Patterico's Pontifications


Another Rhetorical Question

Filed under: General — JD @ 5:23 pm

[Guest post by JD]

Is there anything that MSNBC and the rest of the institutional Left will not lie about?

Sandy Hook parent heckled? Nope.

— JD

58 Responses to “Another Rhetorical Question”

  1. They just make shlt up

    JD (b63a52)

  2. Nope, there is nothing that they won’t lie about. Gun control is no exception. If anything, they lie more.

    SPQR (768505)

  3. The commercials are more truthful.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  4. even if every one of the parents were heckled heckled heckled every morning while they ate their breakfast burritos that wouldn’t lend any moral or logical support to propaganda slut piers morgan’s gruesome and shameful and unending attempots to exploit their dead dead babies to hysterically attack the constitutional rights of americans like me

    and you

    happyfeet (4bf7c2)

  5. *attempts* I mean

    happyfeet (4bf7c2)

  6. Speaking of commercials, Nanny Bloomberg’s pac just made a huge investment in a skeevy ad about gun control to try to influence the Il special election to replace disgraced congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. Bear in mind that the ad was cut specifically to demonize a female Democrat in an all Democrat field for having ties to the NRA.

    You cannot make this stuff up.

    elissa (82092a)

  7. Frum and Maggie Mac were made for each other.

    JD (b63a52)

  8. Careful JD. People in the west coast may still be eating dinner.

    elissa (82092a)

  9. Is there any point they are capable of telling the truth? In fact, do they even accept the concept of “truth?”

    You cannot assume anything with these self-serving, arrogant scumbags…

    WarEagle82 (97b777)

  10. It’s just straight up propaganda, used specifically as an attack on civil rights.

    Dustin (73fead)

  11. They’ll lie to protect liberal/progressive/democrats.

    And they’ll lie to defame/mock/insult conservatives and some Republicans.

    Jcw46 (eda37d)

  12. Nothing matters, but, the “narrative”.

    Kevin P. (1df29c)

  13. You can’t prove there wasn’t heckling that was said too softly to get picked up on audio.

    And even if there wasn’t, you can’t prove that somebody in the crowd didn’t have heckling in his heart.

    steve (e7e6c7)

  14. Dustin – it is done in service of an attack on capital R Rights.

    JD (448fa8)

  15. Doublethink is a tricky thing;

    narciso (3fec35)

  16. A Shout out to Heckle and Jeckle

    pdbuttons (949c1e)

  17. How about building a gallows at 30 Rockefeller Plaza?

    mg (31009b)

  18. I remember William Safire describing Hill as a “congenital liar”. In Bubba’s case “he lies when there is no reason to”.

    At the time I detested them. How many people have they destroyed, with deliberation?

    But we are witnessing a whole new ball game. There is no longer any attempt to deceive, to dissemble, to twist the truth creatively.

    With the antiChrist’s example, the object is to flat out sell the lie lock, stock and barrel. No attempt is made at verisimilitude. ‘Just go out there and vomit dysenteric screaming BS.’

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  19. During the campaign for the President’s first election, the media changed the rules. It didn’t tell anyone, including Hillary.

    It still hasn’t and it never will.

    Most low-information voters and the general public don’t know this. When the press becomes a tool for one political party over another not much can be done.

    The schadenfreude is the media will be blind-sided when the real rules take affect.

    Ag80 (b2c81f)

  20. They all seem to be Lillian Hellman:
    Everything they say is a lie, including and and the.

    askeptic (2bb434)

  21. 13. Nothing matters, but, the “narrative”.

    Comment by Kevin P. (1df29c) — 1/29/2013 @ 6:21 pm

    Of course. And they’ll tell you that to your face when you finally nail them down.

    Interesting that this subject came up today. History professor and former communist Ron Radosh wrote an article yesterday on different events, but how nothing matters but the narrative.

    Haymarket! Another Leftist Historical Myth Gets Destroyed

    Every so often, a cherished myth of the Left’s historical narrative comes apart. That is why keeping the flame alive by repeating the myths gives sustenance to the Left’s chosen causes. I learned this the hard way when I wrote The Rosenberg File with Joyce Milton in 1983.

    To the Left, it was imperative that the Rosenbergs — who were found guilty of “conspiracy to commit espionage” and sentenced to death by Judge Irving Kaufman after the trial — be innocent. If they were not, it would mean that they were not martyrs for peace, arrested and tried for their “progressive” and anti-war politics and their opposition to the impending fascism and anti-Soviet hysteria of the Truman administration. Rather, if actually guilty, it would mean that the United States had a right to protect itself against those who were working on behalf of the Soviet Union by seeking to ferret out atomic secrets on behalf of Joseph Stalin’s tyrannical regime.

    To acknowledge the truth, in other words, meant that those on the Left would have to question their most cherished beliefs.

    When the book came out, it was only thirty years after the Rosenbergs were executed at Sing Sing prison, and many of those who fought on their behalf were still around and active. Thus they engaged in a massive campaign to discredit our findings and to smear us as tools of the FBI and the Reagan administration, which they charged was trying once again to undermine the cause of peace and to seek war with the still existing Soviet Union.

    …Imagine Messer-Kruse’s shock when his own careful scholarly examination of Haymarket revealed that most of what the Left taught about the event was based on both shoddy scholarship and ideological wish-fulfillment.

    …What next occurred paralleled directly my own experience after publication of The Rosenberg File. Much to his surprise and consternation, Messer-Kruse was confronted by others’ “utter and complete denial of the evidence.”

    I could have told him that he would get that response. I received calls from former friends telling me: “We need the Rosenbergs to be innocent.” “You have betrayed the movement and all of us.” “Even if they were spies, you should not have written the book.” One person even offered to host a Chinese Communist-style rectification session at which I could atone and take back what I wrote.

    …Messer-Kruse’s response to all this was precisely the one that I had. He said:

    We have an obligation to represent as best as we can the objective reality of the past.

    Reading his words, I had to suppress a laugh. How quaint — a historian, although one on the political Left, believes he has a commitment to truth about the past, a commitment that stands above serving the needs of a political movement. Doesn’t he know, as one of my old comrades in the social-democratic movement told me at the time: “We’re trying to recruit former Communists into our movement (Michael Harrington’s group) and your book will hinder our effort. You shouldn’t have written it”?

    After all, truth is relative. We are supposed to do what serves the class struggle and the movement; the truth is what serves the movement’s ends, and is not objective.

    Steve57 (5dbebd)

  22. How just horrifyinglyawful that they would concoct such a story – first – people in the crowd would have given people who heckled a grieving parent such a beat down – the MMA would need a new gig

    No one liberal or conservative = pacifist or paisly wearer would allow such a thing.

    Just cannot believe that they would do that – make up such a story

    EPWJ (c3dbb4)

  23. Intriguing that Latell’s recent book, punctured the pretense that Oswald was such a patsy, as it indicated the Cuban DGI’s awareness of the assasination before hand, and suggested one of those peddling that other conspiracy, was at best
    peddling an incomplete tale,

    narciso (3fec35)

  24. It appears there was one person in the room willing to answer his question.

    AZ Bob (c11d35)

  25. So the republicans help Benedict Kerry. What a bunch of gutless pricks. Do they know he tossed his b.s. medals away. This country sucks.

    mg (31009b)

  26. 26. They were daydreaming about Menendez’ trysts.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  27. Ok, they might have been night terrors:


    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  28. We’re in very capable hands;

    narciso (3fec35)

  29. Anyone else have a flashback to the “interview” with Bill and Hillary before the election?

    Another set piece to promote and promulgate leftist liars by the Democrat Media.

    And once again Hillary protects a lying bastard from the condemnation and punishment he so richly deserve(d|s).

    And she’s the smartest woman in America? And deserves being the leader of America?

    I don’t think so.

    Jcw46 (eda37d)

  30. I should note, I’m referring to the interview before Bill’s election.

    Jcw46 (eda37d)

  31. It’s not that Bob Menendez was paying for sex.

    It’s that that sex was with underage girls.

    And we all know how those headlines would read if a Republican was the focus.

    Jcw46 (eda37d)

  32. Democratic Senator promotes full employment in valued ally.

    Pious Agnostic (6ff605)

  33. That wasn’t heckling. It was an example of the Left’s compassionate journalistas demonstrating their humanity by inquiring about the health and well-being of Sarah Palin’s Downs syndrome baby.

    ropelight (979d9e)

  34. Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 1/30/2013 @ 7:14 am

    Vietnam Veterans for Kerry (take a look)

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  35. When it rains the sewers back up:

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  36. A report yesterday from Houston, today Miami. And no advance PSA.

    Well, at least they won’t be shot as spies.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  37. 40. I wonder why my cats are getting so scatterbrained. They follow me all over the house expecting me to remember what I was about.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  38. 31. Huge Spencer fan, and Anis Shorrosh, Walid Shoebat, Bat Ye’or,..

    Locals who’ve fled always know best.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  39. In the run up to zero information election, Q3 was touted as blue skies ahead, GDP 3.1%.

    Now Q4 is -0.1 per cent and likely to be revised lower.

    At least we’re not Italy, or worse Spain:

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  40. So long as the girls were alive ….

    htom (412a17)

  41. The CBS Evening News said this should be corrected, and said consumer spending was up for the year and that this downturn was probably due to a cutback in defense spending. (

    I thought the fiscal cliff deadline was hurting spending in December)

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  42. Apparently it was heckling because the question should have been considered purely rhetorical.

    The real problem is they didn’t have a good answer. I gave 5 answers above.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  43. i still don’t give a damn if this guy was heckled or not it simply doesn’t change the price of peabnut bubber or anything else of consequence

    peabnut bubber is loaded with carbs btw which is what FAT people eat not people like us

    happyfeet (4bf7c2)

  44. The real problem is they didn’t have a good answer. I gave 5 answers above.

    The text of the amendment is not good enough for you?

    JD (b63a52)

  45. “I gave 5 answers above.”

    Sammy – You’re slipping. You usually give more and they usually conflict with each other.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  46. suck it up cupcake I say

    happyfeet (4bf7c2)

  47. cupcakes through a straw?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  48. whatever floats your boat I say

    happyfeet (4bf7c2)

  49. 47. Apparently it was heckling because the question should have been considered purely rhetorical.

    The guy made it pretty obvious that his question wasn’t rhetorical when he asked once, waited for an answer, then restated the question in a way that made it clear he was taking the fact that no one had answered him as meaning no one could answer him. Up until that point it appears everyone in the room thought his question was rhetorical.

    The real problem is they didn’t have a good answer. I gave 5 answers above.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 1/30/2013 @ 4:41 pm

    I think the best answer as to why someone needs an AR with a high-cap magazine would be just in case Sen. Menendez showed up in town in company with a Secret Service detail, and you have a couple of Dominican or Colombian girls staying with your family as high school exchange students.

    The media is shameless.

    Via Gateway Pundit: DOMINICAN HOOKERS SPEAK OUT – FBI Emails Released – Offices Raided in Sen. Menendez Underage Prostitute Scandal (Video) the Miami Herald is reporting that Menendez’s pimp, a Dr. Salomon Melgen who owned the plane, offices were raided.

    Apparently the FBI has released some emails; Gateway Pundit links to another site that has screenshots of them. The agent was communicating with the guy who blew the whistle on Menendez. Probably the guy who found the hookers and got them to talk on tape in the first place.

    I’ll just quote part of the emails:

    I am an agent with the FBI and I work cases involving crimes against children.

    …As far as the information you have provided, we have been able to confirm most of it. We know you are providing accurate information and that is why it is imperative that we meet in person…

    …I would not like the information you have to get stale and lose the opportunity to bring the people who have abused these young ladies to justice.

    Naturally it’s only a local story; the national media is following “ethics standard b.” Ethics standards A is used when it’s a Republican. That’s when they can’t wait to verify facts because otherwise they might lose the scoop (it’s also used when they think someone who might be a TEA Party member committed an act of violence as was the case when ABC(?) identified the wrong guy as the Aurora CO theater shooter).

    Ethics standard B is of course applied when the story concerns a Democrat. Then they’re serious journalists who have to verify the facts before irresponsibly printing something that might be wrong. That’s what distinguishes them from those silly bloggers, you know. All those editors; layers of fact checkers.

    Sweet bejeebus but these people are shameless.

    Steve57 (104863)

  50. Shameless. More is coming out about Menendez, but you’d never know it if you get your brain washed by the MFM. This is in a New Joisey rag:

    Menendez did not pay for flights from campaign donor until this year

    (This, by the way after another donor plead guilty yesterday to Illegally funneling money into Menendez’s campaign.)

    TRENTON — U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez did not pay for two flights provided by Salomon Melgen — his friend and campaign donor whose office was raided by the FBI on Tuesday night — until more than two years later, and after a New Jersey Republican asked the Senate ethics committee to look into his travels.

    Menendez spokesman Paul Brubaker today said the senator reimbursed Melgen for the flights on Melgen’s private jet until Jan. 4 of this year.

    Question for the legal eagles; if you wait until after you become aware you’ve been found out because the FBI opened an investigation into your illegal Dominican activities, and someone also filed an ethics complaint regarding same with the Senate, before paying for what constitutes an illegal gift, do they and a federal prosecutor see that as anything more than an admission of guilt? I’m not asking about the Senate ethics committee as that term is an oxymoron. Just the legal question.

    On Nov. 3 of last year, state Sen. Sam Thompson, who chairs the Middlesex County Republican Committee, wrote to the Senate Select Committee on Ethics to request an investigation of Menendez’s flights to the Caribbean nation. Thompson’s letter came after a conservative blog posted allegations from two anonymous women it said were prostitutes who said they had sex with Menendez in the Dominican Republic.

    “In the weeks that ensued, after that very extensive review which was a time consuming laborious project, the issue of these two trips came up, and the senator had basically consulted with the campaign’s legal counsel and found that he had two options,” said Brubaker. “Basically he could, according to Senate ethics rules, use an exemption under the personal friendship rule, or simply pay the reimbursements for the flights. In order to just demonstrate full compliance he decided to pay the reimbursement.”

    No, you can’t claim an exemption under the personal friendship rule for anything valued over $250. To claim an exemption for anything of value over that amount you have to request written determination from the Senate ethics committee that the personal friendship exemption applies. Which Menendez clearly didn’t do. So that’s a very poor lie.

    As is this:

    Menenedez’s office said today that he took a total of three flights on Melgen’s plane. One of the flights, in May 2010, was a fundraising trip that was reimbursed by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee at the time.

    Fundraising? In the Dominican Republic?

    While, just coincidentally of course, Dominican sugar producers just may want to contribute, given the good Senator had to vote on a bill concerning sugar price supports and he could have either hurt or helped them. Most notably the brothers who own the Casa de Campo resort, which the Senator stayed 10 times during his six year term for a little fun in the sun and apparently some teen-aged frolic in the dark.

    Naw, there’s no story here.

    As Dingy Harry Reid, who accused Romney of being a tax cheat based upon some unnamed anonymous source, contemptuously observed consider the source. A conservative blog! It’s almost as bad as the National Enquirer breaking a sex scandal story involving a Democratic presidential candidate. Preposterous. No reputable news agency would touch it.

    Steve57 (104863)

  51. I don’t think they would understand why what you call a lie is so bad. It’s not like they think anything is true.

    Amphipolis (e01538)

  52. When you claim no one is answering you, you lose your claim to have been asking a rhetorical question.

    htom (412a17)

  53. When you claim no one is answering you, you lose your claim to have been asking a rhetorical question.

    David Frum thinks you are a sociopath.

    JD (b63a52)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 1.3078 secs.