See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

1. Will The Democrats Ever Worry About Corruption? | NEOAVATARA
2. Congress continues to make my point - Murtha’s nephew and $4 million | Radio Vice Online
3. John Murtha’s nephew gets government padding for defense contracts | Conservative Political Report
4. More Insanity from DC… John Murtha Puts Your Taxpayer Stimulus Money to Work « Frugal Café Blog Zone
5. Liberty Pundit | Murtha’s Nephew Got Millions In No-Competition Defense Contracts
6. The President who keeps on giving: Obama was wrong about Churchill and the British « Jim Blazsik
7. Let Freedom Ring » Blog Archive » Murtha’s Corruption Hitting Closer to Home
8. The Culture of Corruption is still going strong « Urbin Report
9. Nepotism And Earmarks Alive And Well In Murtha-land « Jane Q. Republican
10. Culture of Intolerance: Miss California Attacked for Faith, Sexual Photos, Beliefs on Marriage « Peace and Freedom Promises
11. Nightly Ramble: The “Back to School” edition | BitsBlog
12. Wow! Those Murthas KNOW how to get money « The Daley Gator
13. GayPatriot » New Kind of Politics in our Nation’s Capital:“Culture of Corruption” Crosses the Aisle
14. The Smell Of Bacon Overwhelms The Senses « Around The Sphere

Trackback URL

Comments

1. #695336
   On May 6th, 2009 at 9:21 am, chapoutier said:

   I find it quite curious that one has the confidence to make such a statement without regards to the following:

   Who said I made that statement without regard to the following? I said socio-economic are a contributing factor. That means there can be other underlying causes. One can point out/describe one piece of a jigsaw puzzle without making mention of the others on the table.

   If I had made such a broad statement in any of my college or graduate school papers, I would have been critiqued for it as I’m doing now to Chaps. I also find it quite interesting that social and economic factors that Chaps attributes to terrorism in general doesn’t necessarily equate to the elite leadership of Al Qaeda.

   Oh please. let’s not start on that whole “you didn’t write a dissertation on an internet message board so you’re wrong” crap. Happens to be that we are not turning in a paper for college or graduate school. Funny that standard of excellence is only thrown out against the lib posters here.

   Whatever, this is stupid. I am sorry your feelings were hurt because I pointed out your error. I didn’t mean to pick on you. It was actually the first good example I came across when I google searched the site.

   And if want to keep using the term at best lazily and at worst incorrectly, by all means. I have no doubt you will continue to be in good company.

   In any case I am not so sure about txvet’s definition. I am curious how many different links txvet had to click on to find a source that would marginally back up what definition he was trying to say. I tried to find his “Random House Online Dictionary” (not Websters as I had incorrectly stated before). The only thing I can find is this:

   a fabricated or conveniently weak or innocuous person, object, matter, etc., used as a seeming adversary or argument: The issue she railed about was no more than a straw man.

   This is attributed to Random House’s Dictionary. And is not the same as txvet’s purported definition. And in fact is quite different. It is not saying it is simply a bad argument. it is stating that it is “fabricated” or “conveniently weak” i.e., an intentionally bad argument that is set up as an adversary, i.e., YOU CANNOT CALL SOMEONE’S OWN ARGUMENT A STRAWMAN!

   And, if you look at all the other definitions there, you won’t find any that say a straw man is simply a weak argument someone is making.

   I am done with this. Accept that you used the term wrong. Or don’t. I don’t care enough to continue trying to explain it to you.

2. #696002
   On May 6th, 2009 at 5:34 pm, txvet2 said:

   On May 6th, 2009 at 9:21 am, chapoutier said:

   In any case I am not so sure about txvet’s definition. I am curious how many different links txvet had to click on to find a source that would marginally back up what definition he was trying to say. I tried to find his “Random House Online Dictionary” (not Websters as I had incorrectly stated before).

   Could be because it wasn’t an “online” dictionary. I keep trying to avoid using derogatory terms for your apparent inability to read and comprehend even the simplest text, but it’s getting harder. And my transcription was exact. Your interpretation is what is at variance.

3. #697063
   On May 7th, 2009 at 10:15 pm, emjem24 said:

   chapoutier said:

   Who said I made that statement without regard to the following? I said socio-economic are a contributing factor. That means there can be other underlying causes. One can point out/describe one piece of a jigsaw puzzle without making mention of the others on the table.

   I just noticed something interesting. You tacked on the word “contributing.” Can you link where you said this? I know that you like to put on your sociological hat on in times like this but I’d rather see such assertions backed up with actual facts (you know those pesky things you accuse me of not having). Could you possibly either link or provide actual examples of these contributing factors?

   Whatever, this is stupid. I am sorry your feelings were hurt because I pointed out your error. I didn’t mean to pick on you. It was actually the first good example I came across when I google searched the site.

   Ummm… dude…stop being so silly. You’re not sorry about anything and really don’t seem the type. You’ve said some very generalized things in the past and think they are FACT. Just like your theory about the causes of terrorism. Man, is this a past conversation with Rusty?

   And if want to keep using the term at best lazily and at worst incorrectly, by all means. I have no doubt you will continue to be in good company.

   This is why, at best, I never take anything you say at face value. I don’t use any term “lazily” (I grew up with academics) and I don’t appreciate the condescension. Is it possible that you can actually stop for a second and just realize that your broad/general statements are either unsubstantiated or unsupported?

   I admit I don’t know it all but having dealt with academics (and not amateur ones on the net) I’ve learned not to take one’s theories as facts.

   I am done with this. Accept that you used the term wrong. Or don’t. I don’t care enough to continue trying to explain it to you.

   No, you simply haven’t the patience to actually understand that some of your broad, generalized statements, be they strawman or NOT, are not well estimated or fleshed out. If you really want to understand the socioeconomic implications of terrorism (or the factors of such) perhaps, you should actually read a journal and see what experts actually say.

   Or you can spout off some generalized theory to your heart’s content over a good bottle of your favorite wine to make you feel good about how much you don’t know about the things you talk about.

4. #697075
   On May 7th, 2009 at 10:26 pm, emjem24 said:

   txvet2 said:

   Could be because it wasn’t an “online” dictionary. I keep trying to avoid using derogatory terms for your apparent inability to read and comprehend even the simplest text, but it’s getting harder. And my transcription was exact. Your interpretation is what is at variance.

   It was a nice attempt, txvet2. I applaud your effords. I really do. I did the unthinkable which triggered this chain- I “distorted” Obummer by using a strawman argument. I used an “illustration” of what the state department and the Peace Corps have been doing in the past and what will be done again, no matter the president.

   Oh, well, honest engagement doesn’t always suit Chaps’ purposes or those of other liberals who like to think themselves “evolved” because they post their errant musings on conservative blogs.

   Just remember: facts don’t matter.