I asked in another thread too but what exactly is the goal of this exercize?

To prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the Growth for Justice 200 were of a left-leaning political orientation, which everyone kind of assumed anyway. Next on the agenda for the Shot in the Dark Kidz: a blogswarm of those sneering leftist Radio K staffers to expose their...wait for it... vested interest in popular music!

Yes Tim, I realize that but I am curious what the result of this motley crew of Clouseaus efforts will be.

Um, to show that you guys constantly misrepresent yourselves? To demonstrate your duplicity? To tweek a bunch of self-righteous, sanctimonious leftist phoneys?
Take your pick.

You Guys Kermit?

I've checked the signatures several times and my names not on there.

But just to be sure I'm reading you correctly, you're saying that because these people claim to not have a partisan agenda, they are being duplicitous (sp?) and are misrepresenting themselves?

Am I correct?

...and Kermit. Another question.

Is their position invalidated because you believe they are misrespresenting themselves?

Yes Doug, they most certainly are misrepresenting themselves. But let's start with "you guys". Are you now or have you ever been a member of MoveOn.org? Did you or did you not act as a vigilante "election observer"? Are you not in fact a dedicated liberal?
My name isn't on there eitherr, yet my income is being targetted by these frauds for a 4.5% income tax hike.
Their position is not invalidated because I believe they are misrespresenting themselves. The very act of misrepresentation does the invalidating. It's why the Left has such a hard time winning elections.

"Are you now or have you ever been a member of MoveOn.org?"

Yup and I don't see MoveOm mentioned ANYWHERE in this ad.

"Did you or did you not act as a vigilante "election observer"?"

Nope. I was a MoveOn volunteer working at my precinct to tally the Democrats I had contacted in the days prior to the election. I incorrectly stated in a previous post that I was an observer and, as I recall, you and one of your buddies ejaculated all over one another with joy because you thought I was claiming to have been a registered election observer.

"Are you not in fact a dedicated liberal?"

Nope. I'm a fiscal conservative and social liberal. I have voted Democratic in a majority of elections but have voted Republican in a few election.

"The very act of misrepresentation does the invalidating."

Thanks Kermit. Enjoy.

http://www.taxpayersleague.org/main/AboutTPL.htm

About the Taxpayers League of Minnesota

The Taxpayers League of Minnesota is a nonpartisan, nonprofit grassroots taxpayer advocacy organization which fights for lower taxes, limited government and full empowerment of taxpaying citizens in accordance with Constitutional principles.

Yup, the Taxpayer's league is just as non-partisan as the Star Tribune. That's the point. Strom never claimed to be unbiased. He is opposed to big government and over-taxation. The Patricians want the opposite, because they are crypto liberals.
But I am glad to see you acknowledge your status as one of "those guys". It shows real progress from
"You Guys Kermit?

I've checked the signatures several times and my names not on there"

And I didn't "ejaculate with joy" over your faux pas. I claimed to be the guy in the big pickup truck that threatened you, remember?

Wow! I'm shocked! I would have thought you would have held similar beliefs as the Taxpayers League yet here you are saying that their positions are invalid because they misrepresented their non-partisan claims.

No, I agree with them Just because one group invalidates themseves with proclaimed non-partisanship doesn't mean the principles they espouse are invalid. It just means they themselves are tainted with misrepresentation.
The Patricians may very well believe their position of tax increases is valid, but they destroy their credibility by claiming objectivity. Just like the MSM.
I said their POSITION was invalidated, not their premise. BIG difference.
You asked "I am curious what the result of this motley crew of Clouseaus efforts will be" (without a question mark, but I'll give you a pass on that). I answered "Um, to show that you guys constantly misrepresent yourselves? To demonstrate your duplicity? To tweek a bunch of self-righteous, sanctimonious leftist phoneys?
Take your pick."
I stand by that statement. I am questioning the messenger, not the message. I understand the message, and disagree with it.
The point is, people see through this phoney BS and resent it. Then they vote against it.

That all depends on the meaning of "is" doesn't it Kermit...

After all the doublespeak, Kermit scans the post to find a punctuation error to legitimize his babble.

So, what's your position on the NY Times? I'd love to hear that one.

Gee Doug, I'm sorry nuance eludes you. I thought you lefty types were all enthused about it. If my statement was too complex for you then let it rest.
As for the NYT, I say give them the Judith Miller treatment. Put the traitorous bastards in jail until they reveal their sources. You would agree with that, wouldn't you? I'm sure you were all for it when the subject was Valerie Plame. We wouldn't want to be hypocrites, would we? Doug?

"Put the traitorous bastards in jail until they reveal their sources."

Hmmmm... I didn't realize they let her out because she revealed her sources.

"We wouldn't want to be hypocrites, would we?"

I had heard about the program that the Times wrote about. I heard about it from the President. He mentioned it in about 5 different speeches when he talked about what the government was doing to shut down terrorist financial networks.

If you want to jail everyone that disclosed the program, knock yourself out but make sure to include Mr. Bush ok there lil fella.

Doug, you are silly and misinformed. Scooter Libby is facing trial because HE was the source she named. AFTER she spent time in jail.

"I had heard about the program that the Times wrote about."

No, you didn't. Treasury secratary Snow AND John Murtha (among others) asked the Times NOT to publish. The Times had 20 seperate meetings with the administration to discuss this.

"He mentioned it in about 5 different speeches when he talked about what the government was doing to shut down terrorist financial networks."

Yes Doug, he said "We are going after the finances of the terrorists". The Time detailed exactly how it was being done. This is called giving operational intelligence to the enemy.

So why do a blogswarm on 200+ Patricians pretending to be non-partisan and requesting a huge income tax increase?
Because they all share you level of comprehension, Doug.

Kermit said,

"Doug, you are silly and misinformed. Scooter Libby is facing trial because HE was the source she named. AFTER she spent time in jail."

Wrong again boyo.

Miller spent time in jail because she refused to discuss with the Grand Jury details of her exchanges with Libby. She was charged with contempt of court. That they had met was already public information. Miller was released after receiving an individual waiver from libby AND agreeing to testify before the Grand Jury.

Libby is jail because he is charged with obstruction of justice, perjury and making false statements.

""I had heard about the program that the Times wrote about."

No, you didn't.""

See Kermit, that's where you and I differ... If I were a terrorist (which I'm not) and someone told me they were monitoring my financial transactions, (which is exactly what Mr. Bush did) I would be smart enough to figure out for myself how they were doing it. You on the other hand - not being able to comprehend something as complex and an ATM machine or a telephone would obviously continue to exchange funds until you got caught. Yea, I realize no one actually TOLD you how how they were watching you but it's kinda up to you to do a little work for yourself Kermy...

I wonder if your wife knows you're dumber than a bunch of terrorists and a guy who gathers grocery carts for a living.

Also, the WSJ published fundamentally the same information as the Times but you cretins aren't going bat 5hit crazy about them.

"So why do a blogswarm on 200+ Patricians pretending... ...Because they all share you level of comprehension, Doug."

So what you're saying is that, if they were terrorists, they would bright enough to figure out that the Government was watching their financial transactions especially since the President keeps mentioning it in all of his speeches right?

No Doug, and you didn't understand anything else I said either. It's unfortunate, but there's nothing I can do about it.
Rest comfortably in your self-satisfaction, Doug. You've earned it.

Yes Kermit, I understood everything you said.

Here it is again...

"Scooter Libby is facing trial because HE was the source she named. AFTER she spent time in jail."

To review YOUR understanding...

Judy Miller goes to jail for refusing to reveal her source... She eventually does and now Libby is facing trial because she named him.

Brilliant Kermit. Simply brilliant.

"Rest comfortably in your self-satisfaction"

My God... How melodramatic. Why would you assume I feel any sense of self-satisfaction here? You strolled headfirst into displaying your lack of understanding.

I had nothing to do with it.

on another matter...

Kermint said,

"I say give them the Judith Miller treatment. Put the traitorous bastards in jail until they reveal their sources."

So, we know how you would deal with the reporters themselves but what about the ones who actually do the leaking of classified information?

What would you like to see done with them Kermit?

"I asked in another thread too but what exactly is the goal of this exercize?"

Maybe to learn how to properly spell the word 'exercise'.

...which was spelled 'exercise' in the thread I refered to...

But good for you for for taking your disability as an anal retentive social retard and turning it into a somewhat worthwhile position as Mitch's one man typo police squad.

Next step for Brad?

I hear there is an opening for someone to follow Bush with a shovel and pick up the garbage that spills out of his mouth. You'd be perfect for the job.

Good site! Tasty Shakira [url=http://shakira0.blogspot.com/]Tasty Shakira[/url]