Powered by TypePad

« Dissent - No Longer The Highest Form Of Patriotism | Main | Sarah Palin Embarrassed In Alaska »

August 23, 2010

Comments

Captain Hate

Yes narc, Slate's wise Latina has been taking a pretty good pasting @ AoS

anduril
Anduril,

I have a vivid recollection from 2005 of you saying that you would only put your real identity in the LUN because you opposed linking any story when you could instead take up an entire page, alternating bold and regular print to specifically annoy everyone here.

Posted by: Jane | August 25, 2010 at 09:42 AM

What's up Jane? Narcisolator broken?

Actually, I could easily disprove your silly inventions, but, I'll leave that to the official moderator of such matters, hit and run, and simply reiterate what I've stated many times: my formatting is not intended to annoy but is for the convenience of readers.

My posts yesterday were to the best of my actual recollection and proved remarkably accurate. Far more accurate than your own recollection. Nor did my account contain anything remotely derogatory--I simply stated as fact that my interest in Sibel Edmonds dates to your post and link. That happens to be true What possible reason could you have for being so sensitive about that, and why do you seem to wish to raise that issue for a second day? I mean, I have lots I could say, but it seems odd on your part.

Sue

Bill,

I'm just surprised the Quayle name didn't hurt him.

Sue

Wikileaks set to release CIA documents today. Maybe we can find something interesting in them.

anduril

Joel Kotkin has a nice article about China: The China Syndrome. What he does is set out, under 5 points, the serious problems China faces for the future and contrasts each to the corresponding situation in the US--in some detail. Here are the 5 points:

1. If Water is the "new oil," China faces a thirsty future.

2. China's energy demands are soaring, but it lacks adequate domestic resources

3. Food remains pressing problem for China.

4. China's rapidly aging population and shrinking workforce will slow growth, perhaps dramatically, by the next decade.

5. Dictatorship thrives sometimes in a "take off" period, but often fails to compete well with more open societies during later stages of growth.

narciso

Diana West, is of the same mind as you, on the inherent threat of of Islam, along with Col. Peters, surprising that you would not know that, she's nowhere as idealistic as a neocon.

anduril

IBD picks up on Boehner's brilliant sally. This seems like a great Fall topic for the nation to discuss:

Geithner and Summers Must Go

By Investor's Business Daily

Leadership: It's not unusual, especially in a lousy economy, for an opposition leader to call for the resignation of an administration's economic team. Still, President Obama would be wise to follow John Boehner's advice.

Let's face it: Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and National Economic Council Director Lawrence Summers have not performed competently in their jobs. They have come up with one Rube Goldberg solution after another to solve our problems but have instead left us with the prospect of a double-dip recession, trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see and the bankrupting of several generations of taxpayers.

"It's time to put grown-ups in charge," Boehner, the House GOP leader, said Tuesday in biting remarks at a speech in economically troubled Cleveland. "It's time for people willing to accept responsibility."

Captain Hate

Btw,where has McAmnesty been hiding his dimwitted fatassed daughter during the primary? I haven't heard a peep from her doughnut-hole for months?

anduril

I've linked Peters repeatedly and West (I believe--hit can confirm or deny) at least once. As previously stated, the characterization of West as a Neocon was taken from her Wikipedia entry. If you wish to dispute that, dispute away. I don't much care one way or the other.

That West and Peters are of the same mind as me obviously speaks well of them. However, that West should make wholly uncritical use of publications like Fakt and Nasz Dziennik and ignore elementary fact checking does not speak well of her. Nor do your repeated slurs against me speak well of you.

Bill in AZ sez it's time for Zero to resign

Sue: I'm just surprised the Quayle name didn't hurt him.

I think the name was a bit of a problem initially, but the ads were powerful. He's not in my district, but I would have had a hard time choosing in that race, and primarily because of his ads.

Bill in AZ sez it's time for Zero to resign

Btw,where has McAmnesty been hiding his dimwitted fatassed daughter during the primary?

I dunno - maybe she's in plain sight on local MSM but I don't watch it.

Jane

My posts yesterday were to the best of my actual recollection and proved remarkably accurate.

Yeah, once we proved you were talking about JMH not me. Clearly you didn't read Hit's post. You silly goose.

Your posts are formatted for your own fractured ego. For some reason they make you feel important, probably because they annoy everyone else.

cathyf
Anduril claims (or at least links as a homepage ref) to be Mark Wauck, the FBI agent who first outed Robert Hanssen for espionage (but was ignored by FBI CI superiors).
Hey, my theory (not original -- I think another JOMer cracked a joke about it) is that he is one of the Russian spies. Notice that right about the time they were arrested he disappeared after leaving a comment that he would be unavailable for awhile, and then he reappeared about a week after the Russians were traded back to Moscow.

He's probably using a proxy to post so it doesn't trace back to Russia.

If it is really true that anduril is getting paid to post on JOM then I am so totally envious!

Sue

I think the name was a bit of a problem initially

I would like to see Quayle's name redeemed a little. He was a weak VP but stupid he isn't.

Danube of Thought

Lindsay Lohan update.

Jane

I'm just surprised the Quayle name didn't hurt him.

Maybe people are growing up. It was hard during the Quayle VPcy to not think he was a complete buffoon - it was the Sarah Palin strategy. So maybe people have realized that they were bamboozled. WHo knows?

Sue

Jane,

Either they are growing up or don't remember Quayle.

Strawman Cometh

Bork was borked. Although quayled never caught on as a verb, that's what was, and is being done, to Sarah.

narciso

In retrospect, this certainly seemed like Sikorski hit that decapitated the Polish Free Army, in '43, Tom Lamb, is one of those who
has pointed the irregularities there, as I have LUNed earlier

Jane

Should we be getting worried about TM?

Cecil Turner

Yeah, Anduril, I can see why you'd want to defend Edmonds. Sorta soul mates, eh? "Disruptive effect" of "persistent complaints" had to strike a chord, eh?

As to proving she's a nutjob, a quick scan of the IG report you provided will give a clue. A casual perusal of her public statements (like this one) gives a better, and wikipedia grouped a bunch of nutjobbery in their Ellsberg reference. Of course, you probably agree with them so you might have a hard time seeing it.

Strawman Cometh

Unlike Quayle, Sarah gives much better than she gets.
In the end, Candy Murphy Brown admitted that Quayle was right.

anduril

Hit's post. How it supports you contention is an utter mystery:

anduril is likely recollecting a thread in which Jane did link to a Gateway Pundit post that linked to a Times Online (UK) article that featured Edmonds's claim involving Grossman. And in that thread Clarice did respond that she didn't trust Edmonds.

And indeed,Clarice was quick back then. Her response to Jane in that thread regarding Edmonds came in at seven minutes. Unlike today, where her response to anduril clocks in at a tortoise-like 24 minutes.

All very,very suspicious. And especially curious.

[TheVIMH: You're not providing a link to the thread?]
No way. Not for something that very especially suspiciously curious. But I will tell you it was in January of . . . 2008.

Posted by: hit and run | August 24, 2010 at 03:14 PM

If you wish I'll repost the relevant posts from the thread hit was referring to.

they annoy everyone

I presume that "everyone" is equivalent to Clarice and narciso's "we."

centralcal

I am off to work, somebody wake Tom M. up - looking forward to a new thread when I get to the office!!!!

anduril

Cecil, I've previously explained the parameters of my support for Edmonds, in great detail, so I'm not about to repeat myself. Sarcasm can be entertaining but, unsupported, it doesn't constitute an argument.

Captain Hate

Quayle was somebody the MFM decided must be destroyed with the "stupidity" argument. I had some NPR listeners tell me with hushed tones "He's even dumber than what's been revealed". Really? How exactly do you know that?

Pofarmer

OT, but I was searching some residential real estate listings today, after the Existing home sales numbers came out yesterday. A couple of properties have been on the market for two years, or more, and they still have the same asking price that they had then. Somebody is in la-la land, and I don't think it's me. Could be wrong, though.

macphisto

I do believe that the photo upthread is the first time i've ever seen a First Lady dressed for a Renaissance Faire. MO would appear to be taking this Marie Antoinette stuff seriously.

Janet

I like Dan Quayle. Gone back & read some of his speeches..really good. It is exactly the tactic the left is using for Palin.
He was a young, good looking conservative & he HAD to be destroyed. Just like Palin.
I hate, hate, hate the MFM.

Threadkiller

--" It is exactly the tactic the left is using for Palin."--

Yet sadly it is a tactic that some on the right are using on her as well.

anduril

And, Cecil, your link to DemocracyNow disproves your claim to nutjobbery: Edmonds' actual statements are not as sensational as the headlines make out. In fact, she references--in support of her position--specific investigations that were well known and documented at the time. Rice's statements, of course are very nuanced. Edmonds' claims go to the proposition that 9-11 represented a significant failure of evidence that may have been avoidable. How to apportion responsibility for that failure is a separate issue, but the argument itself is not a matter of nutjobbery--she makes serious points that other serious people have made.

BTW, how would you rate her among all the other nutjobs who testified before the 9-11 Commisssion? Was she the only nutjob to testify? Was her nutjobbery exceeded by that of other nutjob witnesses? I assume you've made a close study of this.

narciso

His speech in the Senate defending SDI back in '88 I recall, was one of those things that
enthused me about his choice as VP, after Gore and Biden, and the hatred aimed at Cheney

Many of the same dynamics in '08, were in place back in '88, the looming real estate
led bust, the waning era of a two term GOP
president, an aloof out of touch leftist
pretending to some kind of competent moderate, so they just dialed it up to 11,
collapsing Lehman Bros, dwarfing the contribution limits, conducting a full on smear campaign.

anduril

I forgot to format this priceless statement:

"Yeah, once we proved" what I was recollecting.

Like, "we"--or, I guess it would be "they"--are so inside my head that "they"--or "we"--even know what I'm recollecting.

narciso

The preexisting indications were no more particular than those in the December 1998
PDB, except there was no Brooklyn Cell, Sheikh
Rahman. wasn't really involved, the names of
Seif Al Adel and Mohammed Atef were excised,
from the report, the Phoenix Memo about flight
training in Arizona, never made it into the
report. Moreover, she was translating after
September 11th, so that whole train of thought
is just wrong

Jane

anduril is likely recollecting a thread in which Jane did link to a Gateway Pundit post that linked to a Times Online (UK) article that featured Edmonds's claim involving Grossman. And in that thread Clarice did respond that she didn't trust Edmonds.

First of all anduril, when have you ever clicked on a link that I posted? Secondly, in your vivid imagination you think you clicked through to 3 articles and attributed the third to me. How's that ADD thing working out for you?

Finally, Hit was making fun of you. Duh.

Ever hear of the law of holes?

DebinNC

Quayle got 22.7% of the Republican vote in a 10 person race. I hope the number of challengers means the Dem candidate is weak, and not that the Reps were unknowns with little to offer beyond Quayle Jr.'s name recognition.

Threadkiller

Pofarmer, are these houses bank owned? Sale of a severely upside-down property is killing the books for most lenders. They have reached the point “deal or no deal” IMO by holding on as long as they have.
">http://www.businessinsider.com/banks-cant-hold-back-highend-mortgage-repos-for-long-2010-7"> Banks Can't Hold Back Highend Mortgage Foreclosures For Long

Even more crucial is that selling substantial numbers of expensive homes at discounts of 50% or more would compel the lenders to take substantial losses which have been avoided by keeping them off the market.
To give you an example, one repossessed home in the upper income suburb of Glencoe was purchased in January 2004 for $850,000. Though not listed for sale yet, its opening bid price is $2,819,000. This suggests that the foreclosed owner had refinanced the property to the tune of $2.8 million. If the holder of the first lien put a home like this on the market, it could be forced to swallow a loss approaching $2 million or perhaps even more.

In Chicago:

Here is where it gets really interesting. Out of 28,829 repossessed properties, there were only 1,292 listed by lenders as "for sale." The vast majority of these available homes were inexpensive. A mere 29 homes over $300,000 were for sale. In other words, the banks have withheld from the market 2,621 properties listed at $300,000 or higher.
There are probably two important reasons why banks have pursued this strategy. First, they are concerned that placing these more expensive homes on the market will severely weaken an already thin upper tier market.
Even more crucial is that selling substantial numbers of expensive homes at discounts of 50% or more would compel the lenders to take substantial losses which have been avoided by keeping them off the market.

More examples in the article.

By the way, does OT apply to this thread anymore?


Janet

The famous line should not have been "You are no Jack Kennedy"...it should have been "Our media arm will not allow you to be a Jack Kennedy". Even Jack Kennedy wasn't Jack Kennedy.

Pofarmer

"Pofarmer, are these houses bank owned? "

Not as far as I know.

DebinNC

By the way, does OT apply to this thread anymore?

I don't think so. This thread has more tributaries than the Mississippi.

Janet

Here is the old Youtube of the exchange. Sickening. Lloyd Bentsen is sickening...and the media loved him for that line.

anduril

First of all anduril, when have you ever clicked on a link that I posted? Secondly, in your vivid imagination you think you clicked through to 3 articles and attributed the third to me.

What a strange statement! Do "we" forbid me to follow links that you post? Anyway, here's where/when, from yesterday:

Did you guys see this about Plame? (Under my name) Posted by: Jane | January 28, 2008 at 02:06 PM

...

Jane,

I'm about the read the entire Times article, but I thought it was Grossman, not Armitage?

Posted by: Sue | January 28, 2008 at 02:12 PM

Yes, Jane that's from a Times online series sourced by Sibel Edmonds whom I do not regard as credible.

Posted by: Clarice | January 28, 2008 at 02:13 PM

Oh, nevermind, I read it wrong. He meant it happened two years prior to Armitage outing Plame.

Posted by: Sue | January 28, 2008 at 02:16 PM

...

Sue, as I read it the article and the blog correctly report Edmonds' allegations: they report the fact that Armitage outed Plame (in his conversation with Novak) and they report the allegation that a State Department official (said to be Marc Grossman) outed Brewster Jennings (Plame's cover) to the Turks.

I'm always suspicious of non-denial denials. The article ends with this:

The FBI denied the existence of a specific case file about any outing of Brewster Jennings by the State Department official, in a response to a freedom of information request. However, last week The Sunday Times obtained a document, signed by an FBI official, showing that the file did exist in 2002.

Of course, nobody cares whether there was a "specific case file," per se, although the Times now says they have evidence of such a file--as they understand it, anyway. What people really want to know is whether the FBI has information that either corroborates or falsifies Edmonds' allegations, no matter what the title of the file that contains (or doesn't contain) the information. Denying the existence of a specific case file rather than the existence of the information is non-responsive to the substance of the allegations. One would expect that this could be readily cleared up.

Posted by: anduril | January 28, 2008 at 02:32 PM

Can there be any doubt that I'm referencing the material that you linked to? Having followed your LUN, I read the blog, then followed the link to the original article and quoted a portion that wasn't quoted in the blog. So where's the problem? The point is that Sibel Edmonds, previously unknown to me, featured in the link that you provided. Having read the material that you linked I went on to learn more.

This is precisely the exchange that I recollected and described. I think you need to get over whatever problems this has caused you. There is no problem. Trust me.

Jane

So from me saying: "Did you see this article about Plame?" then decided I wrote a post about Marc Grossman and Sibel Edmonds?

The law of holes.

anduril

Hmmmm. This youtube is of the valedictorian at Harvard delivering her address in Latin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYewkFKPPhs

She's using the so-called "classical" pronunciation, with some of her own idiosyncracies. I'm not actually sure what the point is, but I assume the program provides a translation.

NROnline has an interview with her and Kathryn Lopez today.

Pofarmer

Good, LORD!!!!!

Would ya'll PLEASE ignore Andruool?

Pofarmer

Good, LORD!!!!!

Would ya'll PLEASE ignore Andruool?

Pofarmer

Good, LORD!!!!!

Would ya'll PLEASE ignore Andruool?

pagar

O/T could stand for On topic as well.

From the LUN comments on the "dhimmis are Dummies" post at American Thinker.

Feral Cat @02:37AM says:

" U.S. Soldiers prior to being sent to Afghanistan are now being trained/indoctrinated to enter such as an Afghan police station, beg permission to take off armor, ask all the proper subservient questions of such as the Afghan police officer, allow such as the Afghan police officer to call the Soldier’s predecessor a liar without a single word in objection, and then offer unconditional aide , aide not dependent on anything whatsoever. This is actually happening in U.S. Army training and they are being graded on how well they do at being dhimmis! "

It sounds to me like our military is being trained to accept being dhimmis.

I do not believe this is in the best interest of our nation.

Jim Ryan

Hey, Po, would you please give me a holler @embarqmail.com where I'm j.ryan?

Extraneus

One thing Sarah Palin has going for her is that the media has already taken their best shot.

Extraneus

Heh, and I see the new thread is OT.

anduril
So from me saying: "Did you see this article about Plame?" then decided I wrote a post about Marc Grossman and Sibel Edmonds?

Ok, finally I think I see what your "issue" is. Look, here are what I take to be my "offending" statements, in your eyes. (There's another longer one, but it simply repeats these, so to save space and time...):

There's actually a longer history, which goes back to Jane introducing Sibel Edmunds [sic] to the forum and being warned off that topic by Clarice.

I'd never heard of her until I read a post of yours drawing attention to what she had to say about Marc Grossman. You were immediately warned off the topic by Clarice, and never raised it again.

So, as everyone can see, I never said you "wrote a post about Marc Grossman and Sibel Edmonds." I said that you introduced the topic of Sibel Edmonds to the forum, drew attention to her allegations against Grossman. Which you did--by linking to a blog/article discussion of her allegations.

Did anyone else think, at the time, that your link was introducing the topic of Sibel Edmonds--despite the fact that your post itself doesn't mention her name? Yes. Clarice did, and she obviously wanted to warn people off even following your link--"not credible," waste of time, don't do it--but I, naughty boy, did anyway. Here's the exchange, cut from the longer paste job above:

Did you guys see this about Plame? (Under my name) Posted by: Jane | January 28, 2008 at 02:06 PM

...

Yes, Jane that's from a Times online series sourced by Sibel Edmonds whom I do not regard as credible.

Posted by: Clarice | January 28, 2008 at 02:13 PM

Jane

Mea Culpa Po - consider it done (thrice)

Cecil Turner

Nah, I wanna see him defend Edmonds some more.

Cecil Turner

Everyone remembers "Circle of wise women", right?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame