At least he has the cohones to admit he didn't know or was wrong about something, as opposed to a good many others.

Are you talking about Franken? If so, that's the point...he didn't admit he was wrong. Instead he hemmed and hawed about "doing research." Further, he didn't even admit he didn't know until he was directly asked a question about it. Is it not odd for someone to come out with a policy prescription under those circumstances?

Incidentally, Cam Edwards immediately said he would defer to Franken about the Lott issue, and Franken wouldn't shut up about it.

If you listen to Air America and Al Franken, which I'm sure you don't JOHN TANT, you would know Al Franken is a very intelligent guy, wheter you like his politics or not, so the fact you have this little interplay on a site called "Dummocrats" tells me you are not going to be very objective about what was really said. Give Al credit very having the guts to be at this convention ( I listened to quite a few debates Al had with conservatives there and he held his own just fine.) John, take your George Bush underwear off and open your narrow mind to other views. Go to MediaMatters.org and you can read all sorts of documented lies by your party.

Sorry to burst your bubble!

ironic, this shill telling john to "open [his] narrow mind to other views."

heh.

and really, johnny ortho, at least we here at dummocrats wear our "bias" on our sleeves. we dont make up neutral/public service-sounding names like "media matters" to secretly push our agenda. (though we are considering it. ;-)

and where did john say that al franken was a dummy? far as i can see, he said that he was uninformed on the gun issue.

do you know what the word "ignorant" means, ortho?

or are you as ignorant of that as franken is on guns?

Hey JAMES you posted 2 in a row! Try to take your time and give what you are going to say some thought next time so you don't appear to be kind of a dope! The fact that the comments appear at this silly site means it goes without saying that your little boy, John Tant, is questioning Al's intelligence. I listen to a lot of Right-Wing radio guys who are intelligent, (Medved, Prager), and I often don't agree with their points, but I don't act like a pathetic little dork and post my brainless comments at my wet-blanket web-site to make me feel good. Once again open your NARROW minds up to some variety and much needed accurate info. That's what I do and that's why I am smarter than you!!!

Live with it JAMES!!

Where to start with this, Mr. Ortho....?

First, I note that you're apparently a disciple of the Al Franken Debating Style, in which one tosses all sort of allegations onto the wall hoping something sticks. Even if nothing sticks, the other side just might get lost in the weeds in the time consuming corrections such tactics require.

So let's start from the beginning and apply some of that famed open-mindedness you're bragging about.

1) I never questioned Al Franken's intelligence. Nope. If you think I did, please point out specifically where I did so. In fact, in reading my post I don't even see where a reasonable person could misinterpret anything I said as questioning the guy's intelligence.

What I DID do was point out that on the subject of guns, Al Franken does not know very much. Further, it isn't ME saying that, it's AL FRANKEN HIMSELF. And there's no crime in not knowing what a semi-automatic gun is. That doesn't make a person stupid. Hey, I don't know a whole lot about soccer, because that isn't my thing. Apparently, guns aren't Franken's thing, and there's nothing wrong with that.

What is wrong is taking a subject about which one is admittedly ignorant and espousing a policy view on it. Indeed, that's the entire point of my criticism of him. Al Franken said he was in favor of the Assault Weapon Ban. Thirty seconds later he said he didn't know what an assault weapon is. Ninety seconds after that he said he didn't know much about guns at all. Then how can his opinion about the AWB hold any merit, since he doesn't know what it did or didn't do?

In sum, I don't think Al Franken is stupid. However, I do think HE thinks the majority of America is stupid.

Incidentally, my bias is on my sleeve, true...but tell you what. Go give Cam Edwards a call and see just how fair my reporting is. I certainly disagree with Franken's politics, but I reported the conversation fairly (if I didn't want to be fair, I wouldn't have brought up the John Lott comment, for instance...).

2) You accuse me of not listening to Air America or Al Franken, and then call me narrow minded. There's a basic logical fallacy there, in that I did indeed listen to what Al Franken was saying on the Cam Edwards show, ELSE I WOULDN'T BE COMMENTING ON IT. Further, you make a very huge assumption in that I don't listen to Air America. Sir, I'm a writer for a blog, and I routinely listen to opposing viewpoints for the purpose of possibly commenting on them for future entries.

The thing is, Air America jumped the shark a long time ago. Yes, I used to listen much more than I do now, but the shows turned into a comedy of errors. For instance, Al Franken claiming his show "beat" Rush Limbaugh's show in the ratings, when it turned out it did nothing of the kind (In the market, WLIB came in 23rd with a 1.7 share, WABC came in 2nd with a 4.8 share). Or Al Franken's tendency to call those with whom he disagrees "liars." Or, for that matter, Franken's tendency to get violent with those with whom he disagrees (He once challenged NR's Rich Lowry to a fistfight during a debate, a few months later in Exeter NH he attacked a demonstrator, and later still he got into near-physical fight with Laura Ingraham's producer during the RNC). Or for that matter, Randi Rhodes calling for the torture of Don Rumsfeld or the assassination of President Bush. Now those of the Democratic Underground stripe may want to imbue those characters with gravitas, but I sure don't. There's little point to listening to three hours of non-stop ad hominem insults, and I refuse to imbue such things with respectability.

3) I find it extremely interesting that you tell me to open my narrow mind, and then point me to MediaMatters.org. Well, interesting and humorous.

It's funny because as a rule, when a journalist is an admitted liar and fraud, like Jayson Blair, Janet Cooke, or Jack Kelley, that person usually has the good taste to slink off the national scene in shame. Generally, they don't start up a website that criticizes the media.

Anyway, I laugh because much of the criticism on that site complains about conservative pundits being biased. Well, duh...yes, they are. They are "pundits," after all. The other complaints center around kvetching that media stories don't adhere to the far left line. For instance, from their site:

"FOX News Washington managing editor Brit Hume falsely claimed that a Washington Post story on a new White House cost estimate for the Medicare prescription drug benefit had reported that "the new estimate contradicted an earlier 10-year forecast." In fact, the February 9 article never reported that the new estimate "contradicted" an earlier estimate, only that the new estimate indicated that the benefit would cost hundreds of billions more in later years than most people expected based on previous estimates."

In other words, the complaint is that Brit Hume used a word that wasn't in the article. For shame!!! Frankly, when it comes to the criticisms of bias which are put forth by MediaMatters.org, their main complaint is that reporting strays from the way Eric Alterman would cover something. So sorry to burst YOUR bubble, but the site isn't the paragon of virtue you think it is.

4) Finally, I can't help but notice that you don't bother to worry about the substance of what's said, rather you prefer to use ad hominem. Sadly, that's one of Franken's techniques too (he did it to dismiss John Lott's very real research about concealed carry and crime rates, for instance.). Fact: Franken admitted he knew nothing about guns. Fact: Franken is on record as supporting gun regulation. Fact: when confronted with something critical about Franken, you posted here calling both James and me names. How is that not narrow-minded?

Hm. I didn't know Al Franken had a line of underwear out.......

John this web site is a complete colossal waste of words. Get a hobby you clown.

John this web site is a complete colossal waste of words.

Wow, a guy telling me this site is a "colossal waste of words," and doing so with not one but TWO posts saying the same thing! Well, almost the same thing...what with the ad hominem in your first attempt (incidentally, *I'm* not the one posting things at 12:44 in the morning.....).

Remember John I don't know any better I'm a Dumocrat! The first post I attempted was stopped (at first) because of your free-speech filter until I removed the awful word CLOWN. I checked out your site and it is not very interesting or enlighting, even for a Lefty like me. I think a intellectual twit like you should put your efforts to a more positve use like helping poor kids (created by Republican policies.) As far as posting my message at 12:44, what are you a Boy Scout?!?!

BYE GUY!

Interesting...you say:

"The first post I attempted was stopped (at first) because of your free-speech filter until I removed the awful word CLOWN."

OK, but it's there, in plain view. So you're telling everyone you first tried to post but were stopped because the word "clown" was in the filter, but then magically it appeared after you posted AGAIN?!? And if the filter is stopping your use of the word clown, how is it you were able to use it in your recent post?

Quite fascinating. And I'm the intellectual twit in this exchange?!? Gee, I guess you told me!!!

As for "my" site, I do not own Dummocrats.com. James does, who will undoubtedly find your insightful comments very helpful.

I just stated the facts as they occurred last night. I don't know how the site works, but as you can plainly see the two posts are a minute apart with the 2nd one missing the word clown so I don't know what the offending word was but something in the software would not let it go through. Bottom line is Dummocrats or Dumbocrats is a site that is not worth the effort you or JAMES must put into it.

See you somewhere else

John Tant the 2nd

So somehow the site's software knew to remove the word "clown" so as to make you look bad?

Pull the other one.

Incidentally, for a site that isn't worth the effort James put into it, you certainly do seem to be spending quite a bit of time here. Didn't you say, and I quote, "BYE GUY?"

Does anyone remember his stance on CO2? hmmmm? His stance on spying?

Get back to me when Bill O’Reilly is over.

"you resort to making personal attacks"

You're kidding right? The Sierra Club is not politically motivated? Good one!!

So now that President Bush has made his various anti-fossil fuel statements in the SOTU, where is the Sierra Club in praising him?

It says that wasting gas is encouraged.

One only gets praise for "doing" something, huh? So no praise at all for mentioning Sierra Club pet issues in the SOTU

Incidentally, the pejorative you used pretty much means you've shot your credibility in this discussion

your blind Renfield-like blathering of talking points

Under education I see an associate's degree in graphic design from a county college. This is followed up by a six year stint at the New York-based "School of Visual Arts,"

I do not see an MBA from Yale, I do not see anything pointing to a serious committment to…

I do see is education from several open enrollment venues and three jobs in two years.

So with this I'm left with the feeling that Mr. Brady is using this venue as a way to get himself some attention on the Internet, perhaps to get his resume some exposure

I don't see anything in the background presented that would lead me to characterize Mr. Brady as an expert in environmental issues. This means his information is coming from the sources he identified, making his protestations at my criticism of his repetition of talking points somewhat curious.

As an aside, Mr. MaGroin, I kind of wish you were in Wisconsin as I'm desperately looking for a good web designer.

John Kerry and Al Gore both attended an Aspen, Colorado conference of 120 leaders in government, religion, media, and science over the weekend of October 6 to 8 with the goal of setting an agenda to address a perceived gap between the science on climate change and action on climate change. The conference was sponsored by the Yale School of Forestry and details can be found on pages 24-25 of the document here. The other participants were a who's who of the environmental community. Among the most controversial of the recommendations that I found from the conference was the following:…

The SUV thing is silly. As far as his transportation I’d think that the government provides the transportation. Could he have made it a point to make sure he wasn’t going to be taken away in a gas guzzling SUV, sure. Does he drive an SUV? I have no idea. What I do know about John Kerry is that he has a long history of working to protect the environment.

Kerry has demonstrated a long commitment to addressing climate change beginning as a participant at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 that produced the U. N. Framework Convention on Climate Change and calls climate change “the globe’s most serious environmental challenge.”

He has worked to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other pristine wilderness areas. Recently, the non-partisan League of Conservation Voters called Senator Kerry an "environmental champion."

Bills that Kerry has sponsored or co-sponsored this year

That’s funny. I don’t know what my resume has to do with anything but I’ll address it anyway.

By the way one of the guys from my class was a Warton School of Business graduate.

As far as Bush’s getting into Harvard goes...

Ah. Going to a meeting is "doing something?"

Incidentally, I know it's hard but if you're going to mention "controversial recommendations," you might actually, you know, want to bring them up. Either that or make clear when you're cutting and pasting something without attribution: http://commonsblog.org/archives/000618.

The SUV thing is not silly because it speaks directly to his hypocrisy.

Don't know what that is. Guess they're trying to trade on Wharton's good name

Also curious is your convenient ignorance of his private jet (using tons of fuel) and his many homes, both of which use scads of energy.

Being there's a pipeline running right through ANWR, your characterization of it as "pristine" is awfully interesting

Ah, bills that Kerry has co-sponsored, as if that's some great big deal in the Senate. In reality, signing onto already-drafted legislation really isn't doing much.

Recently, the non-partisan League of Conservation Voters called Senator Kerry an "environmental champion."

Since drilling there (ANWR) was already voted down,

Going to a meeting shows you have interest in doing something.

Yeah, I’m ridiculous to think the Curious George got in on credentials, sure. He’s as much an intellectual as he is an environmentalist.

Bill Gates comes to mind, I don’t think he has a degree. He seems to be doing just fine.

That text had a reference to another page AND I put the … to indicate that it went on. If you somehow thought I was claiming that as my own then sorry, I gave you too much credit.

I don’t begrudge anyone an SUV if they need it.

to get a Cinnabun...

I would have thought that a smart guy like you would have heard of one of the oldest most respected business schools in the country.

Co-Sponsoring isn’t “signing onto” as you said. It means that he was one of the sponsors of the bill

Bush’s agenda was clear when he came in, he immediately put the brakes on any new environmental protection rules.

Where did the greatest environmentalist of our time (otherwise known as George Bush) stand on this?

but I don't need some Chubbie telling me what I'm allowed to do with my money

But then, where are your successes comparable to Bill Gates?

nor any kind of indication that it was from another person. There's a word for that kind of "borrowing" of prose. What we see now is you either caught in a bonehead mistake (in which case your "dummy" insults take on an entirely new context) or you were trying to be deliberately fraudulent

And who are you to decide who "needs" what, Mr non-partisan? Thanks for exposing the secret agenda of the environmentalist movement

That would be "Cinnabon."

assuming Chubb had a civics curriculum

And again, I pointed out the concept of marginals to you, which someone who is a professed fair minded person would want to look into before offering an opinion

He said if drilling could be accomplished with a minimum of environmental disruption, he would support it. Various plans have shown that impact on ANWR

. I think there's a bridge somewhere that's missing its resident.

Typical debating style, when you can’t win with ideas you fall back on the tried and true method of ad hominem attacks

You guys are practically stalkers though, spending time on my web site, checking out my resume, checking out the web sites of schools that I’ve gone to, a little scary really.

Kerry goes to meetings and he acts, that’s what makes him different. He doesn’t go on TV, say one thing and then do another

Or I thought the … and the reference to another page would be a clue.

I never said I wanted to be the one that decides what anyone gets to drive.

I don’t begrudge anyone an SUV if they need it.

What again did he do that was a marginal?

Who sponsored these studies?

I think that it is our duty to leave the planet in as good or preferably better condition for future generations.

Again, fall back on the insults.

I’ve argued ideas with you, James and everyone here.

I'm sorry, who opened up the round by calling President Bush "Dummy?" Mr. Brady, some guy by the name of Mr. Pot is calling and saying you're black.

If you don't want people reading stuff about you, then don't put it on the Internet and advertise it on another site, Chubby. Pretty simple, really.

So when he's giving an Earth Day speech telling everyone to stop using oil, then gets into his SUV to drive to his private jet to fly across the country, while maintaining many different residences, that isn't "say[ing] one thing and then do[ing] another?!?" Kerry was painted as a hypocrite because is IS a hypocrite. No one invented his hypocrisy for him...he did a great job of that on his own.

I'd suggest you ask the Marshland Arabs if their homes are in better condition now for their kids and grandkids than they were before Bush got rid of Hussein.

So with that, Chubbie, it's been fun bue as I said your play time with the adults is over. Go ahead, take the last word, and it's past your bedtime.