Search This Blog

Monday, April 24, 2006

Wanna play games, huh?

Amy Proctor pointed this out:

"Liberals are at it again. My friend Curt at Flopping Aces was hacked today, apparently because he reported an outing of a Democrat CIA agent.

This is what liberals do. This is how liberals operate."


Some wingnut moonbats hacked Flopping Aces to shut them down. Why? Because Flopping Aces had revealed the connection between secret leakers at the CIA and Clinton Administration wonks such as Sandy (I got top secret papers in my underwear!) Berger and John Kerry and notoriously anti-administration pundits like Dana Priest. Not to mention Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame...how many interviews and news articles and possible book deals have you guys gotten out of the so-called 'outing' now? Looks like a concerted effort by Clinton-related liberals to make political gains at the expense of our nation's security.

That Priest won a Pulitzer Prize(!) reminds one of the United Nations, where Iran is selected as deputy for Asian nations for the United Nations Commission on Disarmament! That the news media is trying to promote Mary McCarthy as a "whistle-blower" is disgusting. The major news media try to ignore Abel-Danger, forget about Berger destroying documents related to the 9/11 investigation and promote traitorous news stories based on leaked CIA documents. If the news media of our time had been around during World War Two, D-Day would have been no surprise and the advantage of having an Enigma machine would have been leaked to the Germans. Disgusting.

I try not to get angry about this kind of thing, but people who leak classified information for political purposes, putting our citizenry in danger, they ought to be prosecuted. Period!

Anyway, since wingnuts tried to shut Flopping Aces up, I counter by putting them on my blogroll. Freedom of speech, baby!

12 comments:

highboy said...

The other tactic used by liberal bloggers is to not post comments that refute their ridiculous arguments. is a good example of this. This is how liberals act.

creeper said...

Highboy, I didn't realize that the folks at Uncommon Descent and Orrin Judd (of the Brothers Judd blog) were liberals.

What's that link supposed to show us, btw?

(Your Jesus-with-guns fetish is... creepy.)

highboy said...

"What's that link supposed to show us, btw?"

Nothing. It's just a blog to check out, the one I commented about. I have no idea what blog you are refering to.

IAMB said...

In my experience, the liberal side of the blogosphere is far more lenient with dissenting comments than the conservative side... that could be because the majority of my experience is with science blogs and not political ones.

Who knows for sure??? There's simply far too many blogs to track comment deletion trends (unless Radar can write a program to do so, in which case I'd be willing to bet he could get a small research grant in conjuction with a sociology department somewhere for a one year study).

radar said...

Just my opinion, but I think it borders on cowardly to delete comments that disagree with your point of view. Now, maybe something really nasty or profane needs to be erased....But I love the blogosphere for it's classic free speech mode. The Daily Kos and Ace of Spades HQ both thrive with entirely different points of view.

As far as political blogs go, usually it is the wingnut fringe of both sides that have a tendency to block dissenters. Uncommon Descent, which is not really a political blog, apparently has blocked some people and I find that puzzling. I know I went to a website that commented here, commmented on his blog and it never showed up so who knows? (Not one of the regulars. You guys seem to all play it straight!)

If I ever start blocking dissenters, you will know I have lost my edge and should just quit blogging. If you can't stand the heat.....

highboy said...

I only block people who swear on my site. The one exception is the nut who decided not to post my comment on his blog. Some people, like Stop The ACLU, won't post your comment unless there is a site to go with it so they can return the favor. Might be a good idea, at least to cut down on these trolls.

IAMB said...

I actually don't think I've blocked anyone... yet (fingers crossed). The only comments I've deleted are from spambots.

My biggest beef is with anonymous commenters that call me names over something I've written. Nothing like being called "scared", "chickens**t" or any of the myriad other names available by someone posting as "anonymous".

Middle_America said...

jamb, I was always told if its by anonymous, then it's not credible.

Another good post Radar, and your not the only one who finds it frustrating. It's amazing what the mouthpieces selectively forget while screaming something else.

Jeffahn said...

radar,

Uncommon Descent is nothing but a political blog. Demski is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, which is funded largely by Christian reconstructionists.

UD edit/delete comments because there are many questions they cannot answer about ID and much that they don't want their supporters to know about.

radar said...

Uncommon Descent is a political blog???? Nah. It is a scientific blog with an agenda that is somewhat related to mine, but is not the same as mine.

ID and creationism are not the same. Christians do support blogs like AIG and ICR and CreationontheWeb. I cannot label Uncommon Descent as Christian. After all, people like Behe believe in a form of macroevolution. I will drop in there now and again and check out what is being said and that is about it.

Jeffahn said...

radar,

The ID movement is creationism because its founder, Phillip E. Johnson (along with other prominant members of the movement) says it is:

"My colleagues and I speak of "theistic realism" -- or sometimes, "mere creation" --as the defining concept of our movement. This means that we affirm that God is objectively real as Creator, and that the reality of God is tangibly recorded in evidence accessible to science, particularly in biology. We avoid the tangled arguments about how or whether to reconcile the Biblical account with the present state of scientific knowledge, because we think these issues can be much more constructively engaged when we have a scientific picture that is not distorted by naturalistic prejudice. If life is not simply matter evolving by natural selection, but is something that had to be designed by a creator who is real, then the nature of that creator, and the possibility of revelation, will become a matter of widespread interest among thoughtful people who are currently being taught that evolutionary science has show God to be a product of the human imagination."

Just like YEC, OEC, xixpgmsw & Gap Theory are forms of creationism, so is ID.

cranky old fart said...

"ID and creationism are not the same"

huh?

The only difference I can see is that ID claims it doesn't identify the intelligent designer.

My, my, how clever!