Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Lady Brin

LGF vs. Obama vs. Palin

13 posts in this topic

In response to the link at Little Green Footballs on another board, the responder wrote:

http://obamadefense.com/ & http://mccainfailure.com/ are parked at GoDaddy.com and contain no original content, much less pointers to anything.

http://mccainwar.com/ and the blog's actual target, http://sarahpalingayrights.com redirect to http://alchemytoday.com/obamataxcut/

sarahpalingayrights.com & mccainwar.com's registrant is a domain registration company in - get this - Arizona.

The Alchemy Today website has the following disclaimer.

ObamaTaxCut.com is a project of AlchemyToday.com and has no relation to the Obama campaign or any other organization whatsoever.

Alchemy Today's registrant is a guy named Zach Hensel in Maryland. The closest this guy can come to the Obama campain is a profile on my.barackobama.com - which pretty much anybody can do.

No where on any of these sites is there any sort of text that's quoted in the your referenced blog post. And the redirect he's talking about is wrong.

You don't need Linux to do this - though I'm betting that's what the author wanted you to believe.

If you want to find out where a site goes, you can do so in Windows from the command prompt (type in: tracert www.sarahpalingayrights.com).

And if you want to find out who owns a domain, you can go to http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/ to find who the curent owner (aka registrant) of a domain is.

I know nothing about how any of this works, but I do trust the integrity of LGF over the poster. Does anyone here have any "tracker" experience? If so, who is closer to being correct?

I did read on Reuters that Palin supports teaching creationism which I find annoying that she's already expressed an opinion, if the reporter was correct, on this topic so soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
....I do trust the integrity of LGF....

I don't. They regularly refer to Pat Buchanan as a Nazi, which is a libelous absurdity.

Why do they call him a Nazi? and if his views are racist, xenophobic, and totalitarian, why wouldn't the term "Nazi" be appropriate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In response to the link at Little Green Footballs on another board, the responder wrote:
http://obamadefense.com/ & http://mccainfailure.com/ are parked at GoDaddy.com and contain no original content, much less pointers to anything.

http://mccainwar.com/ and the blog's actual target, http://sarahpalingayrights.com redirect to http://alchemytoday.com/obamataxcut/

sarahpalingayrights.com & mccainwar.com's registrant is a domain registration company in - get this - Arizona.

The Alchemy Today website has the following disclaimer.

ObamaTaxCut.com is a project of AlchemyToday.com and has no relation to the Obama campaign or any other organization whatsoever.

Alchemy Today's registrant is a guy named Zach Hensel in Maryland. The closest this guy can come to the Obama campain is a profile on my.barackobama.com - which pretty much anybody can do.

No where on any of these sites is there any sort of text that's quoted in the your referenced blog post. And the redirect he's talking about is wrong.

You don't need Linux to do this - though I'm betting that's what the author wanted you to believe.

If you want to find out where a site goes, you can do so in Windows from the command prompt (type in: tracert www.sarahpalingayrights.com).

And if you want to find out who owns a domain, you can go to http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/ to find who the curent owner (aka registrant) of a domain is.

I know nothing about how any of this works, but I do trust the integrity of LGF over the poster. Does anyone here have any "tracker" experience? If so, who is closer to being correct?

I did read on Reuters that Palin supports teaching creationism which I find annoying that she's already expressed an opinion, if the reporter was correct, on this topic so soon.

Try that command in your command window, presuming you have Windows.

The form is "tracer website name"

Example:

Try "tracert www.sarahpalingayrights.com” then press [Enter]

You will get each router that the packet goes through to get to the destination site. The last one is the destination site. In this case I get "ObamaTaxCut.com" and an ip address of 74.208.74.232. An ip address is the physical address on the internet, and the names are mapped to the address.

Btw, if you don't know how to get to the command prompt in Windows you do it this way:

In Vista: Go to the start menu in the lower, left-hand corner, click it. Then in the text box where it says "Start Search" type in "cmd" and press [Enter]. The command window will pop up, and that's where you enter the "tracert" command.

In Windows XP, you go to the start menu, press "Run", and then enter "cmd" and press[Enter] to get to the command window. Type the "tracert" command in and press [Enter].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
....I do trust the integrity of LGF....

I don't. They regularly refer to Pat Buchanan as a Nazi, which is a libelous absurdity.

Why do they call him a Nazi? and if his views are racist, xenophobic, and totalitarian, why wouldn't the term "Nazi" be appropriate?

Why do they call him a Nazi? Perhaps because he doesn't toe the LGF/FreeRepublic/Neo-conservative party line, and they hysterically resort to the sort of ad hominems more typically eminating from the Left? Perhaps because they're too ignorant to know the difference?

I take it you think those terms apply to him? Why don't you just say so, and tell us why, rather than infer it, and put it on me to prove that he is not those things. Why is it to me to disprove something untrue, rather it being on the person making the inferred assertion that it is true to give some evidence, at least as an initial starting point for debate? If I stated that Obama is the Anti-Christ, to posit something equally absurd, would it be on you to prove that he is not, or for me to provide some evidence that he is?

C'mon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
....I do trust the integrity of LGF....

I don't. They regularly refer to Pat Buchanan as a Nazi, which is a libelous absurdity.

Why do they call him a Nazi? and if his views are racist, xenophobic, and totalitarian, why wouldn't the term "Nazi" be appropriate?

Why do they call him a Nazi? Perhaps because he doesn't toe the LGF/FreeRepublic/Neo-conservative party line, and they hysterically resort to the sort of ad hominems more typically eminating from the Left? Perhaps because they're too ignorant to know the difference?

You mean that the people at LGF - including Charles Johnson, the founder - haven't provided any evidence to support any charges made against Buchanan? You mean they haven't written why they hold a certain opinion of him? That they haven't provided statements he made or actions he took?

But, commenters on LGF aside, has Charles Johnson himself ever called Buchanan a Nazi? If so, when? If not, what did he call him? and why?

I ask these questions because this is the nature of proper thought: when you assert X, you have to provide evidence for your assertion. And if someone asks you for evidence, you have to be ready to provide it. Formally, in logic, this is known as the onus-of-proof principle.

Leaving LGF for a moment, has Buchanan made any statements which would render any "Nazi" accusations against him false? If so, provide these statements. I am open to reviewing whatever you post.

I take it you think those terms apply to him? Why don't you just say so, and tell us why, rather than infer it, and put it on me to prove that he is not those things. Why is it to me to disprove something untrue, rather it being on the person making the inferred assertion that it is true to give some evidence, at least as an initial starting point for debate? If I stated that Obama is the Anti-Christ, to posit something equally absurd, would it be on you to prove that he is not, or for me to provide some evidence that he is?

Why the mind-reading?

As for whom the burden of proof rests upon, please see my comments above. You have to show that primary individuals on LGF have accused Buchanan falsely. You could do this by providing several LGF primary posts which accuse Buchanan without evidence. By "primary," I mean Charles' posts; posts by people who post in Charles' stead; or several comments which remain undeleted or unadmonished by Charles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> has Charles Johnson himself ever called Buchanan a Nazi?

Regularly.

Do your own research.

> Leaving LGF for a moment, has Buchanan made any statements which would render any "Nazi" accusations against him false?

LOL!

You can't be freaking serious.

> Why the mind-reading?

The inference was clear.

You're absolutely right, Pat is a Nazi, LGF is a credible source of information, and all is well with the world.

Carry on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
> has Charles Johnson himself ever called Buchanan a Nazi?

Regularly.

Do your own research.

Charles Johnson does not like Pat Buchanan at all, because he thinks he's an apologist for the Nazis and an anti-Semite. I don't know if he thinks he's a Nazi.

But, you may be interested in this video in which Victor David Hanson and Christopher Hitchens critique Buchanan's recent book: Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I did read on Reuters that Palin supports teaching creationism which I find annoying that she's already expressed an opinion, if the reporter was correct, on this topic so soon.

Her support of creationism came up in a debate prior to her being elected governor of Alaska in 2006. Details are here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
> has Charles Johnson himself ever called Buchanan a Nazi?

Regularly.

Do your own research.

Well, I did a research on my own. I typed "Buchanan" in the search field, and read all the results that opened there (2 pages of results).

There are only 2 times the word "Nazi" was mentioned in tandem with Buchanan -

Link Number 1

Neo-Nazis Heart Pat Buchanan

Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 9:12:17 am PST

The racist swine at the web site of neo-Nazi radio show The Political Cesspool are big supporters of Pat Buchanan: Why I love Pat Buchanan.

Warning: before you click the link, be aware that the Political Cesspool site is full of blatant racism and obsessive hatred.

Also see:

Vlaams Belang and the US White Supremacist Cesspool

Pat Buchanan Appears on Neo-Nazi Radio Show

I went to the site LGF links to, and it is a white supremacy anti-Jewish site. Go there and see for yourselves if you don't believe me.

-------------

Link Number 2

Pat Buchanan Appears on Neo-Nazi Radio Show

Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 1:33:13 pm PST

That’s right; Pat Buchanan, who is a frequent guest on both Fox News and MSNBC, appeared recently on an infamous “white nationalist” radio show to promote his revisionist World War II book: Pat Buchanan Advertises His Book On Neo-Nazi Radio Show.

On June 29th, MSNBC personality and three-time presidential candidate Pat Buchanan appeared on a neo-Nazi radio program to promote his new revisionist history of the Second World War, Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World. James Edwards is the host of the program “Political Cesspool,” the stated mission of which is to “represent a philosophy that is pro-White.” Edwards and his colleauges seek “to revive the White birthrate above replacement level fertility and beyond to grow the percentage of Whites in the world relative to other races” and believe that “Secession is a right of all people and individuals. It was successful in 1776 and this show honors those who tried to make it successful in 1865.”

According to the researchers at the Anti-Defamation League, who listened to the show, Buchanan defended Charles Lindbergh, saying, “...his reputation has been blackened because of a single speech he gave and a couple of paragraphs in it where he said that ... the Jewish community is beating the drums for war ... but frankly, no one has said what he said was palpably untrue.”

Buchanan is in good company. Perusing the guest list of Political Cesspool, one sees Willis Carto, (perhaps the most prominent anti-Semite in America), Mark Weber (Director of the Institute for Historical Review, a Holocaust denial outfit) and Jared Taylor, the editor of American Renaissance, a eugenicist publication. A political cesspool indeed. Calling Buchanan a “brownshirt” a few weeks ago may have seemed a little impertinent at the time, but it’s entirely accurate.

If you were paying attention during the battles over the Belgian Vlaams Belang party, the name of that radio show may be familiar to you; other guests of “The Political Cesspool” have included David Duke and Vlaams Belang leaders Filip DeWinter and Frank Vanhecke: Vlaams Belang and the US White Supremacist Cesspool.

Charles Johnson has a lot of material in his posts about the Belgian party "Vlaams Belang" and about their white supremacy views. I will not write them all here, but you can research that matter at your own leisure.

-----------------------------------------------

So - Charles Johnson never called Buchanan a Nazi, only those white supremacy groups and websites he associated with.

He does call Buchanan a slime , which is entirely justifiable when you speak of a man who blamed Israel for 9/11, Who blamed Poland and the US for WWII , who is consorting with vile antisemitic groups and appearing on their radio shows. I'd call him no less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I...read on Reuters that Palin supports teaching creationism which I find annoying that she's already expressed an opinion, if the reporter was correct, on this topic so soon.

According to Associated Press reporter Dan Joling Gov. Palin is a "good" Christian creationist, but a bad theocrat.

As a candidate for governor, Sarah Palin called for teaching creationism alongside evolution in public schools. But after Alaska voters elected her, Palin, now Republican John McCain's presidential running mate, kept her campaign pledge to not push the idea in the schools.

As for her personal views on evolution, Palin has said, "I believe we have a creator." But she has not made clear whether her belief also allowed her to accept the theory of evolution as fact.

"I'm not going to pretend I know how all this came to be," she has been quoted as saying.

...When asked during a televised debate in 2006 about evolution and creationism, Palin said, according to the Anchorage Daily News: "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."

In a subsequent interview with the Daily News, Palin said discussion of alternative views on the origins of life should be allowed in Alaska classrooms. "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum," she said.

"It's OK to let kids know that there are theories out there. They gain information just by being in a discussion."

...Palin said during her 2006 gubernatorial campaign that if she were elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum, or look for creationism advocates when she appointed board members.

...Palin's children attend public schools and Palin has made no push to have creationism taught in them.

Neither have Palin's socially conservative personal views on issues like abortion and gay marriage been translated into policies during her 20 months as Alaska's chief executive..."She has basically ignored social issues, period," said Gregg Erickson, an economist and columnist for the Alaska Budget Report.

As a politician, it looks like Sarah Palin has left this issue alone since her gubernatorial campaign. As a parent, it looks like Sarah Palin is not so concerned about "secular humanism" that she removed her children from public school were they would be instructed in the faith-destroying theory* of evolution.

A 2006 story in the Anchorage Daily News covered the topic, the last time it came up in Gov. Palin's public life.

* Note to self: stop calling it the "theory of evolution" and start calling it the "law of evolution."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
* Note to self: stop calling it the "theory of evolution" and start calling it the "law of evolution."

Actually, you are fine in calling it a theory. A scientific law just describes. A theory explains. The law of gravity says what goes up must come down. The theory of relativity explains how time, space, and energy cause it to come down.

To be worthy of the name "theory" in science requires a lot more than just conjecture (its common usage).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...but I do trust the integrity of LGF over the poster.

And you should! Charles Johnson is a good guy, and we should all count ourselves amongst his Lizardoid army!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0