The Joel post is particularly hysterical.
What supporters of Redner’s ideas need to consider is that Redner could potentially hurt his and their cause rather than move it forward.
I love the fact that someone who brags about not supporting progressive causes feels entitled to give us advise.
I think you're just bitter that your party has to spend so much money trying to attract chafed fence-sitters like myself. I'd hate to tell you this, but you're going to need me and my fence to make sure 2006 is more than just a hiccup.
Joel does a strange thing in the post. He list a series of reasons why Redner should not serve on the City Council. Then he provides the disclosure that he can't give an opinion on whether Redner is the better candidate because... he spent a whole post providing his opinion on Redner? WTF.
Why does he even after to provide a disclosure? Since when is living in Temple Terrace a conflict of interest.
Joel has a history of making mind-bogglingly bizarre statements. He denies that he defended Rachel Moran for her beat on the homeless post.
And I'm hoping you can remind me at what point I defended Rachel for that post.
I am more than happy to remind people.
I do hope that anyone offended cuts both Rachel* and Sticks some slack. Make your displeasure known please, but please don’t let this drive you away.
Pushing Rope officially announces the start of the Joel Award. This award is given to a blogger who makes glaringly obvious contradictory statements. (It's a nice way of saying less than honest.) I will have Zen make a banner that does Joel's geeky visage justice.
Update: We will add journalists and public figures that make dishonest flip-flopping statements.
Your ability to twist the context and meaning of someone's words to suit your needs borders on being O'Reilly-esque.
ReplyDeleteI love the fact that someone who brags about not supporting progressive causes feels entitled to give us advise.
The comment of mine you quote after this has nothing to do with not supporting progressive causes. My reference to "fence-sitting" in that comment was merely playing of an earlier comment of yours which also missed the point.
My own admission of fence-sitting has only to do with my choice to not declare myself Democrat or Republican (which incidentally don't automatically equate to progressive or conservative). But when there is a candidate I feel strongly about I have been known to give both my money and time in support. If the fact that said candidate could potentially be an R or D makes me a fence-sitter though, so be it. So don't give me your completely baseless conclusion that I have "no form of political activism."
And if you're not prepared to ever take advice from anyone outside your political avenue, you're in trouble.
He list a series of reasons why Redner should not serve on the City Council. Then he provides the disclosure that he can't give an opinion on whether Redner is the better candidate because... he spent a whole post providing his opinion on Redner?
"A better candidate than Miller" were my exact words, as there is a choice to be made there (and based on what I've read, you agree that the choice is a fairly depressing one). I specifically said that one reason I didn't make that distinction was because I chose not to. The Temple Terrace disclosure comes from being asked more than once why I would care about politics in a city/county/state/country where I don't live. I was trying to head off an admittedly idiotic argument. That has nothing to do with a "conflict of interest."
Joel has a history of making statements mind-bogglingly statements. He denies that he defended Rachel Moran for her beat on the homeless post.
Ignoring the umpteenth typo in this post alone... a history? A history of one? I mean, I'm more than ready to hear of other instances in which I boggled your mind. Since you seem to have the memory of the world's most petty elephant, please elucidate.
My own memory did dig up a couple of fun quotes of yours though:
Tommy is worth reading.
Man, what’s with all the ganging up on Rachel...Personally, I agree with Rachel.
And yes, I'm aware I'm taking your comments out of context. Mostly I'm just amused by how quick you are to completely about-face without even acknowledging a prior agreement. Does this mean you've just become more enlightened, or are you just as contradictory?
Oh, you even linked to one of my posts once, in what as far as I can tell was meant positively. Is that the history to which you were referring?
I will have Zen make a banner that does Joel's geeky visage justice.
So you're picking on my glasses now or what? Good form, sir.
Hey Joel, I say we nominate Michael for the award. See my reply to Micheal's post here: http://pushingrope.blogspot.com/2007/03/quote-of-day-2.html#comments
ReplyDeleteYes, I reply to him and he accuses me of something different and the facts before him mean nothing. Yup, he stands by 'his' bloggers. Sounds like one of Bush's Cronies to me.
He may be pushing rope, but getting the truth out of him is like pulling teeth.
Joel, that was before Rachel thought beating up homeless people on-camera was a good idea and Tommy went into the land of total suckage.
ReplyDeleteYou said you never defended Rachel after you did. You listed reasons Redner should not serve on city council and then say you can't provide an opinion on Redner. In the very same post.
Pointing out typos? Nice form. There is an internet saying that when someone has to resort to pointing out spelling errors or typos they can't win the battle of ideas.
ReplyDeleteAtrios used to have Instapundit on his blogroll back in 2002. People knows that Duncan Black can't stand Glenn Reynolds. So what if he once approvingly linked to him. I can't even remember when I approvingly linked to you.
I heard Richard Perle quote Senator Carl Levin saying Saddam Husein is a dangerous terrorist. What Tim Russert pointed out that Levin voted against the Iraq war and has been strongly anti-war.
Fact: you defended Rachel Moran and said you didn't.
Fact: you gave your opinion on why Joe Redner should not be on city council. Then made a silly disclosure (what is there to disclose) that you couldn't give an opinion.
I think you and Frznagn are lame. I don't argue point by point at your blogs or read them. I do read Sticks because it is connected to the power base in Tampa. The debates are a perfect example.
I make fun of Sticks being on Lefty Blogs because the core mission of that site is to win 50 states for the Democratic Party. Sticks has a Republican consultant (Jim Johnson) and a co-owner (Bill Sharpe) who has written for the leading conservative site in Tampa. You seem to have no clue about how powerful Sticks is.
Yes, Joel. My blogging is so sucky that I get linked to Air America, the Huffington Post and (gasp) The Corner. I can also send an email and get A list bloggers or friend at Raw Story to link something I wrote. It's because people respect what I do. You are just one of Tommy's little sycophants. Which is why you defended Rachel in the comments while others wanted to puke after reading that post.
If you weren't writing on Sticks no one would know or care who you are.