tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29915355.comments2023-08-01T05:34:36.538-04:00Sublime BloviationsBryan Whitehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07608604859044029293noreply@blogger.comBlogger198125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29915355.post-64033810415736523662022-01-22T13:52:39.672-05:002022-01-22T13:52:39.672-05:00Forget all that where can they be purchased?
Forget all that where can they be purchased?<br />Jaynehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14636966657940735887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29915355.post-43981806940116177982019-09-24T12:49:45.653-04:002019-09-24T12:49:45.653-04:00harleyj wrote"
**Oliver North was an admitte...harleyj wrote"<br /><br />**Oliver North was an admitted felon...**<br /><br />We draw a distinction between "admitted felon" and "convicted felon," right?<br /><br />Did you read the article?Bryan Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07608604859044029293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29915355.post-64933345038623793642018-05-08T01:22:15.789-04:002018-05-08T01:22:15.789-04:00Yeah, pretty sure I covered that in the original a...Yeah, pretty sure I covered that in the original article:<br /><br />***Writing after the conviction but before Gesell dismissed the charges, one could call North a "convicted felon" without seriously misleading the reader. But one could even today reasonably call North a "felon" minus the "convicted" part since factual guilt was more-or-less established even if moral guilt might remain in doubt.***<br /><br />Sometimes it's a good idea to read the entire article before commenting.Bryan Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07608604859044029293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29915355.post-70246447367178223762018-05-07T23:29:52.448-04:002018-05-07T23:29:52.448-04:00Just because his convictions were overturned on a ...Just because his convictions were overturned on a technicality doesnt mean it didnt do the things he was originally convicted of. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02957512798814152496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29915355.post-16182595548076740962016-12-23T18:31:51.212-05:002016-12-23T18:31:51.212-05:00I agree completely with the article. North tried t...I agree completely with the article. North tried to do the right thing. He simply went about it in the wrong way. In the position he held as Poindexter's deputy, I would think it was a very easy thing to do, and to wrongfully act believing the end justifies the means.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02288562572089549646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29915355.post-73325134516310388482016-05-17T00:50:59.640-04:002016-05-17T00:50:59.640-04:00Yeah, BST, you're way late the party and you h...Yeah, BST, you're way late the party and you have nothing new to add.<br /><br />It's not that North is "technically" not a convicted felon, it's that legally, not technically, he is not a convicted felon. And the legal status is precisely the status that matters for the condition of either being or not being a convicted felon.<br /><br />Calling North a convicted felon is roughly the equivalent of claiming a lower-court win supercedes a loss on appeal. But it doesn't work that way. The higher court decision vacates the lower court decision, making it a legal *nothing*.<br /><br />From the conclusion of my post:<br /><br />"one could even today reasonably call North a "felon" minus the "convicted" part since factual guilt was more-or-less established even if moral guilt might remain in doubt."<br /><br />Call North guitly of felonious behavior if you like. It's possible to make a good argument for doing that. But it's just false to say North is a convicted felon when the conviction was vacated.Bryan Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07608604859044029293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29915355.post-24861744272055376752016-05-14T19:01:24.424-04:002016-05-14T19:01:24.424-04:00Late to the party, but the argument that technical...Late to the party, but the argument that technically he's not a convicted felon because he snitches to save himself, well that's better. The Supreme Court refused to hear the case? Gee, what was the conservative count of justices? There ya go. Also in his defense, he was had the same excuse as the Nazis, he was just following orders. I think he also used AOL for his official email,which today seems to be a crime.BUY SELL TRADE!!!!!!https://www.blogger.com/profile/03121846328375467834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29915355.post-1283574163615139132015-03-21T11:24:16.520-04:002015-03-21T11:24:16.520-04:00"If there is a real story here, it is why the..."If there is a real story here, it is why there is only one PolitiFact review on this guy. I mean, hasn't he done hundreds of stories?"<br /><br />You don't think it's a real story that fact checking journalists overlook the difference between mean and median? And skip looking at their usual favorite source of data where it might make a big difference?<br /><br />It seems you may have missed our point. "Grading PolitiFact" was a recurring feature. This story was not intended as a general indictment of PolitiFact. It was intended to catalog one tree in the forest that is PolitiFact's shortcomings. Click the tag "Grading PolitiFact" and you'll have plenty of stories of this type to review (there are more trees in this forest than we can count).<br /><br />"If you want to impress the non-believers, you gotta try harder."<br /><br />You could dig a little deeper to see the effort. Start with the rest of the "Grading PolitiFact" series, then you can move on PolitiFactBias.com (especially the research section) and Zebra Fact Check (zebrafactcheck.com). It's safe to say nobody's put more effort into criticism of PolitiFact. And, in all humility, the research at PolitiFact Bias is the best anybody's published so far on PolitiFact's liberal bias.Bryan Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07608604859044029293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29915355.post-70274961768580905142015-03-21T09:52:18.404-04:002015-03-21T09:52:18.404-04:00What a waste of virtual ink. Right wing hacks can ...What a waste of virtual ink. Right wing hacks can be better than that. If there is a real story here, it is why there is only one PolitiFact review on this guy. I mean, hasn't he done hundreds of stories? Who buys anything on the internet with only one review? PolitiFact has done a fine job of skewering Rachel Maddow. If you are just catering to the choir, then you are all good. If you want to impress the non-believers, you gotta try harder.<br />I'm just sayin'miguelonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10953793118242371583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29915355.post-10536643198272344452014-07-01T09:33:47.737-04:002014-07-01T09:33:47.737-04:00Oliver North was an admitted felon...He admitted h...Oliver North was an admitted felon...He admitted his crimes under oath before the nation on national television. He was later convicted in a court of law...However, that conviction was set aside by the judge, Gessell, who presided over the original trial only because Independent Counsel, Walsh, asked for it because Oliver North's "immunized testimony" during the congressional committee hearing was used in the trial. That "immunized testimony" contained an admission to many more criminal acts by North than he was charged with and tried for.<br /><br />Oliver North implicated President Reagan by telling the congressional committee, under oath, that Reagan knew about the "Shadow Government" crimes that occurred in the White House basement as they were occurring . He did not say he was "under orders" by Reagan to commit crimes. Nevertheless, Reagan's knowledge of crimes and failing to report them is a criminal and impeachable offense for which Reagan could have been impeached! <br /><br />The Democrats were not dead set on sending North to prison for eternity or in impeaching Reagan. They were interested in "getting at the truth" of the corruption and criminal activity in the Reagan administration. They got what they wanted. Obviously modern day Republicans and Reagan apologists are more interested in "getting at the truth" about lawful and reasonable delays in approving applications for tax free status for political fanatics like the Tea Party and even very liberal groups, as well, than they were are will ever be when it comes to major felonies that admittedly, under oath, occurred in the White House with the knowledge of Ronald Reagan. Moreover, they seem not to care about the delay in justice for victims of federal crimes who have to wait for justice because Republicans refuse to give their "advice and consent" to President Obama's judicial appointments.<br /><br />That the Reagan Administration was the most corrupt administration in US history based on the number of high and mid-level appointees who were investigated, indicted, charged, tried, convicted, jailed, fined and/or who had to leave public service under cloud of criminal scandal is not subject to argument or denial. The record is clear and the facts are indisputable..yet the Republicans and TeaPublicans still irrationally worship him as if he was Jesus Come Again. <br /><br />When Republicans start holding Republican presidents to as high a standard as they hold the Black President who lives in the White House that Republicans believe belongs to them, Republicans cannot and should not be taken seriously with their "witch hunt" House committee hearings on everything under the sun.harleyjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05808059459447851532noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29915355.post-26898857959812364252014-03-15T22:48:23.794-04:002014-03-15T22:48:23.794-04:00Huh. Well, I still think he was joking.Huh. Well, I still think he was joking.Bryan Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07608604859044029293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29915355.post-6236592533058922802014-03-15T20:58:34.276-04:002014-03-15T20:58:34.276-04:00Who controls the CDC?
Isn't ObamaCARE the law ...Who controls the CDC?<br />Isn't ObamaCARE the law of the land?<br />Rush just connects the dots long before others do...Cherihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13053017939704958231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29915355.post-30401657186353229422013-12-10T05:39:33.661-05:002013-12-10T05:39:33.661-05:00Thanks for commenting! No, I never saw a "pe...Thanks for commenting! No, I never saw a "perlin," and before this week never knowingly laid eyes on a Peregrine Falcon. Thanks to binoculars I confirmed the sighting of one on Sunday.<br /><br />The bird in the photo is a Merlin. It's appearance and markings were classic, though the photo certainly fails to do it justice.<br /><br />How does the Perlin hunt? Peregrine style, Merlin style, or both?Bryan Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07608604859044029293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29915355.post-17397477342757909822013-12-10T05:00:02.719-05:002013-12-10T05:00:02.719-05:00This may be a merlin - but have you ever seen a &#...This may be a merlin - but have you ever seen a 'perlin'? <br /><br />The word perlin is a falconer's term for a hybrid between a peregrine falcon and a merlin. It is bigger and faster than a merlin, but does not fly as far as a peregrine, and thus is less likely to fly far away and become lost. Usually the peregrine is the father and the merlin is the mother.jumbleranthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16902035414385555934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29915355.post-4852631626900233462013-05-14T17:31:49.075-04:002013-05-14T17:31:49.075-04:00Scott, I am not characterizing the left. I provid...Scott, I am not characterizing the left. I provide evidence of a repeated falsehood found on left-leaning blogs. I offer a corrective for the misinformation. That's it.<br /><br />As I pointed out, this post is short and to the point. If I buried my conclusions then you could have a point. But my conclusions are just a few sentences. There's no excuse for misunderstanding, unless you'd like to characterize the left as poor readers.Bryan Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07608604859044029293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29915355.post-41500136351889796092013-05-14T16:24:31.724-04:002013-05-14T16:24:31.724-04:00We are all flooded with information on a wide rang...We are all flooded with information on a wide range of subjects. Some casual observers will form their opinions based on a quick read and not dig any further. I think you understand this, which is why your defense of Oliver North begins with characterizing the Left as strident and spreading legends, which you back with a long series of quotes before admitting at the end that "factual guilt was more-or-less established." <br /><br />Yours is a tactical move. Obviously, the reason why people refer to North as a convicted felon is to point out that he can't be trusted since he was actually convicted of lying to Congress. This isn't a falsehood or a legend. It's not even necessarily ideological - I'm sure there are people on the Right who wouldn't trust him for that reason.<br /><br />Signing off now.Scott Schaferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16894652095365231201noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29915355.post-45084329749509724892013-05-14T15:23:14.970-04:002013-05-14T15:23:14.970-04:00"Let's say that there are only two things..."Let's say that there are only two things we can say about Oliver North and the Iran-Contra affair."<br /><br />Why should we do that? There are plenty of things we can say about Oliver North and Iran-Contra without inserting untruths or leaving out vital context.<br /><br />I pointed out a string of example of liberal bloggers who posted an untrue statement about North. If you think I've posted something inaccurate or misleading then feel free to point it out.Bryan Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07608604859044029293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29915355.post-62027457642550598972013-05-14T13:46:56.253-04:002013-05-14T13:46:56.253-04:00Let's say that there are only two things we ca...Let's say that there are only two things we can say about Oliver North and the Iran-Contra affair. <br /><br />1) Oliver North is a convicted felon who admitted to lying to Congress over his participation in an operation that illegally supplied weapons to Iran and funded an illegal war against the democratically elected Sandinista government of Nicaragua.<br /><br />2) North can answer truthfully…that he has never been convicted of a felony. Lefty bloggers who claim otherwise are spreading a falsehood.<br /><br />This might seem contrived, but many casual readers who didn't live through the Reagan years are only going to be exposed to limited information on the subject.<br /><br />I'd argue that the first statement is far closer to the truth, even if the language is slightly problematic.<br /><br />The second statement is simply a defense of North and a condemnation of his detractors and the media outlets that give him a voice. It distracts from the truth with semantics.<br /><br />I'm picturing the two of us on a road trip in the desert. Our car runs out of gas, hundreds of miles from nowhere, and our satellite phone has only enough charge to make one call. I call for help, saying "our car just broke down, please come get us" and you grab the phone and say "that's a falsehood, our car didn't break down." Yes, technically we didn't break down, we just ran out of gas. The substance of the matter still stands.Scott Schaferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16894652095365231201noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29915355.post-45986060588636367592013-05-14T13:07:24.522-04:002013-05-14T13:07:24.522-04:00"Do you think you're on the correct moral..."Do you think you're on the correct moral side of this argument, or just the linguistically correct side?"<br /><br />I still don't see where you think we disagree, but I'll address your question anyway:<br /><br />I think my post is linguistically and legally accurate as well as being on the morally correct side (your question is posed in the form of a false dilemma). I point out the truth accurately and make ample allowance for the caveats you're making. My post is short and to the point, so it is not a great burden for a person to read it thoroughly enough to accurately grasp its point.<br /><br />I hope you'll join me in encouraging people to report the facts about North accurately while they sit in moral judgment over him. Cheers.<br /><br />Bryan Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07608604859044029293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29915355.post-2410422639013347982013-05-14T12:07:13.680-04:002013-05-14T12:07:13.680-04:00When one person refers to Oliver North as a "...When one person refers to Oliver North as a "convicted felon", and you accuse them of spreading a "legend" and a "falsehood", I will grant that you are narrowly and technically correct. However, they are correct in every other way that matters. <br /><br />Here's how this plays out in the real world. Someone points out how laughable it is that Oliver North is accusing the Obama administration of covering up Benghazi, when Oliver North is himself a convicted felon who lied to Congress about an illegal military operation. Then someone responds with "That's a lie! Oliver North is not a convicted felon!" And the whole conversation gets derailed over a point that's not important.<br /><br />Perhaps a reader googles it and ends up here, as I did. And perhaps if they don't read closely, they come away with the impression that the left is totally loony and misinformed, and that Oliver North was perhaps innocent. Even though he admitted to his crimes.<br /><br />Do you think you're on the correct moral side of this argument, or just the linguistically correct side?Scott Schaferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16894652095365231201noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29915355.post-6212324783043807172013-05-14T02:01:32.200-04:002013-05-14T02:01:32.200-04:00Scott,
Thanks for dropping by. I hope you'll...Scott,<br /><br />Thanks for dropping by. I hope you'll stop by again and let me know where you think we disagree:<br /><br /><b>One could even today reasonably call North a "felon" minus the "convicted" part since factual guilt was more-or-less established even if moral guilt might remain in doubt.</b>Bryan Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07608604859044029293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29915355.post-54516997225025698192013-05-14T01:40:50.084-04:002013-05-14T01:40:50.084-04:00Oliver North lied to Congress, as well as particip...Oliver North lied to Congress, as well as participating in an illegal operation that gave weapons to Iran and funded an illegal war in Nicaragua. There is no disputing this. He himself admitted to lying to Congress. He was convicted of that. Even if he got off on a valid technicality and not because he found a sympathetic judge, this doesn't morally exonerate him in any way. He was guilty as charged, end of story.<br /><br />Let me put it this way: I would still be a murderer if I killed someone and got off on a technicality. Oliver North was responsible for subverting our democracy (as well as democracy in South America) and for helping to arm Iran. My mind still boggles that Oliver North is a hero of the Right. He helped arm Iran. Insane.<br /><br />And yet here is is on Fox News pontificating about Benghazi. This is your hero? A liar, subverter of democracy and arms trader to our our enemies?Scott Schaferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16894652095365231201noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29915355.post-26140364929001926532013-01-19T22:26:48.805-05:002013-01-19T22:26:48.805-05:00Huh. I was not aware of that.Huh. I was not aware of that.Bryan Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07608604859044029293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29915355.post-78963994103203467902013-01-17T22:43:32.369-05:002013-01-17T22:43:32.369-05:00Until you include the Ukes, your list is invalid.
...Until you include the Ukes, your list is invalid.<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EmxbbAoDq4Jeff D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16256347579300904884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29915355.post-33828421666207212852012-12-07T03:48:40.432-05:002012-12-07T03:48:40.432-05:00Thanks, by the way, for taking the time to comment...Thanks, by the way, for taking the time to comment. :-)Bryan Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07608604859044029293noreply@blogger.com