the reader imagine anything to that effect.

The only possibility this leaves is that the author must me making fun of the kind of idiot who might WRITE a letter like that (and presumably also the “Constitutional justification” he followed it up with.) So the only person he could possibly be making fun of is HIMSELF. And he gives the reader every reason to believe that he has no clue that he’s doing so.

In other words: this Martin Lewis character isn’t making a joke; he is the joke.

logis on August 27, 2007 at 6:32 AM

A few notes on the issue of Tokyo Rose: President Gerald Ford pardoned her on the last day of his term of office, decades after she completed her sentence. His reasoning was (1) there were multiple “Tokyo Rose’s” — women broadcasting to the American forces from Tokyo. The evidence that linked her, the woman on trial, to the specific utterances was extremely tenous. (2) The fairness and objectivity of the judge trying the case was in doubt. Therefore “Rose” was pardoned.

This was NOT the case with Mildred Gillars, also known as “Axis Sally,” the other woman convicted of treason for broadcasting enemy propaganda, this time for the Nazis. She was not pardoned.

georgej on August 27, 2007 at 6:35 AM

But if you are conservative. you can’t joke, in fact you can’t even joke about a liberal joking. Just ask Ann Coulter.

TheSitRep on August 27, 2007 at 7:34 AM

years ago you would never say this crap,if you did,it would be in a very quiet room,whispering this treason to some idiot that would listen.And especially you wouldn’t
utter a word openly about a sitting President.

just wish we would get to see just how many jurists would appreciate the Satire of his comments were he to be tried for sedition.

Sorry for the ignorance, and this is coming from a total conservative (and Lewis’ column was NOT satire – what a tool he is for claiming that), but I thought since Lewis specifically said ‘no use of force or illegal actions,’ that this is free speech and not treason? No lawyer here, but…the comments above don’t sound like the US I know where we are free (to paraphrase the great PJ O’Rourke) to stand on a street corner with impunity shouting “Bush bites his farts!” or the equivalent.

Even calling for the legal arrest, if such is possible under the UMCJ, isn’t that free speech here? And this is not a sarcastic question, but a real one.

inviolet on August 27, 2007 at 7:35 AM

inviolet on August 27, 2007 at 7:35 AM

Yes, maybe, no, in no particular order, but anyway we’re just engaging in “satire” when we verbalize our hope that Martin gets to see those secret Romanian prisons up close and personal very soon.

Buzzy on August 27, 2007 at 7:46 AM

In fact, in another era, he’d be up on charges — and rightly so.

ShoreMark on August 26, 2007 at 11:32 PM

In another era, he couldn’t have said what he did, and continue to be accepted by his countrymen.

That other era is gone in the US– the victim of lib PC thinking. Add it to the list of many reasons why we now find it so hard to accomplish right with our might.

JiangxiDad on August 27, 2007 at 7:49 AM

inviolet asks: “Even calling for the legal arrest, if such is possible under the UMCJ, isn’t that free speech here?”

Ans: No.

There are limitations of “free speech.” Defamation is one such limitation. Shouting “Fire!” in a theater is another. Lying under oath is not protected as free speech.

There is a long list of other exclusion as well. Here, we are dealing with an open call for the military to mutiny and overthrow the US Government in a coup d’etat.

If we go back to WWI, there is the famous Schenk decision. Charles T. Schenk was convicted of printing and distributing pamphlets to draftees urging them to refuse to go. In the unanimous ruling, the court said:

When a nation is at war many thing which might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its efforts that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and no court could regard them as protected by any Constitutional right. [Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Schenk v. US, 249 US 47, 52 (1919)]

This decision means that there are are limitations on free speech during war time, and advocating mutiny among the troops is one of them.

Lewis’ comments were clear violations of a whole list of criminal statutes in the US Code, including inciting General Pace to lead a mutiny and to forcibly remove the President of the United States from power.

This man should be arrested and upon conviction, sentenced to the maximum allowed under the statute, and deported immediately after completing his sentence.

georgej on August 27, 2007 at 8:09 AM

I wonder if Bill Clinton would agree with the author that the President is subject to UCMJ punishment, considering Adultery is covered under Article 134.

BohicaTwentyTwo on August 27, 2007 at 8:25 AM

I love this kind of stuff. When they let down their guard just a bit and reveal themselves to be the hateful, extremists they really are… then they realize they let the damaging truth out… they back track and claim they were “joking.”

So, jsut add disingenuous to the mix of their other extremist personality defects.

Warner Todd Huston on August 27, 2007 at 9:02 AM

Got that right, Warner. The leftards are afraid to actually stand by what they believe in. When called on it, they run.

William Teach on August 27, 2007 at 9:07 AM

BTW, I wonder if it was “satire” when the Hufftard commenters were hoping for Cheney’s death on several occassions? If the Hufftards are so funny, why did Arianna have to close the comments for the post on the passing of Rev. Falwell? Etc, and so on, y’all know the score.

William Teach on August 27, 2007 at 9:11 AM

Once again! the barely literate, tantric turds of the looney left have been caught eating their own boogers.

And, once again, the laws against sedition are still on the books!!!

locomotivebreath1901 on August 27, 2007 at 9:25 AM

C’mon guys…how many times we gotta have this “free speech” lecture? Quibbling over what is and is not ‘protected’ speech…no “fire” in theaters etc ad nauseum.

The “freedom” enshrined in the concept of “free speech” is not freedom from consequence, but freedom from _government preemption_. The reason you’ll get shafted for shouting “fire” in a theater (presuming that there is no fire) is not because of your words per se (you remain at liberty to shout whatever you want, wherever you want), but rather as a _consequence_ of your irresponsible act – recklessly endangering the lives of others by potentially causing panic. The reason you’ll get locked up for lying under oath is not because you are not free to utter falsities, but as a consequence of perverting the course of justice.

This idiot should be free to make such statements, and if HuffPo is willing to tolerate their presence, then the stink will stick to all associated. Shine the spotlight on all concerned and do what it takes to ensure that the people know what immature incompetent libtards they are – render them politically impotent.

We should always remain free to discuss the overthrow (partial or complete) of tyrannical government…and current laws to the contrary are ones I find very troublesome.

Ochlan on August 27, 2007 at 10:04 AM

Ochlan-

We should remain free to discuss the overthrow (partial or complete) of tyrannical government…

We “overthrow” governments here by voting.

Otherwise, you have anarchy.

profitsbeard on August 27, 2007 at 11:07 AM

We “overthrow” governments here by voting

Ideally, yes.

Let me know how much power those chads have when you’re facing armed gubmint agents one day…

Ochlan on August 27, 2007 at 11:25 AM

Satire, like fascist, is a way overused word these days. But I still know enough to tell that this POS was NOT satire.

mram on August 27, 2007 at 12:58 PM

Wingnuts?? Satire? Wow. It an extremely funny piece….not.
Moonbats actually should stay away from keyboards. Ignorance of humor in and of itself is a crime.
Treason actually.

Suz on August 27, 2007 at 1:02 PM

The liberal evasion of accountability is accomplished with words like “satire” (because it’s oh-so clever humor that you knuckle-dragging monkeys don’t get) and “context” (because you aforementioned monkeys are incapable of parsing nuanced semantics).

Oddly enough…it seems to work. Maybe we _are_ stupid?

Ochlan on August 27, 2007 at 1:14 PM

Ochlan on August 27, 2007 at 1:14 PM

Oddly enough…it seems to work. Maybe we _are_ stupid?

Speak for yourself, I’m pretty damn sure the rest of us understand what is going on. Unlike the libtards we just happen to have ethics that we don’t abandon when ever they are inconvenient.

doriangrey on August 27, 2007 at 2:42 PM

Oh I _know_ I’m stupid – at least I’m not in denial ;-)

I’ll believe the rest of your assertion when I start to see these corrupt fascists being voted out of office…until then, I’ll continue with my theory that the general public have all the intellectual horsepower of a goldfish, and are endlessly hoodwinkable by simple linguistic misdirection.

Ochlan on August 27, 2007 at 3:07 PM

Ochlan on August 27, 2007 at 3:07 PM

Luckily we have you to guide us.

Is Ochlan, Entelchy (sp?), Loundry, and a few others, are they really posters, or are they plants to make silly statements to get us to post?

No offense HA, but do you use shills? Because I don’t think people really think this way. Or is there such a cross section of people that these guys end up here by chance. Kind of like the 10% who think Elvis is still alive, or that we never went to the moon, or that there were gold tablets in a secret (oops that’s Mitt), or that 9/11 was an “inside” job.

right2bright on August 27, 2007 at 3:32 PM

Ochlan on August 27, 2007 at 3:07 PM

I’ll continue with my theory that the general public have all the intellectual horsepower of a goldfish, and are endlessly hoodwinkable by simple linguistic misdirection.

No, the majority have given up in disgust. Unfortunately of the 40 some percent of eligible voters that do vote the liberal left tard ideologs slightly outnumber the intelligent rational voters.

doriangrey on August 27, 2007 at 3:36 PM

What _are_ you blathering on about r2b? Care to point me in the direction of the warm glowing light of hope still evident in the electorate? I see very little evidence to suggest that the general public are especially aware of the unique foundations underpinning American civilization. I _do_ see stunningly transparent charlatans being constantly reelected by witless automatons, however…hence my disdain. Yes. I really _do_ think like this. No ‘shilling’ here. The incredulity communicated in your response gives me further cause for concern. Are you awake?

Dorian, I’ve no idea where you get your percipience, but I hope it works out…for all our sakes.

Ochlan on August 27, 2007 at 4:33 PM

If pushed for a percentage, I wouldn’t dare venture that more than 30% actually have a clue…I suspect closer to 20%

Ochlan on August 27, 2007 at 4:37 PM

I think he could be shot under section 409 of the Secret Code of Military Toughness… or possibly section 404 if they can’t find 409 again.

(See, THAT’S satire. You can tell because it’s “funny”…)

mojo on August 27, 2007 at 4:55 PM

We should always remain free to discuss the overthrow (partial or complete) of tyrannical government…and current laws to the contrary are ones I find very troublesome.

Ochlan on August 27, 2007 at 10:04 AM

Tyrannical? Since when did Bush become a tyrant? This is such an idiotic statement.

jdawg on August 27, 2007 at 5:36 PM

general public have all the intellectual horsepower of a goldfish, and are endlessly hoodwinkable by simple linguistic misdirection.

Ochlan on August 27, 2007 at 3:07 PM

You are part of the general public…yes, you are whom you are talking about. You are part of the general public, unless you think you are so special as to have “special” insight.

If you ask every one of the “general public” if they fit that description they would say what?
A. I am exactly that, I think like a goldfish
B. I am not like that, you are talking about someone else.

And your answer is…B, that same as the general public.

Get it? You are who you say others are.

I do not think you are real. An intelligent person would never think of themselves as having the intellect of goldfish…hence the suggestion that you are a shill to make posts more interesting.

You are either a shill, or part of the general public. I will not be endlessly hoodwinkable by simple linguistic misdirection. Whatever the heck that means. Therefore you are also a failure at being a shill.

right2bright on August 27, 2007 at 7:04 PM

The Nazis had “Lord Haw-haw”. Maybe Lewis is his descendant “Viscount Tee-hee”?

drunyan8315 on August 27, 2007 at 8:48 PM

Since when did Bush become a tyrant?

Since when did I call Bush a Tyrant?

This is such an idiotic statement.

Ahem. Backatcha.

Ochlan on August 28, 2007 at 9:45 AM

You are clearly not a goldfish, r2b…you have a much more linear intellect than that. Keep up the good work.

Ochlan on August 28, 2007 at 9:47 AM

right2bright on August 27, 2007 at 7:04 PM

He is part of the general public, he is alas also disillusioned and disenchanted with the body politic. As I pointed out before, some 60 percent of the electorate has become so disgusted with politics that they have disengaged from the system altogether. Ochlan looks as though he to is headed towards disengagement from the body politic.

What he doesn’t seem to understand is that it is that disengagement from the body politic that creates the problems that are in fact driving him away from politics. The more that rational logical reasonable people disengage from politics out of disgust the greater the impact that the loony liberal left has on the political process.

Maverick Ochlan you are not cleared to break off, repeat do not disengage…

doriangrey on August 28, 2007 at 10:32 AM

What he doesn’t seem to understand is that it is that disengagement from the body politic that creates the problems that are in fact driving him away from politics. The more that rational logical reasonable people disengage from politics out of disgust the greater the impact that the loony liberal left has on the political process.

Isn’t that the Left’s goal anyway? Frustrate and disgust the smart folks so they drift away from politics and the political process. This helps eliminate, obviously, roadblocks and challenges to their agenda.

eanax on August 28, 2007 at 4:34 PM