Monday, September 5, 2011
No Shrinking
I wanted so much to not like Dr. Drew. I mean, just the very concept of these television shrinks and their advising people over the phone and in the audience, I was never really a big fan of that, period. Add to that, folks, the fact that this same Dr. Drew has also been involved in a reality show entitled, "Celebrity Rehab" (which, yes, I'll admit to having glanced at several times) - a show, quite frankly, that is totally exploitative (that poor old Jeff Conaway dudester) - and, yeah, the cards were pretty much stacked against this fellow..............................................................................................But I gotta admit it to you. I've seen his new interview show on HLN and he's really not that bad of a guy. a) He's smart (accessibly so). b) He's affable. And c) he's a better than average interviewer, to boot. Of course, the fact that he's on at the same time as the excruciatingly unwatchable pair of Sean Hannity and Rachel Maddow probably doesn't hurt the matter (Raskolnikov would probably seem sane and reasonable compared to those two bald lunatics) - the theory of cable-news relativity, I'm saying.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
I demand you provide the poll numbers that show Rachel Maddow is "unwatchable". Absent these verifiable poll numbers from a reputable non-biased polling company I demand you retract your slanderous comment regarding the extremely watchable Rachel Maddow program. Or acknowledge that the RMS is only "unwatchable" IN YOUR OPINION. I await your apology/retraction/clarification.
Sorry, WD, "slander" fits your armchair attorney fabricated charges of Bush being a 'war criminal' despite complete lack of criminaliy, charges, or conviction.
Will's opinion of Maddow is far short of this.
This being said, the evidence is that the Maddow show often does well in the ratings: see here
dmarks: ...fits your armchair attorney fabricated charges of Bush being a war criminal...
The individual I've cited before to support my claim of war crimes is Francis Boyle.
In a 2002 article professor of international law Francis Boyle said, "[The Afghanistan war was not] approved by the U.N. Security Council so technically it is illegal under international law".
Despite the fact that [1] I've cited Francis Boyle multiple times on this blog, and [2] Francis Boyle is an ACTUAL attorney... dmarks continues to use the term "armchair attorney".
Given that, I DEMAND dmarks either: produce proof that Francis Boyle is an "armchair attorney" and his law degree is bogus, OR discontinue use of the slanderous "armchair attorney" insult.
I await your retraction and apology OR proof that Francis Boyle did not earn and/or fraudulently obtained a J.D. degree magna cum laude and A.M. and Ph.D. degrees in political science from Harvard University.
If the Afghanistan War constitutes a war crime, then you had better get a few more warrants for all of the Democrats in Washington (President Obama amongst them) who've consistently referred to this particular war as the "good war"/criticized President Bush (for the better part of a decade) for not having paid nearly enough attention to it.
"The individual I've cited before to support my claim of war crimes is Francis Boyle."
Francis Boyle has no experience or authority in the matters she is writing about. This is why the real professionals dismiss her crankery out of hand.
She's a clown who is out of her league. No one takes her seriously. Look at her latest call to impeach Obama.
She's playing "model UN", but can't run with the grownups.
So what if she has an actual law degree which she uses in a bogus claim that she is qualified in matters way out of her league. Armchair attorney indeed.
"[1] I've cited Francis Boyle multiple times on this blog,"
You aren't doing your cause any good. Her premises are entirely unsound, and her slanderous rants are beneath even the consideration of actual qualified people involved in these matters.
If she is an authority on everything solely becauss she has a law degree, then so is conservative pundit Mark Levin.
Mark Levin disagrees with this other armchair attorney. Neither Mark Levin or Frances Boyle have any actual authority or experience in these matters. So they cancel each other out. There, you never need to mention her or her punditry masking as "charges" ever again.
I would just add that there are over 300,000,000 people in this country. You're bound to find one "credentialed" individual to substantiate just about anything; Frank Gaffney, that idiot (I can't think of his name now) from the U of Colorado who said that the people in the Twin Towers basically deserved to die, etc........................................Ward Churchill!!
dmarks, you must know everything there is to know about Francis Boyle... considering the boldness of your statements. But I'm not buying it.
How the hell would you know that she's a clown who is out of her league and no one takes her seriously... when Francis Boyle is a man and not a woman?
And who are these "real professionals" that dismiss "her" "crankery" out of hand. I want names and statements. I am certain you made up these "real professionals", because if you had actually read their statements dismissing Francis Boyle's "crankery" you would know Francis Boyle isn't a woman.
"She" is not an authority on everything solely because "she" has a law degree; MR. Boyle is a professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law.
Frances Boyle DOES have actual authority and experience in these matters while Mark Levin does not.
Anyway, my only point was that HE (Francis Boyle) has a real law degree and is thus not an "armchair attorney". A point it seems you have dodged.
I therefore continue to await your retraction and apology OR proof that Francis Boyle did not earn and/or fraudulently obtained a J.D. degree magna cum laude and A.M. and Ph.D. degrees in political science from Harvard University.
Will: If the Afghanistan War constitutes a war crime, then you had better get a few more warrants for all of the Democrats in Washington.
No Democrats voted to go to war with Afghanistan.
I'm still waiting for dmarks to issue a retraction and apology OR proof that Francis Boyle did not earn and/or fraudulently obtained his law degree from Harvard.
How else could he be an "armchair attorney" unless his law degree was bogus?
Also, given the link provided by dmarks which says Rachel Maddow wins her time slot on Fridays... I await a retraction and apology from Will... or an accusation (backed up by evidence) that Mediaite is lying when it says "MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Has Best Ratings In Cable News Friday Night (Among Viewers 25-54)".
This could not possibly be true if she was "unwatchable". Obviously someone is lying... either Will or Mediaite (I think it's Will).
dm is currently trying to remove his knee from his mouth.
After he gets his foot out w-d he will make up some excuse for his ignorance on the subject.
w-d, will doesn't really lie, he simply tries very hard to make his partisan viewpoint into "the facts" on his blog.
Every Democrat (save for Bernie Sanders) in the Senate voted for an authorization for force (watch, your going to parse the language here to insulate the Democrats), and not a single one of them objected to the enterprise once it got going. IN FACT (and as I've already pointed out), if anything, they criticized Mr. Bush for not paying ENOUGH attention to it. And let us not forget, either, that it was our current DEMOCRATIC President who, not once but twice, escalated the conflict. Your decision to try and score cheap political points here absolutely shameless.
You have a lot of chutzpah, 37927 (and why don't you just reveal yourself here). You're a hard-core, down the line partisan and you have the balls to come here and a) accuse ME of partisanship and b) insult me. What are you trying to prove?
Will: watch, your going to parse the language here to insulate the Democrats.
[1] You parsed Peter Schweitzer's allegations against Nancy Pelosi to make it appear as though he didn't lie.
[2] No I'm not. Neither Democrats nor Republicans voted to invade Afghanistan. Afghanistan wasn't mentioned in the "authorization for force". bush also didn't consult Congress regarding the Taliban's offer to turn over bin Laden.
CONCLUSION: You're the only parser here.
In regards to President Obama: we were already occupying Afghanistan when he assumed office. He didn't make the decision to illegally invade. What's shameless, IMO, is your attempt to blame him for an action that occurred when he wasn't president!
I don't agree with his decision to escalate or his use of drones... but he was in an extremely tough position given WE WERE ALREADY OCCUPYING AFGHANISTAN when he assumed office.
Another shameless act on your behalf is labeling my concern about war crimes a desire to "score cheap political points". Ugly, really ugly.
Oh, and so Nixon could have then said, "WE WERE ALREADY AT WAR IN VIETNAM." And, "HOW DARE YOU BLAME ME FOR THE ACTIONS OF MY PREDECESSOR!" What kind of ludicrous argument are you making here? There was no need for Mr. Obama to entrench us any further in this conflict. There were, what, 80-90 actual al Qaeda left in Afghanistan? And the only reason that probably DID surge was because he had idiotically backed himself into a corner on the campaign trail; "Afghanistan, the 'good war', yada yada."......What in the hell is the matter with you, man? Most of the honest liberals are enraged over Mr. Obama's actions. Not you, though, you're frigging spinning for him!
And I didn't parse Mr. Schweizer's words one iota. He accused Mrs. Pelosi of not hiring union pickers (I'm sure that UFW employees would have loved a shot) and she did not. No lie. No parsing.
WD said: "He didn't make the decision to illegally invade. "
Bush didn't make the choice to illegally invade, either. The invasion was quite legal.
Sorry, WD. Uninformed "legal" opinions by cranks and armchair attorneys do not make something "illegal".
WD: Fair point on Boyle's gender. I read extensively on his qualifications to make such silly claims (none), and missed the gender point. Big oops!
"After he gets his foot out w-d he will make up some excuse for his ignorance on the subject."
There is no excuse for getting Boyle's gender wrong. Unlike some, when I am wrong on the facts, I admit it.
As for the rest, Boyle has NO authority on the matter. After all, those who can, do, those who can't, teach.
His silly "charges" were beneath consideration of anyone with actual authority and experience in the matters.
"Frances Boyle DOES have actual authority and experience in these matters while Mark Levin does not."
Oops. You gave him a female name. You do it also.
Levin has as much authority as Boyle. That is, none. Besides, "Frances" ls lying.
Post a Comment