Reason Morning Links: Federal Reserve Ponders Action, Cuba To Release Prisoners, Ron Paul in 2012?

|

NEXT: The FBI Closes a Window to the Truth

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I posted this in the Chapman thread, but like most Chapman threads it seems kind of dead, so I’ll repost.

    A suspected serial killer was arrested through the use of a ‘familial DNA’ search, in which the investigators compared DNA from the crime scenes to the DNA database collected from the prison population and looked for someone that would be a blood relation to the suspect.

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetw…..&cc=fp

    1. Good morning Perfect Citizens !!!

    2. It seems to me that this is good police work. Am I missing something here?

      1. I’m not sure there is a problem, I just thought the story was interesting. Familial DNA testing in the course of an investigation is an idea that I hadn’t really thought about before.

    3. Emotionally, I want to be pissed off about this. But reasonably, I can’t see any reason to.

  2. Here’s one for the Balko files. Austin’s DNA Lab to get external review. (Sorry about the mobile link. However, this story is on the front page of the Austin American Statesman.)

  3. CNN editor fired for praising Hezbollah mentor on her Twitter account.

    If only she had maliciously persecuted and prosecuted johns while engaging prostitutes herself, the idiot could have her own CNN show.

    Cuba will release 52 political prisoners arrested in 2003 protests.

    See, the embargo is working after all.

  4. Iran promotes ‘Islamic’ haircuts

    Among the do’s that are now don’ts? The ’80’s Prince-style pompadour preferred by many young Iranian men, the Steven Seagal-style ponytail and the “business in the front, party in the back” sentiment of the mullet — also popular among the Persian populace.

    1. The approved styles have a distinctly 1950s look to them

      I’m not sure that these guys should want to relive the 1950s…

    2. It’s pretty funny, because it’s almost certain that Mohammad and Ali had quite long hair.

      1. Can you sketch me a picture of what that might look like?

        1. Heh.

          The Shi’ites don’t have nearly the same hangups about depicting the Prophet and Friends, though.

          1. I was thinking more about the H&R censors’ hangups.

            1. Ah. I was thinking more about Iran mandating short hair, and them being mostly Shi’ite and how fucking silly it all is.

              1. You do realize that Reason did the same thing to Welch, don’t you?

                1. Yes.

                  So I guess the real question is:

                  Long-hair Welch or Hipster-geek Welch?

                  1. I suppose whichever is more ironic.

          1. Ive always thought most pictures of Jesus didnt look jewish enough.

            1. I was raised Catholic and am European-American, so I have no problem with Anglicizing my idolatry.

            2. The BBC did a anthropoligical recreation of Jesus based on archeological evidence.

              1. This is my favourite recent UK, anthropoligical, artist’s impression:

                http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-i…..in-001.jpg

                1. db? Which one is supposed to be Jesus?

              2. I realize it’s not Friday yet, but … How about some anthropological recreations of our contemporaries based on (future) archeological evidence?

                  1. Link is dead, bro.

                    1. Link is dead SugarFreed, bro.

                      Of course it is.

                    2. Link is dead SugarFreed, bro.

                      That’s SugarFree’d, Counselor!

                      Gotta stick up for my Jedi Master!

                    3. The link still works for me. Odd.

              3. Jesus was a caveman? Hot!

              4. That jesus isn’t black enough. Try again. Without embarrassing yourself this time.

                1. What’s a Nubian?

  5. Federal Reserve Bank says, “Don’t worry, be happy.”

    1. Translation: Stock up on K-Y

  6. When he flees Cleveland during tonight’s LeBron Narcissathon, will it be known forever in the Mistake By The Lake as Black Thursday? And is that racist?

    1. If Adrian Peterson can be called “Purple Jesus” without a problem, Black Thursday is not inappropriate.

      And… Cleveland sucks.

      1. Nobody fucks with the Jesus!

        1. Not even Mary Magdalene?

      2. Jesus couldn’t hold on to the ball either?

      1. Hey, where’s my praise for “LeBron Narcissathon”? It rhymes and everything.

      2. Whoa whoa whoa.

        You were just defending Lady GaGa’s honor the other day on the cigarette tax thread, and now you have the gall to criticize LeBron for being “self-aggrandizing”?

        1. LeBron : basketball :: Lady Gaga : weirdness.

          They’re both experts in something and they both know how to market themselves in it.

  7. With Congress tied in political knots over whether to take further action to boost the economy

    The MSM is so effin transparent. FFS, at least say “attempt to boost”.

  8. Federal Reserve considering new ways to intervene in stalled economy.

    At this point it’s just willful blindness for them to think they can control the economy.

  9. CNN editor fired for praising Hezbollah mentor on her Twitter account.

    Good riddance.

    1. Maybe she’ll get picked up by Al Jazeera or RT or any of the other (available digitally for free with an antenna) dissident news stations.

      1. I’m waiting for the handheld digital nudie self portraits that she also thought would remain private somehow but ended up being an error in judgment as well.

  10. The “Islamic” haircuts were unveiled at the Hijab and Chastity Festival

    Sign me up!

  11. The funny thing about the CNN firing is that Churchill could stand on the floor of the House of Commons and voice respect for one of his Nazi enemies, and it’s one of his most famous speeches.

    But, of course, Hezbollah is so much worse than Nazi Germany, and so much more of a threat than Nazi Germany was, that we have to make sure we stamp out any quasi-positive reference to anyone even remotely connected with them, lest they conquer us all and make us their dhimmis.

    Either that, or our political class is now made up entirely of psychotic infants.

    It’s one of those two.

    1. Either that, or our political class is now made up entirely of psychotic infants.

      I think we have a winner!

    2. What are you referencing here?

      And why feel the need to rise to the defense of some airhead who praised a Holocause-denier and supported suicide bombing?

      1. I don’t know anything about the dead guy one way or another.

        I do know, however, that it is perfectly possible to have an enemy, even a terrible enemy, but to find reasons to respect that enemy.

        Especially in the hothouse conditions in the quote-unquote holy land and Levant, where all the players are jammed into an area the size of Delaware and everyone knows everyone for the simple reason that they’re stuck with each other.

        So I’m not rising to anyone’s defense, as much as I’m pissing on the assholes who reflexively demand the scalp of anyone who fails to demonstrate the proper amount of hatred for Eurasia during the Two Minutes’ Hate. Which is what this is really about.

        CNN as an employer is free to do what they want. But I’m free to recognize that they feel compelled to act this way because they’re cowards, who are afraid of criticism from fanatics.

        The really funny thing is that the same US government and media establishment that demonizes the dread Arab enemy will turn around on a dime and embrace these same people, and cut them checks, as soon as they can see any advantage in doing so. In much the same way that neoconservative foreign policy establishment denounced as traitors anyone who supported a negotiated settlement with the Iraqi insurgency, but then turned around and bribed and co-opted those same insurgents as soon as no one was looking, as soon as they think they can cut a deal the state department will be bribing and co-opting Hezbollah and Hamas, too. Because if you or I fail in our devotion to hating these guys for even a moment, we’re traitors and criminals who need to be drummed out of public life and fired from our jobs – but the state department can do whatever the fuck it wants.

    3. If people wanted to fire churchill, they’d have to call for parliamentary elections.

      If CNN wants to fire the mid-east correspondent for showing a bias in favor of Hezbollah, well, that’s their business.

      1. Agreed, Abdul.

    4. Or perhaps we learned from the example of WWII that apeasement doesn’t work.

      1. Winston Churchill: The Great Appeaser.

    5. A journalist isn’t supposed to evince bias about a subject they’re covering. If a journalist covering national politics praises Obama publicly, then they should be fired too.

      1. All we’d have left is Fox News and Reason. Interesting.

      2. Exactly. This is no different than the Post firing Weigel for getting caught disparaging the people he was ostensibly supposed to be covering in an unbiased neutral fashion.

        And CNN is not MSNBC; they go out of their way to put themselves forth as as a centrist, fact-based news network. They’re already in the toilet as it is, and I’m sure the absolute last thing they want is having people in their ever-dwindling audience wondering if they’re secretly pro-Hezbollah.

      3. So if Obama died, and someone tweeted, “You know, I always respected him,” that person has to be banned from covering politics?

        In that case, can we eliminate from national journalism anyone who said something like that when Jack Kennedy died? Or when Ted Kennedy died? Or when Nixon died? Or when Reagan died?

        Because all of those people have demonstrated that they can’t be objective. Right?

  12. The persecution of Steven Hatfill.

    Great article from The Atlantic Monthly on how the government and media maliciously fucked the guy over. Special hate goes to NY Times holier-than-thou fuckface Kristof.

    1. What an awesome article.

      Does the 5.82 million in the settlement come out of the FBI agents’ paychecks?

      1. My favourite detail was how they ran over the guys foot and then charged him with a traffic violation. Nice one guys.

    2. I’m glad they didn’t drive them to suicide or we’d think the case was solved.

      1. him not them.

    3. I couldn’t make it through the whole article. Too maddening.

      Long list of worthless statist cunts…

      Don Foster, the Vassar professor
      Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, a passionate crusader against the use of bioweapons
      Attorney General John Ashcroft publicly declared [Hatfill] a “person of interest”
      Harp admitted to serving as a confidential source for more than a dozen journalists during the case
      CBS correspondent Jim Stewart
      Among those beating the drum early and loud, in the summer of 2002, was Nicholas Kristof

  13. James Bullard, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, said … “You shouldn’t sit on your hands. . . . I think there’s plenty more we could do if we had to.”

    Fap, fap, fap!

  14. I seriously love the media sometimes:

    Paradoxically, Ayatollah Fadlallah was also distinguished by his comparatively progressive positions on women’s rights and family law…he argued that women had the right to defend themselves from domestic violence.

    —-

    Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah was known for his relatively liberal views on women, such as that they are equal to men

    —-

    He issued a fatwa forbidding female circumcision, and was opposed to the “honour killings” of women by their families.

    Those are mad “liberal” credentials, to be sure.

  15. This happened just a couple of days ago: Alleged ‘family day’ incident at sex offender facility spurs Department of Corrections investigation.

    An inmate inappropriately touched a 9-year-old girl during a family event at a specialized prison for sex offenders in Avenel last month, internal documents show, and the Department of Corrections says it has launched an examination into the incident and all family programs.

    1. What kind of fucking moron brings their child to a sex offender prison?

      1. Moron? Do you know what it takes to get a pack of smokes in this joint?


  16. More than 20 African American religious and community leaders called Wednesday for Alice Huffman to resign as president of the California State Conference of the NAACP after she and her organization endorsed a ballot measure that would legalize marijuana in the state.

    Bishop Ron Allen and other members of the International Faith-Based Coalition said Proposition 19 on the November ballot would hurt African Americans, and he criticized Huffman’s backing of the measure.

    “Why would the state NAACP advocate for blacks to stay high?” Allen said at a Capitol news conference. “It’s going to cause crime to go up. There will be more drug babies.”

    LA Times

    It’s good to know people are looking at this rationally.

    Bonus points for accusing the NAACP of being in the pocket of notorious druglord George Soros.

    1. There will be more drug babies.

      Coffee and cream babies, if you catch my drift.

    2. This initiative is going to be a pretty good test to see how successful all those anti-drug propaganda programs have been.

  17. “Why would the state NAACP advocate for blacks to stay high?” Allen said at a Capitol news conference.

    Advocating for legalization is not advocating for people to get high (NTTAWT). Its advocating for not putting people in jail for getting high.

    “It’s going to cause crime to go up.

    Actually, won’t it make crime go down, since all those drug possession and distribution crimes will disappear?

    There will be more drug babies.”

    I’ve heard of crack babies, but not pot babies.

    Sad to see that the “leaders” of the community that has been most victimized by the drug war support more assaults on their communities.

    1. When we were looking into adoption, we researched the various effects of in-vitro drug use. Pot has some effect, but it’s far less damaging that alcohol and most other drugs.

    2. “There will be more drug babies.”

      Remember, it’s a gateway drug RC! (Power, that is. It leads to hyperbole and suspension of rational objectivity.)

      Sad to see that the “leaders” of the community that has been most victimized by the drug war support more assaults on their communities.

      The sad fact is, the WoD numerous casualties of liberty include the statism of the right and the imposition of draconian measures is wholly embraced. I see this fellow, however well meaning, (and I believe he does earnestly want the lives of his community improved) as little mote than a right-wing statist Sharpton-type who has no problem inviting the state to “clean up the scourge of pot”. (emphasis mine)

      “Why would the state NAACP advocate for blacks to stay high?” Allen said at a Capitol news conference.

      Apparently, the scores of erstwhile Def Comedy Jam comedians, such as Chris Rock, Chris Tucker, Joe Torrie and the late Robin Harris, not to mention your average “thug life” rap star in attendance at the NAACP and Essence awards, sending forth and ingraining the myth in perpetuity that every “authentic” black person is a foul-mouthed ne’er-do-well who hangs on the street corner smoking blunts, is lost upon the good Bishop. Perhaps he is angry and jealous that his religiosity cannot reach the yoots like the glamorous BET “thug life” does.

    3. I wonder what he calls newborns who are addicted to high-tar cigarettes?

      1. “Menthol babies”

    4. His real reason is it takes jobs from poor hardworking gang bangers and gives them to rich white entrepreneurs.

  18. “I’m high all right … but not on false drugs. I’m high on the real thing — powerful gasoline, a clean windshield, and a shoeshine.”

  19. Those are mad “liberal” credentials, to be sure.

    There’s been a wave of “but fill-in-the-al-blank thinks women should be allowed to drive if all their living male relatives are in the car with them, so he’s not, like, Palin Taliban” crap in the Respectable Journalism world lately.

    I have to stop reading British news (and The Atlantic).

    1. I thought the feds took over administering all that. Wasn’t that what putting the Pay Czar in charge of the $20BB Slush Fund was all about?

      1. Perhaps the good and reputably even-handed and fair Ken Feinberg has deemed their claims illegitimate and unworthy of merit.

        Hi Dr. Berwick! I’m sure you’re taking good notes on this fair equitable dispensation of resources.

      2. Well, first they have to reimburse the UAW and GM for the profits they lost from cars that would have been sold on the Gulf Coast if the fishing industry hadn’t gone tits-up. Priorities, people.

  20. Ron Paul considering 2012 run for the White House.

    Careful what you ask for. You might get it.

    1. It is still early yet and more people know the name Obama than know the name Ron Paul. Name recognition goes a long way. But by the time 2010 rolls around that will hopefully turn around.

      1. make that by the time 2012 rolls around.

    2. It took George W. Bush to get us Barack Obama. Maybe it takes Barack Obama to get us Ron Paul.

    3. Notice Paul leads big amongst independents. IIRC, there was a poll showing he had the largest lead over Obama amongst independents of all the possible GOP candidates.

  21. http://newledger.com/2010/07/the-paper-greenwald/

    Great takedown of that dispicable little troll Glenn Greenwald. The fact that self proclaimed “libertarians” praise this clown, shows how far Bush derrangment sydrome went.

    1. Actually, that’s a worthless diatribe that amounts to nothing more than saying that anyone who criticizes Israel ever is an evil antisemite.

      Nice link, dick.

      1. Oh, and they don’t like his adjectives because they’re “prepubescent”.

        Wow, nice criticism.

    2. There are exactly TWO claims of any substance made in that article:

      1. That Greenwald is wrong to question the IDF statement that the people on the Gaza flotilla attacked them first.

      2. That Greenwald is wrong to say that Israel is engaged in collective punishment of civilians in Gaza in defiance of the Geneva conventions.

      To these criticisms I have to say:

      1. When the IDF returns, undisturbed, every recording device and cell phone they seized from those on board the flotilla ships, we can then evaluate this criticism. Until then, we can’t. Don’t like the fact that people can claim that those recording devices contain all kinds of freaky shit? Don’t seize them, then.

      2. The article argues that although Israel is, in fact, engaged in collective punishment of civilians in Gaza, since Hamas is not a signatory to the Conventions Israel is not in violation of them. Which is kind of an insane defense against Greenwald’s claim. “Yes, we’re engaged in the atrocity you say we’re engaged in. But it’s technically not a violation of the Conventions, so nyah nyah nyah nah nah!” Wow, that really makes Greenwald’s criticism of Israel’s conduct look silly, doesn’t it?

      1. Saddam Hussein never violated the Geneva Conventions in his Kurd and Shi’ite massacres either.

        1. And if Turkey were to withdraw from the UN and put all their Kurds into extermination camps, would these guys say, “Well, you can’t really say that Turkey is violating the UN Charter or any treaty against genocide, because they withdrew from all those agreements. Oh well, I guess we can’t criticize Turkey.”

          Somehow I don’t think they would say that.

    3. Thanks for the link. Personally, I’ll never forget that this scumbag was equating the Nazi conquest of Europe with the US invasion of Iraq. He wrote a long post doing exactly that and then added a short weaselly paragraph denying what he did. The hatred of America by Greenwald and his ilk pushes them to whitewash the heinous Nazi war crimes.

      1. On the Khatyn massacre.

        On 22 March 1943, a Nazi motor convoy was attacked by partisan guerillas near Koziri village just 6 km away from Khatyn, resulting in the deaths of four military police officers of 118th Schutzmannschaft battalion, a police battalion made up chiefly of Ukranian collaborators, prisoners of war and deserters.[3] [2] Among the dead was 1936 Olympic Games champion Hauptmann Hans Woellke, the battalion’s commanding officer.[4] In retaliation, the Nazis opened fire on villagers of Koziri, who worked at the felling site. 26 people were killed. Motor convoy returned to Logoisk, the incident was reported to General SS Dirlewanger. That afternoon, the 118th Schutzmannschaft battalion, reinforced by troops from the 36th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS,[4] or Dirlewanger Brigade, a unit mostly composed of criminals recruited for anti-partisan duties, entered the village and drove the inhabitants from their houses and into a shed, which was then covered with straw and set on fire. The trapped people managed to break down the front doors, but in trying to escape, were killed by machine gun fire. 149 people, including 75 children, were killed. The village was then looted and burned to the ground.[5]

        Viktor Zhelobkovich, a seven-year-old boy, survived the fire in the shed under the corpse of his mother.[5] Another boy, 12-year-old Anton Baranovsky, was left for dead due to a leg wound.[5] The only adult survivor of the Khatyn massacre, 56-year-old village smith Yuzif Kaminsky, also wounded and burnt, recovered consciousness after the Germans had left. He supposedly found his burned son who later died in his arms. This incident was later artistically honored in the form of a statue at the Khatyn Memorial.[5]

        At least 5,295 Belarusian settlements were destroyed by the Nazis and some or all their inhabitants killed. Population of 618 Belarusian villages was burned alive. In the Vitebsk region 243 villages were burned down twice, 83 villages three times, and 22 villages were burned down four or more times. In the Minsk region 92 villages were burned down twice, 40 villages three times, nine villages four times, and six villages five or more times.[6] Altogether, 2,230,000 people were killed in Belarus during the three years of German occupation, about a quarter of the country’s population.[7][8]

      2. The reason you won’t put up the link is because that’s not really what he did.

        1. The link is here.

          I can do even better. Here’s the weaselly paragraph I mentioned. Even here he cannot bring himself to admit that the Nazi conquest was not comparable to the US invasion of Iraq: “may or may not”

          It should go without saying, but doesn’t: the point here is not that the attack on Iraq is comparable to these above-referenced invasions. It may or may not be, but that’s irrelevant.

          1. Wow, that’s even more intellectually dishonest than I was suspecting.

            You’re either just too fucking stupid to recognize the reductio ad absurdum method of criticizing an argument, or you do recognize it and you’re just flat out being dishonest because you think it gives you an advantage.

            I guess that’s why he wrote “It should go without saying, but doesn’t” – because of people like you.

            1. For people too lazy to RTFA, Greenwald wrote a column about Jonah Goldberg.

              Jonah had said that the US invasion of Iraq was justified because many Kurds favored it.

              Greenwald wrote that if an invasion can be justified because a portion of the population of the invaded country favored it, that would mean that Germany’s annexation of Czechoslovakia was justified, because many Sudeten Germans favored it.

              It would be harder to find a more textbook example of a reductio ad absurdum being twisted by a douchebag than grizzly’s post. It ranks up there with what was thrown at Bill Bennett when he used the reductio to talk about abortion and crime rates.

              Appalling. Really appalling.

              1. Greenwald (and you) wrote thousands of words comparing justifications for the US invasion of Iraq to the German conquest of Europe. Why? Because this is the most inflammatory comparison one can think of. And then he (and you) dishonestly claimed that it wasn’t his purpose to draw a parallel between the US and Nazi Germany. I don’t need proof beyond reasonable doubt to see what that scumbug was driving at. For him and other self-loathing haters of the US (and Israel) any parallel between the US and Nazi Germany is another justification for their moral solipsism.

    4. Another great part of this article is where they argue that since the aim of the flotilla was to lift the Gaza blockade, that makes the flotilla “violent” even if they don’t actually use force, since anyone who does anything to get the Gaza blockade lifted is automatically engaged in violence against Israel.

      Of course, that would mean that anyone who marches in a demonstration against the blockade, or writes a letter to the editor against the blockade, is also engaged in violence against Israel, and they shouldn’t complain if the IDF comes and kills them. Those activities also would have the aim of lifting the blockade, and therefore would also automatically be violent, according to the geniuses who wrote this article.

  22. Ron Paul-Gary Johnson 2012

    1. Are you serious?

  23. Actually, that’s a worthless diatribe that amounts to nothing more than saying that anyone who criticizes Israel ever is an evil antisemite.

    Pretty much what I expected. Thanks for saving me the aggravation, Fluffy.

    1. By “his ilk” in my post above I meant you and fluffy.

      1. I don’t whitewash anything.

        When the US undertakes individual acts or policies that are similar to acts undertaken by either the Nazi or Soviet regimes, you know what? I get to say, “This is like what the Nazis and the Soviets did.”

        It is not necessary for every last facet or aspect of American society and governance to be turned into an Epcot Center reproduction of Nazi Germany before such comparisons are made.

        If the US started, say, sterilizing mentally handicapped people, and I said, “This is like what Nazi Germany did,” if you came back to me and said, “How dare you minimize the Nazi atrocities by comparing us to them! The Nazis were so much worse and did X, Y and Z too! You are comparing our brave men in uniform to the Waffen SS blah blah blahdy blah blah!” that would make you a douchebag.

  24. That’s nice.

  25. ROn Paul,

    Please please please dont run…instead pledge all your support (with our fav Paultard fans) to Gary Johnson. We can do this!

  26. as a long time supporter of dr. paul, i hope he does run again, he would get my vote and financial support[again].
    the problem would be his age, hes not exactly young anymore……depending on how strong his son rand is politically, maybe we will see a different paul with same message in 2016/2020…..something to ponder, anyway…….

  27. The article argues that although Israel is, in fact, engaged in collective punishment of civilians in Gaza,

    That’s a little tendentious, Fluffy. Israel has a blockade to prevent the importation of weapons to a group of people who have been more or less continually attacking Israel for years now.

    Do the civilians suffer? Sure, civilians suffer whenever there is armed conflict.

    Is Israel “collectively punishing” civilians? Only if you are willing to stretch the term to cover every action that has some adverse impact on third parties. Which seems like a good way to drain it of all impact.

  28. No, I’m talking about what the article says.

    Leave to one side completely the question of whether or not Israel actually is collectively punishing Gazans.

    In the article bitching at Greenwald, the authors says “Yeah, it’s collective punishment, but Hamas isn’t a signatory to the Geneva Conventions so it’s OK.”

    That’s their argument.

    I’m just pointing out that this doesn’t really seem like a good way to prove that Greenwald is an anti-Israel zealot. Admitting the atrocity, as the article’s author admits the atrocity, but saying we shouldn’t complain about that atrocity because Hamas is not a GC signatory, doesn’t really seem to me like that devastating a critique of Greenwald.

  29. Greenwald (and you) wrote thousands of words comparing justifications for the US invasion of Iraq to the German conquest of Europe. Why? Because this is the most inflammatory comparison one can think of.

    Um, right, you fucking dumbass.

    That’s what a reductio ad absurdum is, you dope.

    It takes an argument that has been offered, and finds the most outrageous scenario that argument could also be used to justify. It then presents that argument back to the original arguer, to see if they are intellectually honest enough to either be consistent and endorse the inflammatory example, or withdraw the argument.

    1. First, go fuck yourself. Aren’t you Greenwald’s sock-puppet, or just his “boyfriend”?

      Greenwald’s fake outrage would be noteworthy only if I extended to him the benefit of the doubt. I categorically don’t. I’ve read enough of his scribbles to know what he means.

      1. Right, because you have no fucking answer.

        Because you’re stupid, and because I called you on it, and because it’s so fucking obvious that I’m right that you have nothing to say.

        Because I exposed your fucking 4th-grade education and inability to understand basic methods of argument, and you have literally no reply to give me.

        Blow me.

      2. Just to help you out, based on my last post, there are two possible ways you could proceed that would count as, you know, actual arguments:

        1. You could demonstrate that my understanding of the method of argument in question is wrong.

        2. You could demonstrate that Greenwald’s argument was not one of this type.

        But because you can’t do either of those things, you decide to double down on your foolishness by openly employing the ad hominem fallacy. And not even the fake type of ad hominem that people always misidentify on the internet, but the actual one: your counter to me is that because it’s Greenwald, that means the argument can’t possibly be what I’m saying it is.

        Congratulations.

        1. An ability to write Latin words in italic doesn’t make you smart or well educated. Evaluating a person as a whole and taking this into account while interpreting his words is not the ad hominem fallacy but is an entirely reasonable approach. If the Greenwalds’s article in question were the only evidence of his position on the Iraq war, USA, “neo-cons” etc then I’d be much more charitable and could easily defend his article myself. But since this is his 5000th attempt to draw parallels between the USA (or Israel) and the Nazi Germany, I can reach my own conclusions.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.