Memo to Fred Thompson: There’s a Hole in Your Blogroll
Allahpundit claims that Fred Thompson’s blogroll is “impeccable.”
I think it’s sorely lacking.
I guess it’s a matter of perspective.
Allahpundit claims that Fred Thompson’s blogroll is “impeccable.”
I think it’s sorely lacking.
I guess it’s a matter of perspective.
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Disclaimer: Simpsons avatar may resemble a younger Patterico...
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
Powered by WordPress.
Wholehearted agreement.nk (aec62c) — 6/13/2007 @ 7:19 pm
I agree too.Christoph (bad4f9) — 6/13/2007 @ 7:25 pm
Sorely!See Dubya (39d368) — 6/13/2007 @ 7:33 pm
Is old Fred running for the presidency of America or the Confederacy?
Watch out, Jeff Davis!alphie (015011) — 6/13/2007 @ 7:39 pm
One of the things that is intriguing about Fred Thompson is that he seems like a straightforward guy and it’s my guess that he responds to that quality in others. So ask him to blogroll you. Sometimes the easiest things work best.DRJ (2d5e62) — 6/13/2007 @ 7:54 pm
If I can figure out how to get in touch with him, I will.Patterico (2a65a5) — 6/13/2007 @ 7:57 pm
*chuckles* Don’t feel bad. One of the guys who works for him now has a blog that isn’t listed…Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 6/13/2007 @ 8:05 pm
Couldn’t agree more. And your blog should be there too! 😉DiscerningTexan (51e088) — 6/13/2007 @ 8:10 pm
I’m surprised so many think he’s got the stomach for this.
He dithers and fawns.steve (e7af9d) — 6/13/2007 @ 8:45 pm
steve, what kind of fawns?Christoph (bad4f9) — 6/13/2007 @ 8:56 pm
It seems to me that running for President is one of those activities that you never really know who is cut out for it until they do it.DRJ (2d5e62) — 6/13/2007 @ 9:00 pm
Let’s take a look at the company our host want to keep.
AmericanSpectator: did a smear job against TomTancredo
CaptainsQuarters: made a negative statement about me, and then either banned me or added me to indefinite moderation so that my followup comment didn’t appear. An email was unanswered. Has also strangely suggested keeping an “open mind” on the SenateAmnesty.
GOPBloggers: I believe that would be MattMargolis from BlogsForBush, and that should tell you all you need to know.
OTB: Accused me of linking search terms, when I know which sites use nofollow tags, and I knew and he didn’t that his site uses those tags and thus such links redound to his benefit, not mine. Bottom line: idiot.
ProfessorBainbridge: endorsed Bush’s original GuestWorker scheme, despite it being one of the most anti- and un-American things I’ve ever heard of.
RedState: banned me under highly suspicious circumstances, ending with them raising issues about their site linking to my site. Continues to display my copyrighted content including links to my site, despite there being no agreement that I know of permitting them to display my content.TLB (0c89cb) — 6/13/2007 @ 9:15 pm
thompson is unelectable. once he ramps up his campaign, only one issue will garner lasting buzz: how, exactly, did that gross old fart nail that trophy young babe?assistant devil's advocate (15071b) — 6/13/2007 @ 9:44 pm
I think I know why you’re interested in the answer.Patterico (2a65a5) — 6/13/2007 @ 9:44 pm
Gee, TLB, that’s nutty:
You think it violates your copyright for someone to keep comments you made on their site?
On the contrary. You grant license by choosing to post in a public forum.
You think it violates copyright for a blog to have links posted to your site?
Gee. It’s called “fair use” in the USA, and “fair dealing” in Great Britain and elsewhere. Look it up.
Someone at AmericanSpectator doesn’t like Tom Tancredo. So?
Captain’s Quarters didn’t answer your email, entirely in keeping with its email and comment policy, which states: “I may not answer every one.”
And the Captain actually made a negative comment toward you? A negative comment? How dare he!
And I’ve made negative comment’s toward Patterico and/or some of his arguments from time to time. I think he has toward me/mine as well. I guess I shouldn’t be here, then, should I?
I could go on to your other listed blogs and positions, but they all seem to boil down to, “Such and such didn’t agree with me 100%”.
Pity that. Would you like a tissue?Christoph (bad4f9) — 6/13/2007 @ 9:56 pm
So comment on his blog. Your brain broken?Alan Kellogg (eddacc) — 6/13/2007 @ 10:30 pm
I have another plan.Patterico (2a65a5) — 6/13/2007 @ 10:37 pm
But, to answer your question, yes. Quite possibly it is.Patterico (2a65a5) — 6/13/2007 @ 10:38 pm
So, do you really have a family and a job? How on earth do you remain so active in both posting and responding in the comments section. Do you sleep? Spend more time with your family, would you… please…Barry (67316f) — 6/13/2007 @ 11:12 pm
I concur, his blogroll is crap.Hoystory (de9da0) — 6/13/2007 @ 11:30 pm
And jealousy rears it’s UGLY head…TexasFred (f248a7) — 6/14/2007 @ 3:38 am
Of course his blogroll has a hole in it; my site isn’t listed!Dana (3e4784) — 6/14/2007 @ 8:50 am
Christoph: Can I suggest you do just a smidgen research before posting?
The comment I left on CaptainsQuarters is described here: http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/006400.html
As it turns out, he’s since deleted not only my comment, but the comment he left in reply. Down the Memory Hole with the Cap’n!
And, my experience with RedState is a bit more complicated than you understand. I didn’t just post comments there, but almost 75 diary entries, including breaking news items. And, there was a big notice on the site saying that content belonged to the posters, and AFAIK there was no user agreement giving them rights to continue to display my content. They also transfered the content from one organization to another.
All of that is described in detail here:
Really, try to look into matters before discussing them, OK?TLB (0c89cb) — 6/14/2007 @ 9:44 am
The point is you posted them.
No one forced you to do so. If I post my life’s work on a blog, then guess what?
While they don’t own the work, and one could argue they don’t have a right to republish it (although maybe they do), I certainly can’t force them to remove from the public realm what *I* have placed there.
As far as the first link you posted, your main problem appears to be the Captain didn’t ask question designed to destroy Mike Huckabee’s candidacy.
Perhaps the Captain didn’t want to. You also managed to insult the Captain by comparing his intelligence to a 5-year old and finding it wonting.
Your second link is about your alleged banning from Red State.
I too do not know why you were banned from Red State, “LoneWacko”.
I have no idea.Christoph (353eca) — 6/14/2007 @ 12:03 pm
“Christoph’s” comment reveals he’s not someone I’m going to waste much time on, however:
1. If my nickname is an issue, it certainly took them a long time to discover it: almost 75 posts over 1.5 years, plus dozens of comments on others’ posts.
2. One of the greatest dangers to our political system is that the MSM is completely corrupt. Instead of asking ToughQuestions, they ask puffball questions and act as a TranscriptionService. The blogosphere is promoted by some (e.g., Insty) as an alternative, yet it isn’t, with the great majority of bloggers being simply partisan hacks.
It could be argued that, faced with a person such as MikeHuckabee, it’s everybody’s duty to ask him questions that would expose either his failure to think things through or that he’s corrupt. Those who are somewhat familiar with issues such as immigration, and who fail to expose his weaknesses, give the strong impression that they’re simply partisan hacks.
I’d suggest that everyone else puts what’s right for the country ahead of whatever party they belong to.TLB (0c89cb) — 6/14/2007 @ 6:15 pm
1. Nickname was perhaps a cheap shot, but it was slyly implied, not stated. For what it’s worth, the subhead on your blog:
… put’s it in context and is kind of witty.
I am pointing out, however, that Red State, Captain’s Quarters, etc., are private organizations and are not required to associate with you if they do not wish to.
2. These organizations are not “news outlets”. They are ego-driven opinion outlets. They are to a degree advocacy driven. They support what the blogger(s) support and that’s it.
That’s why you are allowed to have your own blog; you can be as fair or otherwise as you choose.
And on your own blog, you bill yourself as:
… which you can’t deny.
I thought about your copyright complaints today which seem quite ludicrous to me.
However, I don’t know the details and you do. Perhaps they have merit I haven’t yet been able to see.
If you believe your content, which you placed on RedState: is being used without your permission, it is not “fair use”, and you have a right to request it be removed — then do so.
There are courts and legal processes for these things. I don’t think you have a leg to stand upon, but then I represent neither.
Take it before a neutral third party and let them decide. Sue for compensation, actual, special, and punitive, if you’ve been damaged.
RedState isn’t hard to find — they’re well known.
You can then blog about your victory, making sure to give absolutely scrupulous fair time to those who want to destroy you, criticize you, etc., as you argue some of these other blogs inexplicably don’t do for the candidates they support.Christoph (bad4f9) — 6/14/2007 @ 6:35 pm
What, are you a little miffed that The American Spectator may have repeated the reporting by the Denver Post of the widely-known FACT that Tom Tancredo knowingly hired ILLEGALS:
Tsk, Tsk. Too sensitive.Brad S (458bde) — 6/14/2007 @ 7:26 pm
I’ve read the article you linked to. Where is there any evidence or indication that Tom Tancredo knew the contractor he hired had illegals on its payroll? As opposed to him finding out after the fact.
I sure as hell have no idea whether the people I bought a burger from on Tuesday at McDonald’s are in my country illegally.
I forgot to ask their manager for proof. Perhaps I should report myself to Immigration Canada for failing to ask the McDonald’s girl for her birth certificate?
I’m sure McDonald’s would have gladly provided me a said copy upon my request. Harrumph.Christoph (bad4f9) — 6/14/2007 @ 8:13 pm
Given that Tancredo had been an outspoken anti-illegal immigration figure at the time, he should have taken every step possible to “ensure” that the work he was having done was “illegal-immigrant-free.” He is, after all, a public figure. Not only that, he has staff and press people who can help flesh this information out, if necessary. Heck, he could have used the experience to point out how easy/hard it is to have your basement drywalled with/without native born labor.Brad S (458bde) — 6/14/2007 @ 8:39 pm
Brad S, that’s BS.
To start with, I particularly support Tom Tancredo. Were I an American, I wouldn’t vote for him if presented with a serious Republican alternative.
I think he’s a bit of a loon on this North American Union thing.
But he points out it is probably not even legal under privacy and other laws to demand proof of citizenship for all employees of a company he contracts with.
You think he should have used his staff, i.e., the power of his office, to find the immigration status of the workers for his bedroom and entertainment area?
THAT is the proper function of congressional staff?
Also, his “press people” should do this?
So if I’m a laborer making $14 an hour and I carry wood in someone’s home, a congressman’s press people will check into my background? Not ICE, but a congressman’s press agent?
The failure in this case lies with the contractor, not Tom Tancredo.
No more than, as Tom ably pointed out, he is responsible for making sure all the wait staff at restaurants he frequents are Americans, or admitted here on an appropriate working permit, all Is dotted and Ts crossed.
If that were the requirement, it would make life virtually impossible.
I have 2 websites. They are hosted in California. Are all the employees of my web hosting company American or otherwise lawfully admitted and eligible to work?
I have no friggin’ idea. It’s my web hosting companies responsibility.
What “possible steps” do you believe Tom Tancredo should have taken to ensure this company — that even AFTER the news story broke insists only hires employees legally in the USA — hires only people legally allowed to work?
A lie detector? Waterboarding? Private investigator?
What pray tell.Christoph (bad4f9) — 6/14/2007 @ 8:51 pm
* What I meant to say is I don’t particularly support Tom Tancredo.Christoph (bad4f9) — 6/14/2007 @ 8:52 pm
“You also managed to insult the Captain by comparing his intelligence to a 5-year old and finding it wonting.”
There’s a grain of truth to Cap’n Ed’s intelligence; but actually, a five year old is smarter than that guy.
And Bushbots (like the author of this site) should be taken to task for destroying the party and this country with shameless propaganda supporting corrupt candidates and limp-wristed planks.
Lonewacko rocks; the rest of you Bushbots suck. None of afroementioned party hacks fall within the philisophical class of conservatives that made this country great. You’ve all lost your way, and you need people like Lonewacko to find your way home, comrades.Petit Bourgeois (d5b6de) — 6/14/2007 @ 10:52 pm
He let me sign up …
Maybe he’s reluctant to link to the blog of a blue state authoritarian. Concerns about reputation and all that.Alan Kellogg (09ea03) — 6/15/2007 @ 9:02 am
Don’t you feel a little silly criticizing Tom Tancredo on immigration today, Brad S?
I may just have to upgrade my opinion of him!Christoph (353eca) — 6/15/2007 @ 12:40 pm
Final note to “Christoph”: those sites’ control over the content appearing at their sites has nothing to do with my complaints about them.
Regarding the Denver Post, let me recommend these:
And, yes, I do rock.TLB (9163ab) — 6/15/2007 @ 6:45 pm