So.

Posted by: Joshua on July 1, 2005 02:49 PM

I actually get the feeling that had he just read what was in front of him, he wouldn't be in this mess. But that might give his editors too much credit...

Posted by: ronaprhys on July 1, 2005 02:55 PM

You're linking Michelle Malkin and taking her seriously?

But, really, what part of the statement "The British probably considered the Founding Fathers to be terrorists" is untrue or inaccurate, apart from the word "terrorist" not existing at the time?

Assuming the French had stayed out of the Revolution and the British had won, what do you think they would have charged Washington with? What do you think they would have done with him?

Posted by: John on July 1, 2005 06:36 PM

"Assuming the French had stayed out of the Revolution and the British had won, what do you think they would have charged Washington with? What do you think they would have done with him?"

Treason, and hanged him. Next question?

I don't recall any US revolutionaries deliberately targetting British preschools. Or even engaging in suicide bombings, for that matter.

Posted by: Tatterdemalian on July 1, 2005 07:12 PM

The point you seem to be missing is that the Brits would've considered him a traitor, not a terrorist. The difference is very key - the Founding Fathers waged a war on the British Military, they didn't indiscriminately kill civilians - and especially not by hijacking boats (the equivalent transportation), setting them afire, and launching them into London.

The second point is that the link that people are trying to make is that the president-elect of Iran actually held Americans hostage and this isn't any different than what Washington did.

Remember to check the difference between treason and terrorism - just because they sound similar doesn't mean they use the same methods.

Posted by: ronaprhys on July 1, 2005 07:16 PM

"Linking Malking and..."

Excuse me? Excuse me?!? You must be new around here. Pleased to be understanding that your hosts are card-carrying members of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. We like Bush and think Carl Rove is just swell thank you. We think the rich are that way through hard work and the poor need to get a job. We fully plan on being rich one day and want to make sure the government doesn't take it all and give it to some teen who can't keep her legs closed. We think by rights most of the Middle East (except the part Mahmood lives in) should've been turned into a big glowing kitty litter box about three years ago. We think Micheal Moore should've been sitting at that ground zero so he'd know the difference, if only for a few milliseconds. We'd listen to Rush if we could find him, take Malkin seriously, and think Coulter is an absolute hoot. Some of our relatives no longer speak to us about politics because we're "insensitive, unreasonable, and completely out of touch."

We are, in short, a lefty's worst freaking nightmare. Well, unless you come to our house for movie night. Then we're quite funny and pleasant, and will stuff you stoopid with food and show you really weird movies until your brains leak out. Our lefty friends even deign to associate with us then, at least as long as the vodka holds out.

As to the whole "what part of the statement..." thing, all I can say is you and Brian both need to go back to remedial history and learn the freaking difference. Both T and Ron are doing a bang-up job rubbing your nose in the intellectual poo you left on our doorstep. I only wish I had a copy of The Federalist Papers with which to whack you on the nose.

Please to also be remembering "anger" is part of our tagline. Considering the ton of bricks T and Ron just dropped on your head, I don't expect to hear much back, but just in case understand we enjoy ad homenim, we relish straw men, and we live to land lunker lefties (LLs) like you.

Our other LLs have learned to be far more discriminating when investigating our lures. Good to see at least one of you out there doesn't understand what the sound of a singing reel actually means.

Posted by: scott on July 1, 2005 08:15 PM

Yeah...what Scott said.

Posted by: Amber on July 1, 2005 11:57 PM

> I don't recall any US revolutionaries deliberately
> targetting British preschools. Or even engaging
> in suicide bombings, for that matter.

And I don't see anywhere that the people involved in the hostage taking at the US Embassy in Tehran - which, remember, is what we're talking about - are accused of targeting preschools, indiscriminately attacking London (or DC, for that matter) - or even of *mistreating* the prisoners.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis

As for why they took American prisoners when they were fighting the Shah, again, go back the American revolution comparison: If the British captured a French ship in an American harbor giving supplies to Americans, do you really think they *wouldn't* hold them? Forget the truth of the situation and work from the perspective of those students, and what they *thought* was the truth.

> The second point is that the link that people
> are trying to make is that the president-elect
> of Iran actually held Americans hostage and this
> isn't any different than what Washington did.

That's putting words in their mouths - it is, in fact, exactly the kind of strawman argument that Scott says you "relish". What they actually said was that if the Revolution happened today, the British would probably consider Washington to be a "terrorist". Hell, if Montana decided to take a walk from the USA today and used armed resistance against US forces trying to keep it in, do you think they'd be called anything *but* terrorists?

Scott:

> You must be new around here.

Not really, I just don't say much.

> We'd listen to Rush if we could find him, take
> Malkin seriously, and think Coulter is an
> absolute hoot.

I laugh my ass off at Coulter, too. Did you see her getting he ass handed to her trying to convince 60 Minutes that Canada sent troops to Vietnam?

Oh, wait, that's not what you meant.

Still, doesn't it get boring listening to people *making shit up* because they can't or don't want to address reality?

> Some of our relatives no longer speak to us
> about politics because we're "insensitive,
> unreasonable, and completely out of touch."

"Insensitive", you seem to make a virtue out of. "Unreasonable" and "out of touch" are entirely relative statements.

> a lefty's worst freaking nightmare.

Anyone who thinks that has *boring* nightmares - and I hang around here (largely uncommenting) because I appreciate the News OF The Weird that's your normal fare.

> just in case understand we enjoy ad homenim, we
> relish straw men, and we live to land lunker
> lefties (LLs) like you.

If you're not interested in actually discussing an issue, that's your call. If you want to describe your entire philsophy as "we troll to get your attention", again, that's your call. It's not exactly going to offend me deeply, here.

"Oh noes! I've pointed out that an outrageous statement is outrageous, to somebody who was deliberately making outrageous statements but was just PRETENDING to be misinformed! Save me from this horrible wastage of five minutes of my time! I must now commit ritual suicide because I've been called a 'lefty'"

I mean, wow, I've committed the *totally* inforgivable sin of taking you at your word and pointing out that you do your cause no favours when you attack a strawman. Oh, woe is me.

John
/Only "leftist" when considered relative to you. It's a refreshing change, actually.

Posted by: John on July 2, 2005 03:59 PM

Oh goody, 30+ lines of "It is my GOD-GIVEN RIGHT to change the subject whenever I want!"

You know, even a "strawman" argument is pretty persuasive when leftists respond by stuffing stuffing themselves with as much straw as they can.

Posted by: Tatterdemalian on July 3, 2005 08:14 AM

Okay, here's the issue. Again: There is a difference between a terrorist and a traitor. There's a huge difference. One acts against his own country (rightly or wrongly, militarily and/or from an intel/espionage standpoint), the other attacks innocents, and whether or not they kill them is actually irrelevant (though they do prefer to kill them, it gets more press). Again, this is a huge difference and comparing Washington and his methods to those of the current terrorists (bin Ladin, Zarkawi (sp)) is an insult to not only him, but to our entire country, which is the biggest problem that I've got with the statements.

Now, to answer your Montana hypothetical, it depends on how they'd offer resistance. If they decided to wear uniforms, formally declare war, and only attack the military that came after them, they'd be called traitors - plain and simple. That's what a traitor would do. If, on the other hand, they decided to dress as civilians, blow up schools, police stations and the like, then they'd be traitors and terrorists.

In the big picture, realize that repeating your incorrect argument over and over doesn't make it correct.

As for your comment of *people making shit up*, please let me point you to Rathergate, Jordangate, and this latest bit of tripe from Williams. Making shit up isn't something confined to the left or the right - it's what politicians and the media do. It's our job as citizens to realize this and sort the good from the bad, and then decide who we want to support.

Posted by: ronaprhys on July 3, 2005 09:17 AM

Scott, you are not even in the top 10 of my worse nightmares! My worse nightmare right now is the resignation of Justice O'Connor. Rove and Bush are only 2 and 3, in that order. I would rather be spending our billions of dollars on people and issues here and in Africa than throwing it away in Iraq. Makes me a flaming liberal, I can live with that name although I would consider myself a moderate.

Posted by: Pat on July 3, 2005 10:10 AM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?