NationStates Jolt Archive

I've decided that a large number of bloggers, both liberal and conservative, are very much insane.

I've been hearing a lot about how "viscious" left-wing blogs are supposed to be, so I decided, with the help of google, to investigate the claims myself. After surfing through Google for a couple of hours pairing words like "liberal" or "conservative" with nastier words like "fascist", "Communist", "stupid", "evil", etc., I've decided that not only are a large number of bloggers just utter morons, they don't really care about the issues.

I think that both mainstream liberals and conservatives are guilty of it. All of the radical left and right-wing libertarian blogs I visited were much more curteous to their opponents and much more focused on issues.

So, as far as a I can tell, there is no such thing as "the viscious far left blogs" that Faux News speaks so often about. However, there are a lot of stupid, and viscious mainstream liberal and conservative blogs.

If this is the future of political campaigning, then there is no hope for "moderate" democracy.

All the more reason never to read blogs.

If they were talented and capable enough to write genuinely well, they could get jobs in serious journalism.

Unedited self-published ramblings - no thanks.

All the more reason never to read blogs.

If they were talented and capable enough to write genuinely well, they could get jobs in serious journalism.

Unedited self-published ramblings - no thanks.

Don't get me wrong, there are some intelligent and thoughtful bloggers out there. Not all of them are insipid morons, but it can seem that ways some times.

I've decided that a large number of bloggers, both liberal and conservative, are very much insane.

I've been hearing a lot about how "viscious" left-wing blogs are supposed to be, so I decided, with the help of google, to investigate the claims myself. After surfing through Google for a couple of hours pairing words like "liberal" or "conservative" with nastier words like "fascist", "Communist", "stupid", "evil", etc., I've decided that not only are a large number of bloggers just utter morons, they don't really care about the issues.

I think that both mainstream liberals and conservatives are guilty of it. All of the radical left and right-wing libertarian blogs I visited were much more curteous to their opponents and much more focused on issues.

So, as far as a I can tell, there is no such thing as "the viscious far left blogs" that Faux News speaks so often about. However, there are a lot of stupid, and viscious mainstream liberal and conservative blogs.

If this is the future of political campaigning, then there is no hope for "moderate" democracy.

No shit, Sherlock.

Really? I've never had a problem at the blogs I go to, which are mainstream left blogs (with a couple of mainstream middle-right blogs). I read DailyKos, Balloon-Juice, Crooks & Liars, and occasionally TalkingPointsMemo. I've never had a problem with the actual bloggers. The comments sections can be trolly, but I've learned to ignore them.

Kos can occasionally be maddening when he's targetting Barack Obama with stupid, empty "Gotcha!" nonsense, but that's about it. I've never experienced any of the things you're talking about. In my experience it's the far-left and far-right blogs that are the most intollerant of opposing views. Liberal blogs do have a vulgar streak, I suppose.

Bloggers are infinitely preferable to mainstream media. Mainstream Media twists everything as much as the bloggers do. At least with the bloggers you know the twist you're getting. I'll also point out that the best coverage of the Scooter Libby trial was done by Firedoglake.

I've decided that a large number of bloggers, both liberal and conservative, are very much insane.

I've been hearing a lot about how "viscious" left-wing blogs are supposed to be, so I decided, with the help of google, to investigate the claims myself. After surfing through Google for a couple of hours pairing words like "liberal" or "conservative" with nastier words like "fascist", "Communist", "stupid", "evil", etc., I've decided that not only are a large number of bloggers just utter morons, they don't really care about the issues.

I think that both mainstream liberals and conservatives are guilty of it. All of the radical left and right-wing libertarian blogs I visited were much more curteous to their opponents and much more focused on issues.

So, as far as a I can tell, there is no such thing as "the viscious far left blogs" that Faux News speaks so often about. However, there are a lot of stupid, and viscious mainstream liberal and conservative blogs.

If this is the future of political campaigning, then there is no hope for "moderate" democracy.

I completely agree.

I've decided that a large number of bloggers, both liberal and conservative, are very much insane.

Only a "large number of us"? O_O Wow! We're saner than I thought! :D


[Snip].

I think that both mainstream liberals and conservatives are guilty of it. All of the radical left and right-wing libertarian blogs I visited were much more curteous to their opponents and much more focused on issues.

What you said is true enough for most liberterian sites of my acquantance although I would make an exception for Tim Blair's site, entertaining and informative though it is. If I were cynical I might wonder out loud if that were not merely a function of the fact that liberals and conservatives have a chance to win while liberterians and radical leftists were a bunch of no-hopers who could therefore afford to be more detached. Cats without claws don't scratch as much as the ones that do. :P

That said, I am interested in what your distinction between radical left and mainstream liberal would be. The supposed differences between the two groups seemed to blur enough in the 2004 election that it's actually interesting seeing them try to draw differences between themselves once more. From the point of view of *this* Republican I would consider it instructive if I were ever to get a bunch of radicals and mainstreamers to draw these supposed distinctions between themselves in their own words in their own words sometime. :)

In particular I would be interested in hearing which blogs *you* consider to be radical and which ones *you* consider to be mainstream. :confused:

If this is the future of political campaigning, then there is no hope for "moderate" democracy.

Oh? And yet we have jogged along quite nicely on campaigning a *lot* more vicious than that for the past 230 years. Have you forgotten "Daisy Girl"? "Mother, Mother, Where's my Paw? Gone to the White House. Haw, Haw. Haw!", "Van, Van, a used up man!", "John Quincy Adams who can write, Andrew Jackson who can fight!"? Read some history and you'll see what I mean. :p There's an old Chicago saying, "Politics ain't beanbag!" but it's still a lot nicer than the politics that the totalitarianism of the Far Left has bestowed upon us. When you take a look at what radical left regimes like Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and Magubwe have done both in terms of propaganda and deeds it's pretty clear that democracy is still the Wave of the Future and Socialism is nothing more than roadkill on the Highway of History. ;)

All the more reason never to read blogs.

If they were talented and capable enough to write genuinely well, they could get jobs in serious journalism.

Unedited self-published ramblings - no thanks.

Speaking of which, did you notice the AP *still* can't give a straight answer to the question of "Who is Jamil Hussein?" :rolleyes:

Kinda shows what the "serious journalists" of the AP are worth, don't it? :p

Speaking of which, did you notice the AP *still* can't give a straight answer to the question of "Who is Jamil Hussein?" :rolleyes:

Kinda shows what the "serious journalists" of the AP are worth, don't it? :p

Where have you been? He was identified long ago, and was in danger of being arrested by the Iraqi authorities for talking to the press without permission.

Where have you been? He was identified long ago, and was in danger of being arrested by the Iraqi authorities for talking to the press without permission.

Except that this turns out not to be the case.

http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/211680.php

http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/212802.php

It's also worth noting that the reason this "Jamil Hussein" is a joke is that not only is he a psuedonym at best and a fictional character at worst but that the articles associated with him clearly provided false information.

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006728.htm

http://instapundit.com/archives2/001918.php

This is not the only time the AP got it wrong and got it wrong badly even when it was easy to verify.

http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2007/01/16/instapundit-1-ap-0/

They blew it and they blew it big. They can hope that time will bury it. They can hope that readers like you would rather be told things comforting to your point of view rather than what is true. But that is all they can hope for. :rolleyes:

Ultimately up to you and their other readers as to whether that is the sort of thing you'll be willing to accept from them.

Except that this turns out not to be the case.

http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/211680.php

http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/212802.php

It's also worth noting that the reason this "Jamil Hussein" is a joke is that not only is he a psuedonym at best and a fictional character at worst but that the articles associated with him clearly provided false information.

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006728.htm

http://instapundit.com/archives2/001918.php

This is not the only time the AP got it wrong and got it wrong badly even when it was easy to verify.

http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2007/01/16/instapundit-1-ap-0/

They blew it and they blew it big. They can hope that time will bury it. They can hope that readers like you would rather be told things comforting to your point of view rather than what is true. But that is all they can hope for. :rolleyes:

Ultimately up to you and their other readers as to whether that is the sort of thing you'll be willing to accept from them.5 links, and not a single reliable one among them. Malkin? Reynolds? Confederate Fucking Yankee? That's pathetic.

Blogs are pretty damn dumb, and quite often poorly written. I've not read any of them with any frequency; save humor blogs only.

All the more reason never to read blogs.

If they were talented and capable enough to write genuinely well, they could get jobs in serious journalism.

Unedited self-published ramblings - no thanks.

Yes, talented and capable like Jayson Blair ('http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair')

Yes, talented and capable like Jayson Blair ('http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair')

Of course, in the instance of Mr. Blair, he was the exception to the rule.

As far as blogs are concerned, lack of quality is the rule.

Of course, in the instance of Mr. Blair, he was the exception to the rule.

As far as blogs are concerned, lack of quality is the rule.

Really?

I haven't seen any glaring errors at the ones I read regularly.

Only a "large number of us"? O_O Wow! We're saner than I thought! :D


[Snip].



What you said is true enough for most liberterian sites of my acquantance although I would make an exception for Tim Blair's site, entertaining and informative though it is. If I were cynical I might wonder out loud if that were not merely a function of the fact that liberals and conservatives have a chance to win while liberterians and radical leftists were a bunch of no-hopers who could therefore afford to be more detached. Cats without claws don't scratch as much as the ones that do. :P

That said, I am interested in what your distinction between radical left and mainstream liberal would be. The supposed differences between the two groups seemed to blur enough in the 2004 election that it's actually interesting seeing them try to draw differences between themselves once more. From the point of view of *this* Republican I would consider it instructive if I were ever to get a bunch of radicals and mainstreamers to draw these supposed distinctions between themselves in their own words in their own words sometime. :)

In particular I would be interested in hearing which blogs *you* consider to be radical and which ones *you* consider to be mainstream. :confused:



Oh? And yet we have jogged along quite nicely on campaigning a *lot* more vicious than that for the past 230 years. Have you forgotten "Daisy Girl"? "Mother, Mother, Where's my Paw? Gone to the White House. Haw, Haw. Haw!", "Van, Van, a used up man!", "John Quincy Adams who can write, Andrew Jackson who can fight!"? Read some history and you'll see what I mean. :p There's an old Chicago saying, "Politics ain't beanbag!" but it's still a lot nicer than the politics that the totalitarianism of the Far Left has bestowed upon us. When you take a look at what radical left regimes like Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and Magubwe have done both in terms of propaganda and deeds it's pretty clear that democracy is still the Wave of the Future and Socialism is nothing more than roadkill on the Highway of History. ;)

My only disagreement with you is that Hitler, Pol Pot, and Stalin were not leftist at all. Simply because their economic structures were set up that way does not make them leftists. They were all fascist dictators and there is a difference that I'm sure you can see. Too may people confuse economic policy with political and social policy and it needs to stop. Moderate forms of socialism have been shown to work across much of Europe as you're one again making the socialism=fascism=propaganda mistake. All governments, NGO's, the press engage in some sort of propaganda at a point. Please point out to us how Hitler's fascist policies fall in line with socialism in it's sociological aspects so that we may be swayed to your side.

Many conservatives accuse Hitler of being a leftist, on the grounds that his party was named "National Socialist." But socialism requires worker ownership and control of the means of production. In Nazi Germany, private capitalist individuals owned the means of production, and they in turn were frequently controlled by the Nazi party and state. True socialism does not advocate such economic dictatorship -- it can only be democratic. Hitler's other political beliefs place him almost always on the far right. He advocated racism over racial tolerance, eugenics over freedom of reproduction, merit over equality, competition over cooperation, power politics and militarism over pacifism, dictatorship over democracy, capitalism over Marxism, realism over idealism, nationalism over internationalism, exclusiveness over inclusiveness, common sense over theory or science, pragmatism over principle, and even held friendly relations with the Church, even though he was an atheist.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERnazi.htm

Really?

I haven't seen any glaring errors at the ones I read regularly.

You read the drudge report? Hannity's blog? etc.

You read the drudge report? Hannity's blog? etc.

Nope.

Little Green Footballs. You know - the blog that outed the Reuters fake photographs.

Oh, I forgot - you believe that official media is unimpeachable.

Nope.

Little Green Footballs. You know - the blog that outed the Reuters fake photographs.


Why am I not surprised? It fits in so well with your view of Muslims.

Ah, you read it too! :D

Not generally. I pass by about once every couple of months to make sure the idiocy is still in full bloom, and it generally is. Then I go shower for a couple of hours and disinfect my computer.

Why am I not surprised? It fits in so well with your view of Muslims.

Ah, you read it too! :D

Not generally. I pass by about once every couple of months to make sure the idiocy is still in full bloom, and it generally is. Then I go shower for a couple of hours and disinfect my computer.

How, may I ask, is pointing out that Reuters had fake photos during the recent Lebanese conflict, idiocy?

Or the fake missile on ambulance story? How is that idiocy?

Or do you not like that sort of thing pointed out?

Little Green Footballs.

mmmmm, open fascism

mmmmm, open fascism

How is exposing fake photographs open fascism?

How, may I ask, is pointing out that Reuters had fake photos during the recent Lebanese conflict, idiocy?

Or the fake missile on ambulance story? How is that idiocy?

Or do you not like that sort of thing pointed out?

Ever heard the one about the broken clock?

Ever heard the one about the broken clock?

That doesn't apply here.

You're saying that this was a lucky hit, and that everything else on the blog is false?

I think not.

That doesn't apply here.

You're saying that this was a lucky hit, and that everything else on the blog is false?

I think not.

Why? Because you say so? You're well aware of my opinion of your credibility. And the other stuff on the site doesn't have to be false in order to be bigoted, one-sided, and stupid.

Why? Because you say so? You're well aware of my opinion of your credibility. And the other stuff on the site doesn't have to be false in order to be bigoted, one-sided, and stupid.

It's not bigoted if it's true.

And no one had caught LGF in an outright lie - something that can't be said of the NYT, Reuters, AP, etc...

It's not bigoted if it's true.That's about the dumbest thing that's ever been posted here, and you're up against some extreme competition.

That's about the dumbest thing that's ever been posted here, and you're up against some extreme competition.

I'm sure you could win some fame outing an actual lie about a foreign news story on LGF.

Get to it.

I'm sure you could win some fame outing an actual lie about a foreign news story on LGF.

Get to it.

I love how you respond to my quote as if I were talking about inaccuracy instead of bigotry. :rolleyes:

I love how you respond to my quote as if I were talking about inaccuracy instead of bigotry. :rolleyes:

How is it bigoted to point out the truth?

How is it bigoted to point out the truth?

Big difference between truth and accuracy. When you get that figured out, call me.

Big difference between truth and accuracy. When you get that figured out, call me.

Show me where the Reuters Fauxtography coverage on LGF was "inaccurate".

Show me where the Reuters Fauxtography coverage on LGF was "inaccurate".

Never said it was. In fact, I believe upthread that was what I was referring to with the "broken clock" comment.

And for the record--it was a free-lancer who did the faking, not Reuters, and when it was brought to their attention, they pulled everything by the photog, even stuff that wasn't photoshopped, just in case. That's responsible journalism by any standard.

Edit: I should add that my comment about the LGF coverage of the photography is based on old memories and could be faulty. If someone else corrects me on it, I wouldn't be surprised.

Never said it was. In fact, I believe upthread that was what I was referring to with the "broken clock" comment.

And for the record--it was a free-lancer who did the faking, not Reuters, and when it was brought to their attention, they pulled everything by the photog, even stuff that wasn't photoshopped, just in case. That's responsible journalism by any standard.

The same blog caught the AP doing the same thing. Reuters didn't check anything until it was "brought to their attention". There was even an initial denial.

The AP rode the missile on ambulance thing as though it were true.

Responsible journalism?

I suggest you read LGF more often, and tell me if you can find inaccurate articles with no supporting linkage.

Nope.

Little Green Footballs. You know - the blog that outed the Reuters fake photographs.

Oh, I forgot - you believe that official media is unimpeachable.

I always love how you attempt to put words in my mouth. I asked a question and you get indignant. Littlegreenfootballs is a fun read and they occasionally have some interesting things to say. They, like any media outlet are not without fault and will make their own mistakes from time to time. I presumed you read drudge as you were defending him during the debate over Al Gore and energy consumption upon which I provided official proof from the utility itself as reported to the AP. I do tend to believe the AP and others like them before the blogs as their records are cleaner than most others. Sure they will have their errors now and again, but if you were to compare accuracy ratings I'm sure they'd come out on top time and time again. Now tell me what I'm thinking now :eek:

I always love how you attempt to put words in my mouth. I asked a question and you get indignant. Littlegreenfootballs is a fun read and they occasionally have some interesting things to say. They, like any media outlet are not without fault and will make their own mistakes from time to time. I presumed you read drudge as you were defending him during the debate over Al Gore and energy consumption upon which I provided official proof from the utility itself as reported to the AP. I do tend to believe the AP and others like them before the blogs as their records are cleaner than most others. Sure they will have their errors now and again, but if you were to compare accuracy ratings I'm sure they'd come out on top time and time again. Now tell me what I'm thinking now :eek:

When was I defending Drudge? Now you must be high...

Here's another blog I read - I'm sure The Nazz will say it's inaccurate and bigoted, yadda yadda...

http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/

Oh, and the Nazz probably hates this one, too...

http://counterterrorismblog.org/

When was I defending Drudge? Now you must be high...

Not really. I don't do drugs as the random drug tests the military hits you with would find them lickety split. But if you don't have to be tested, do all the drugs you want. You defended the article on drudge relating to the conservative Tennessee think tank that put out a hack hit piece on Al Gore. It was the Al Gore's inconvenient truth thread. Don't worry, I'll forget you just made up words you wanted me to say and accused me of doing drugs. I will not however forget that you are a Bush lackey and will stop at nothing in order to defend him. Psst, I didn't make that up but ascertained it from your posts. Now retort with your oh so witty drivel about how I want to sleep with Dan Rather or something. Plus, Nazz was right about it being a freelance photographer in that story. The interesting thing is that some people and organizations can admit their mistakes while other flounder and questions the patriotism of their counterpart.

Here's another blog I read - I'm sure The Nazz will say it's inaccurate and bigoted, yadda yadda...

http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/

Oh, and the Nazz probably hates this one, too...

http://counterterrorismblog.org/

Never read either of them. So much for your assumptions.

By the way, have you figured out the difference between truth and accuracy yet, or are you still working on that?

Not really. I don't do drugs as the random drug tests the military hits you with would find them lickety split. But if you don't have to be tested, do all the drugs you want. You defended the article on drudge relating to the conservative Tennessee think tank that put out a hack hit piece on Al Gore. It was the Al Gore's inconvenient truth thread.

Link please.

Never read either of them. So much for your assumptions.

By the way, have you figured out the difference between truth and accuracy yet, or are you still working on that?

You haven't shown me any inaccuracy at LGF.

Here, for example, is coverage you WON'T get in the Washington Post.

And the Washington Post gets served up for either being stupid, or outright lying.

http://iraqpundit.blogspot.com/

On Monday, a car bomb exploded on Baghdad's Mutanabbi Street, killing 26 people and injuring scores more. Wanton murders like this remain frequent in the capital, with "insurgent" ghouls intentionally blowing up young schoolgirls and women in outdoor markets. Still, there was an extra ache in the terrible news from Mutanabbi Street, an old byway dear to the memory of all Baghdadis for its booksellers, its bookbinders, its stationers, and its cafes. The poignant image of the wrecked street, with countless bits of burning paper floating down on the stunned residents, reflected an attack not only on Baghdad's people, but on the city's heart and memory as well.

Yet all sense of poignancy vanished for me when I saw The Washington Post's account of the bombing, which included the following breathtaking assertion: "When Saddam Hussein was in power, Mutanabi [sic] Street exuded a defiant spirit that reverberated through its bookstores and the famed Shabandar Cafe. Here, intellectuals, over cups of sweet tea, engaged in lively debates."

What an astonishing thing to claim. Suggesting that Saddam's regime tolerated a "defiant" café culture is, in its own way, another blow at Baghdad's heart and memory. It isn't merely that the statement is untrue, it's deeply unjust to the Baghdadis of intellect who had to live through Saddam's years of unrestrained brutality. Far from enjoying openly defiant cafe debates, such figures risked prison, exile, and even death because of their views. Furthermore, even if the Post's reporter is writing out of simple ignorance, the result is another sign of a revisionist "softening" of the memory of Saddam's rule, one that suggests that even he had his saving graces.

It's certainly true that Mutanabbi Street was once a gathering place for Baghdad's intellectuals. If Cairo is the great city of Arab writers, Baghdad was once the great city of Arab readers, and Mutanabbi Street was where they went to browse the new arrivals, Arab and foreign. The street goes back to Ottoman times; the bakeries that made the bread for the Turkish garrisons were nearby. Under the British-imposed monarchy that ruled the newly created Iraq, the city's journalists, poets, and thinkers would gather there to debate the changes that were sweeping across a modernizing and then-optimistic Middle East. By mid-century, the monarchy was gone, and Iraqi poets were advancing a "Free Verse" movement that was revolutionizing Arabic poetry. They too gathered in the street's cafes. But that was before Saddam tried to paralyze the Iraqi mind.

Saddam banned many books, and filled Mutanabbi Street with informers. Suggesting that a defiant café culture flourished there under his rule is not only absurd, it's cruel. Baghdad featured brave and defiant men and women, but they certainly weren't expressing their subversive ideas in public cafes, or requesting dangerous books along Mutanabbi Street. This was a world where Sartre was banned, Kafka was banned, Orwell was certainly banned, even Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 was banned. The most interesting books one might find along the street appeared when Baghdadis who had been impoverished by the sanctions regime were forced to sell their beloved old volumes.

Iraqi intellectual life was a tragicomedy under Saddam. Don't forget that he fancied himself a great novelist, and that Baghdad's literati had to shower him with praise for his embarrassing junk, proclaiming him the flower of Iraqi letters. Do you suppose they made even carefully veiled jokes at his expense at the Shabandar Café?

After Saddam was overthrown, and before the "insurgency" began its almost daily massacres, there was a spate of stories about the revival of Iraqi intellectual life: a suddenly multiplying Iraqi press, revived university activity, newly free writers and playwrights, etc. Among the most frequent such stories, because it was easy to do, was the revival of Mutanabbi Street, where the booksellers quickly were enriching their stocks. A touching detail of those reports was that among the newly available books most in demand were up-to-date technical volumes. Saddam had made even those unavailable. Now it has become possible to assert that such a regime tolerated a defiant café world.

By revisionist increments, sometimes (as in this case) by apparent ignorance, the memory of Saddam's brutality may be giving way to a softer image of his rule. A major example of this process is the common claim that , after all, women could pursue relatively liberated professional lives under his regime. But women owe no more to Saddam than do intellectuals. Baghdad women began removing the veil and entering professions in the early 20th century, when women throughout the region were challenging traditional barriers. When Saddam came along, successful careers remained open primarily to those women who embraced Baathism. It was not liberation, it was a setback, just as the supposed tolerance of a defiant Mutanabbi Street is an illusion.

By the way, Mutanabbi Street is named for one of the greatest of Arab poets, a 10th century native of Kufa whose most famous line is, "I am known to night and horses and the desert, to sword and lance, to parchment and pen." His is an apt name for a street of poets and booksellers, his line an apt evocation of the poet as warrior, and the power and resilience of the word. The Iraqi word has had much to survive in its modern history. Those Baghdadis now clearing away the wreckage of Mutanabbi Street, and sweeping up its precious, charred pages, know that it will survive this too.

Of course, Nazz, I'm sure you are comforted by the Washington Post's revisionist view of Iraq.

Oh, and the Nazz probably hates this one, too...

http://counterterrorismblog.org/

I actually like that one very much. I've read it from time to time and find it to be quite objective. It doesn't change that you're a douche, but it does mean we have something in common that we enjoy. :fluffle:

I actually like that one very much. I've read it from time to time and find it to be quite objective. It doesn't change that you're a douche, but it does mean we have something in common that we enjoy. :fluffle:

Be careful. If you like any blogs at all, The Nazz will think you're an idiot.

Here, for example, is coverage you WON'T get in the Washington Post.

And the Washington Post gets served up for either being stupid, or outright lying.

http://iraqpundit.blogspot.com/



Of course, Nazz, I'm sure you are comforted by the Washington Post's revisionist view of Iraq.

You get the Iraqpundit's opinion piece and you get the Washington posts. Two viewpoints which are divergent and you get to make up your mind from there. Listen, no matter how many conservative blow-hards try to make Saddam into Hitler it isn't going to happen. He wasn't the third coming of the antichrist as you or the iraqipundit would like us to believe. I always love the "but but but he killed and gassed his own people." I then respond with, " and George HW Bush cared so much he didn't even interrupt his golf game." Saddam wasn't a good guy, but he's hardly the evil incarnate you're making him out to be. You give him far too much credit. As for linking to you defending drudge, no t a chance. I don't have the time or desire to go back through your many volumes of posts. I'll just concede here an say you disavowed drudge and extolled that Al Gore was exonerated from his viscous attack. That Al Gore truly is the champion of climate change as he claims to be. Hey, it works for you doesn't it?

Be careful. If you like any blogs at all, The Nazz will think you're an idiot.

I don't think that's what Nazz is saying. What he's saying is that some are more credible than others. Some people go on trying to cite newsmax.com and I'll immediately pull their card there as that is not a reputable place for news. Couple that with some of what winds up on huffingtonpost on the left and you have two biased sources that rely on their base more than factual basis. Blogs can be all right but you have to be sure of the source.

You get the Iraqpundit's opinion piece and you get the Washington posts. Two viewpoints which are divergent and you get to make up your mind from there. Listen, no matter how many conservative blow-hards try to make Saddam into Hitler it isn't going to happen. He wasn't the third coming of the antichrist as you or the iraqipundit would like us to believe. I always love the "but but but he killed and gassed his own people." I then respond with, " and George HW Bush cared so much he didn't even interrupt his golf game." Saddam wasn't a good guy, but he's hardly the evil incarnate you're making him out to be. You give him far too much credit. As for linking to you defending drudge, no t a chance. I don't have the time or desire to go back through your many volumes of posts. I'll just concede here an say you disavowed drudge and extolled that Al Gore was exonerated from his viscous attack. That Al Gore truly is the champion of climate change as he claims to be. Hey, it works for you doesn't it?

Hey, it works for the Nazz that all the Nazz needs is the official media. He won't even consider the alternative viewpoint a blog might provide.

Stick to the point - we're talking about the credibility of blogs.

Be careful. If you like any blogs at all, The Nazz will think you're an idiot.

Was this intentionally comically wrong, or are you really incapable of remembering other debates you've had with him?

LGF does suprise me. I always took you for a full fledged freeper. I'm more partial to sane and moderate-right blogs.

Just so you can't say I'm biased against blogs myself, or even right wing blogs: John Cole's Balloon-Juice is a good example of a blog run by a Conservative who saw the idiocy of the Bush Admin. He's still a Conservative, but he realizes the Neo-Cons and Theo-cons stole his party from him.

As for linking to you defending drudge, no t a chance. I don't have the time or desire to go back through your many volumes of posts. I'll just concede here an say you disavowed drudge and extolled that Al Gore was exonerated from his viscous attack. That Al Gore truly is the champion of climate change as he claims to be. Hey, it works for you doesn't it?

If you can't link to me defending Drudge, it didn't happen, except in your head.

I'll concede that maybe you hit your head on the pullup bars today in PT.

Be careful. If you like any blogs at all, The Nazz will think you're an idiot.
Liar.

Hey, it works for the Nazz that all the Nazz needs is the official media. He won't even consider the alternative viewpoint a blog might provide.

Stick to the point - we're talking about the credibility of blogs.

Liar

Make another retarded assertion so I can give you a pants-on-fire, willya?

If you can't link to me defending Drudge, it didn't happen, except in your head.

I'll concede that maybe you hit your head on the pullup bars today in PT.

There's a difference between not being able to do something and not giving enough of a shit to troll (pun intended) your drivel and find it. Certain blogs are reliable and certain ones are not. What is the point you are trying to make? You are one to talk for sticking to the point as your argument base is all over the map. Why do you think others in the thread consider you a full time freeper? Is it because you're quick hinged to defend anything right wing and you'll twist the truth to fit your needs? I like the blogs you posted, but littlegreenfootballs can be wrong as well. There is not foolproof blog.

That said, I am interested in what your distinction between radical left and mainstream liberal would be. The supposed differences between the two groups seemed to blur enough in the 2004 election that it's actually interesting seeing them try to draw differences between themselves once more. From the point of view of *this* Republican I would consider it instructive if I were ever to get a bunch of radicals and mainstreamers to draw these supposed distinctions between themselves in their own words in their own words sometime. :)

In particular I would be interested in hearing which blogs *you* consider to be radical and which ones *you* consider to be mainstream. :confused:

I define "mainstream liberal" as those who argue for reform and think that we can legislate a "kinder, gentler world." In my point of view, this only leads to a "kinder, gentler machine gun hand," as Neil Young so eloquently put it in "Rockin in the Free World." A mainstream liberal blog would be anyone whose dealing with "which democrat should we elect" or "We hate bush, so vote Democrat or else you'll 'steal' votes from the 'legitimate' democrats."

No matter how hawkish they seem, in politics they are scantly more "radical" then their less hawkish brethren.

"Radical left" are those who are outside of the Democratic and Green parties and seek a more substantive change in society. Radical greens, socialists, communists, left-libertarians and anarchists are all "radical left." You don't find too many genuine radical left blogs, and they mostly blog about activist work, their own particular interprestion of Marxism (for some of the more insipid ones), etc.

I've decided that a large number of bloggers, both liberal and conservative, are very much insane.

I've been hearing a lot about how "viscious" left-wing blogs are supposed to be, so I decided, with the help of google, to investigate the claims myself. After surfing through Google for a couple of hours pairing words like "liberal" or "conservative" with nastier words like "fascist", "Communist", "stupid", "evil", etc., I've decided that not only are a large number of bloggers just utter morons, they don't really care about the issues.

I think that both mainstream liberals and conservatives are guilty of it. All of the radical left and right-wing libertarian blogs I visited were much more curteous to their opponents and much more focused on issues.

So, as far as a I can tell, there is no such thing as "the viscious far left blogs" that Faux News speaks so often about. However, there are a lot of stupid, and viscious mainstream liberal and conservative blogs.

If this is the future of political campaigning, then there is no hope for "moderate" democracy.

This thread title succeeds.

I define "mainstream liberal" as those who argue for reform and think that we can legislate a "kinder, gentler world." In my point of view, this only leads to a "kinder, gentler machine gun hand," as Neil Young so eloquently put it in "Rockin in the Free World." A mainstream liberal blog would be anyone whose dealing with "which democrat should we elect" or "We hate bush, so vote Democrat or else you'll 'steal' votes from the 'legitimate' democrats."

No matter how hawkish they seem, in politics they are scantly more "radical" then their less hawkish brethren.

"Radical left" are those who are outside of the Democratic and Green parties and seek a more substantive change in society. Radical greens, socialists, communists, left-libertarians and anarchists are all "radical left." You don't find too many genuine radical left blogs, and they mostly blog about activist work, their own particular interprestion of Marxism (for some of the more insipid ones), etc.

There hasn't been a legitimate Left in the US since before the Great Depression.

There hasn't been a legitimate Left in the US since before the Great Depression.

Indeed, it's always been the right cross that has led us to prevail in our international barfights since then.

There hasn't been a legitimate Left in the US since before the Great Depression.

What do you mean by "legitimate"? Do you mean "large" or substantial, or do you mean credible.