Skip to main content

Donviti gets it absolutely right...

... and finds out that a prophet is generally without honor in his own country.

DV publishes a fisking of National Security Advisor James Jones' interview in which he claims we're killing a lot more terrorist now, but I can't tell you how many because we don't keep count, but it's impressive and we talk to a lot of people around the world that Bush ignored so everything is better now:

It was pretty easy to pick apart a Bush loyalist especially when they would put out vague statements and watch the media lap them up. Well, here we have an Obama guy doing the same thing, and, well, the same thing happens.


You should go read every damn word Donviti wrote.

Despite my remaining questions about the size of his mangos, this is the first honest piece of blogging in the Delaware 'Sphere to take on the gigantic inconsistencies, outright fabrications, and continued Bushco policies in the Obama administration.

Here's the crux of his point: you cannot evaluate this stuff on a different standard just because your guy won the White House. If it was wrong before, it's still wrong.

DV, I doubt it means much to you coming from me, but that's the second superlative post you've written in the past two or three weeks.

Comments

Dorian Gray said…
I am becoming more and more of a dissident each day. It is nauseating to watch the “liberals” over there swallow whole and defend every piece if spin from this administration just because the President is now in home whites rather than road grays. With every day that passes I understand better how the Chomsky/Herman media propaganda model works without overt coercion. Nitwits like the “liberals” over there and the “conservatives” at the other blogs just selective pick bits of bullshit to throw back and forth at each other. Does anyone think anymore?
Anonymous said…
It's lonely in the middle.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...