Everybody update your warblogs

Malkin: Body armor is bad again.

Of course the issue is not, despite the line that Malkin keeps trumpeting, one of simply loading up troops with body armor until they’re like the kid in the snowsuit in A Christmas Story. It’s one of investigating whether more, or different, or better body armor can help save troops’ lives according to a Pentagon study reported by the New York Times — one that relies on, you know, actual data and stuff like that.

That’s ‘Pentagon study.’ Like, where the big Army guys hang out. Not a ‘Pandagon study,’ or a NY Times study, or one of those 3Bulls body-armor studies that one constantly hears about. It’s the big building that Rumsfeld works in.

Alas, when Mr. Actual Data debarks his train at Malkin Junction and meets up with Mr. Facile Narrative, there’s always going to be a mugging. Just dump the ID in a trash can, Michelle — we’ll pick it up later.


Comments: 17


Have you read 3Bulls’ latest body armor study? Their conclusion is that “Your a COBAG!!!!!”


Jack Abramoff: the BIG Story For 2006?
Government/Warner Todd Huston

January 9, 2006 – Everyone is saying so.
From The Daily Kos, to Juan Williams of Fox News, to Rush Limbaugh, the buzz is all about how badly the revelations of Jack Abramoff’s lobbying corruption will hurt the GOP in 2006. With his double dealing, his supplying large sums of money, trips and other gifts to members of Congress, and his apparent bilking of millions from various American Indian tribes who wished Congress to favorably review their gambling interests the Abramoff scandal seems like a political powder keg just waiting to go off.


M- That’s a good one. Huston is a tried and true nutter.


Who is this Abramoff you speak of? I’m so glad you’ve brought this to our attention.


Guess I should have read the link first. Sorry about that.


Auguste- it was from The Rant. You should have known it was gonna be sucky.

BTW, you must be exhausted watching Malkin this week. I mean, mother of God, she’s been simply rolling.


That’s All Hoax

Dems are singing looney tunes

by Daniel Clark

To borrow a once-popular TV theme, a hoax is a hoax, of course. That is, unless you’re a Democrat, in which case a hoax can simply be an alternate narrative, which is no less and probably more legitimate than that other, competing narrative, known as the truth.

The latest example of this comes to us from Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, Mass.), who, in a December 22nd op-ed piece in the Boston Globe, recounted the story of a college student who was rousted by two government agents, because he had gone to the library in search of a copy of Mao Tse Tung’s Little Red Book. Two days later, the Globe reported that the student had admitted to fabricating the tale, as any sensible person would have suspected in the first place. While the senator himself did not respond to this revelation, he did send out his spokeswoman to explain that, “even if the assertion was a hoax, it did not detract from Kennedy’s broader point that the Bush administration has gone too far in engaging in surveillance.

This, however, was not one errant detail in an otherwise convincing argument. In fact, Kennedy had no broader point. The Little Red Book story was his sole example of government surveillance gone mad, and it was a lie. Moreover, the senator did not even attempt to explain how this fictitious incident was relevant to the NSA’s electronic surveillance, the Patriot Act, or any other power the president has used in the War on Terror.

The student had claimed to have been visited by agents from the Department of Homeland Security, which then helped to refute the story by explaining that it doesn’t even have agents of its own. Yet a man who was in the Senate at the time that it created that department (He was one of nine who voted against it) did not even bother to check the veracity of the kid’s tall tale before spilling it onto the pages of the Globe.

If this behavior were peculiar to Ted Kennedy, it would be easy to laugh off, as his words and actions typically are. However, the perpetuation of such wild rumors and hoaxes has long been the standard operating procedure for his colleagues in the Democratic Party. For example:



Is that you, Marie? Are you now blogging under the name “The Conservative Woman?” How terribly bland! “Right Wing Dominatrix” would be much more appealing!


Yeah, now Michelle’s (possibly Jesse, but doubtful) calling her shot on the end of the world. I don’t know what I’m gonna do with her.


Anyone who falls for hoaxes, be it Little Red Books or…oh, I don’t know…weapons of mass destruction…are objectively pro-terrorist.


It is our conclusion that the preponderance of evidence does indeed indicated, in the strongest possible terms, that certain members of our audience do possess cobags in addition to being reasonably identified as such.


You know, it could be Marie, since she’s just doing a cut ‘n’ paste to cover her bad grammar.

And that web site is just pure shite.

Marie-we’ve missed you honey. Come on back to where you belong, here in our bog…


…Oh, and everybody synchronize watches: body armor will be good again tomorrow at 0800 hours.


Marie’s back!! ^_^

I think that Mrs. Merkin’s doing opinions based on some sine wave function (i.e. sin(THETA)) while the nuttiness is on a tangent function (i.e. tan(THETA)).

Trigonometrically, it’s a work of art. Mentally, they’re deranged assclowns.


Hey, I wonder what Marie thinks of David Horowitz? Money line in the link, “Even if these examples aren’t correct, he said, they represent the reality of academic life.” Of course, I don’t expect her or the author to retract the assertion that it’s a distinctively Democratic trait; afterall, even if it’s a flat out lie, that doesn’t detract from their overall point.


If I might point out to Marie: Kennedy is a politician- a species infamous for virtually never admitting they’re wrong (unless they think it will give them sympathy with the fickle mob). Bush and his ilk are model members of the species, no less so than Hillary or Ted, anyway.


Anyone who is in the gov’t one can reasonably know that there cheats out for thenself first, state second and to hell with the country. Bush will most likely go down in history as the most obvious man to force a lie and get a country so far in debt. Plus being so ill prepared for this war, except for Halliburton who was busily building the compound 9 mos. ahead of time. But no matter , we just have to watch a few more years of the gov’t spending as if there is no tomorrow. Can’t afford to help Americans but dish it up for anyone else as long as it looks good and benefits others not living here. I support our troops, I do not support this lie of a war.


(comments are closed)