Mark Kirk Supporter Hurls Insults, Lies at Dems
The recently completed Yearly Kos conference certainly seems to have thrown partisan-conservatives of all stripes into a tizzy. Indeed, one recent offspring of the burgeoning anti-Kos rhetoric has led Daily Kos diarist James Boyce to note that he is not anti-Semitic.
This might seem like an odd thing for someone to feel a need to write about, but Mr. Boyce's diary is a direct response to an email recently making the rounds in Illinois's Tenth District. (I myself do not know Mr. Boyce, though Mr. Boyce does seem to know Jay Footlik one of the Democratic candidates seeking to challenge Mark Kirk. Mr. Footlik is himself Jewish and his wife is Israeli, according to the Footlik for Congress website.)
The email itself is the basest form of attack by innuendo and smear, replete with half-quotes, lies, and twisted words. The acidic email is aimed squarely at Democratic Tenth CD candidates Dan Seals and Jay Footlik.
This email was apparently written by one Andy Lappin, a district resident who by all accounts appears to hawkishly support Israel. Mr. Lappin, and apparently his wife, have both contributed significantly to Mark Kirk over the years.
Here's a copy of that full email:
--------------------
From: ----
Date: August 6, 2007 2:48:29 PM CDT
To: ----
Subject: Dan.... Jay...., who are you and what do you want????
Dear Friends,
While we may disagree on politics and policy sometimes, we all can agree to strongly condemn anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism and the institutions that foment them.
I remain a stauch supporter of Congressman Mark Kirk who has co-chaired the Congressional Task Force on Anti-Semitism, led the way on hate crimes legislation, continues to lead on opening the Holocaust archives in Bad Arolsen and remains the strongest voice in Congress for the U.S.-Israel strategic relationship.
I write to you today to make sure you know about an issue I find to be pivotal in the upcoming race for Congress in the 10th District. While the two Democrats vying to take on our friend Congressman Kirk next year claim to support our values, their actions to gain political support suggest they do not.
In an effort to appeal to their party's far-left, both candidates participated in this week's Kos Convention in Chicago--with Jay Footlik working the crowd and Dan Seals addressing the conference. Both expressed great pride and satisfaction in attending.
What's troubling is that Seals and Footlik speak to our community with one mouth and then run to a convention filled with anti-Semitic bloggers. DailyKos is a community of bloggers--thousands of people who write their own opinions online. The site's real attraction comes from the discussion that ensues.
Let's see a few examples of what the Kos Convention attendees are blogging--the very same people Seals and Footlik come running to for support. Many times posts are left up for weeks or months until watchdog groups raise concerns over anti-Semitism--at that point, Kos removes the blog pages. Fortunately, there are other savvy bloggers out there who keep archived copies.
1) "Once we lock up a Majority, where we don't need Lieberman, I hope they will kick him to the curb like the dog he is." This post received 24 positive ratings and zero negative.
"He's [Lieberman] a much lower form of life than a dog" 8 plus/zero minus
"He's a snake in the grass." 4 plus/zero minus
"Don't insult dogs like that, Given a choice between my dog and Lieberman, I'd gas him without thinking twice." 4 plus/3 minus
http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2007/05/16/daily-kos-gas-jew-lieberman-like-a-dog/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnetwmd.com%2Fblog%2F2007%2F05%2F16%2F1682&frame=true
2) "because as everybody knows, jews ONLY care about the welfare of other jews"
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2005/12/7/162152/209/100
3) "Israel is showing the entire world why the Iranian President was absolutely right to suggest that Israel cease being a sovereign state as is."
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21553&only
4) "Zionism was and remains a racist ideology." A picture was included in that post showing an Israeli cabinet minister merging faces with Adolf Hitler, with a Star of David inside a skull.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=25034_The_Protocols_of_the_Daily_Kos&only
5) Another blog expressed sympathy and support for the Hamas takeover of Gaza.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/15/153353/694
Of course, I'm not surprised that Dan Seals attended. In his unsuccessful 2006 race, he made two comments caught on film that caused eruptions in the Jewish community.
The first, during an interview with 2004 candidate Lee Goodman, Seals said that if war ever broke out between Israel and Iran, he would come down on the side of peace: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB9fEmrKw6I
The second, during the height of the August 2006 war in Lebanon, Seals called on Israel to cease fire immediately and begin addressing the root causes of terrorism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPuSvhVRN4E&mode=user&search=
But why did Jay Footlik attend? Is he that desparate that he runs to a community that slurs Jews and supports the Iranian President's dream of wiping Israel off the map?
And while you think about this, I urge you to contrast the action of both men to the continued leadership of our dear friend, Congressman Mark Kirk. While his opponents run to anti-Semitic and anti-Israel bloggers, here's a sampling of Congressman Kirk's leadership on our core issues since the beginning of 2007 alone:
* Established the 10 th District Israel High School Forum for students in our community to learn more about the U.S.-Israel relationship [t]he first of its kind in the nation.
* Authored an amendment which passed the House ( H.R. 1585) directing the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress with a plan to fully integrate the U.S. National Ballistic Missile Defense with the State of Israel.
* Authored appropriations language now in law ( H.R. 2206) requiring the Secretary of State to report to Congress on the Lebanese Government's progress in fulfilling its mandate under Section 14 of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701.
* Authored appropriations language mandating a comprehensive review by the Government Accountability Office of Cash Assistance and Emergency Cash Assistance programs run by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. The language was prompted by UNRWA reports that terrorist and families of suicide bombers may received emergency assistance.
* Authored appropriations language mandating a report by the Secretary of State on the feasibility of executing an international restriction on gasoline to Iran. Iran imports more than 40% of its refined petroleum [] unique economic weakness.
* Authored appropriations language earmarking $5 million for women's support programs in minority communities in Iran and $2 million for democracy programs in Syria.
* Introduced H.R . 2880, the bipartisan Iran Sanctions Enhancement Act of 2007, to extend current sanctions to companies that provide gasoline to Iran.
* Sponsored a bipartisan resolution (H.Res.64) which passed the House calling on Bangladesh to drop all charges against journalist Shoaib Choudhury. Congressman Kirk previously negotiated Choudhury's release from prison following his arrest for attempting to visit Israel.
* Authored a bipartisan letter with 104 co-signers to Secretary Rice urging her to work within the Security Council to give UN Forces in Lebanon a new mandate to intercept arms coming across the Syrian border.
* Authored a bipartisan letter with 12 key foreign assistance leaders in the House calling on World Bank President Robert Zoellick to end disbursements to Iran immediately.
* Led a successful international effort to pressure European nations to open Holocaust archives in Germany. Co-authored a series of bipartisan letters to European Ambassadors and was the lead co- sponsor of the Hastings-Kirk resolution which passed the House (H.Res. 240).
* Lead co-sponsor of the Conyers-Kirk Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act ( H.R. 1592), which provides federal resources to investigate and prosecute hate crimes.
* Ordered an Inspector General investigation into reports that more than $140,000 was provided by the U.S. Agency for International Development to the Hamas-controlled Islamic University in Gaza. In June, Congressman Kirk authored appropriations language tightening anti-terror vetting language to include institutions that have terrorist trustees [] hereby closing the funding loophole to Islamic University which boasts Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh.
* Authored a bipartisan letter to the Japanese government urging it not to open direct assistance to the Hamas-dominated Palestinian Authority. After receiving the letter, the Japanese government reversed its decision and upheld the Quartet conditions on assistance.
* Co-authored a letter to Secretary Rice urging her to fire the news director of Al-Hurra TV after airing an interview with Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and sending reporters to cover the Iranian Holocaust Denial Conference. Congressman Kirk then co-authored appropriations language cutting Al-Hurra's funding and mandating 24/7 online video feeds of all broadcasts. Al-Hurra's news director resigned the following day.
* Co-authored a letter to the National Institutes of Health demanding a full investigation of reports of anti-Semitic conduct by it chief clergy.
* Delivered a special order address before the House detailing all the factual inaccuracies in President Carter's recent book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.
The time to show your support to this great leader is now. If you are as disgusted as I am by the actions of Dan Seals and Jay Footlik, I would urge you to call their campaigns and let them know you're making a contribution to Kirk for Congress because unlike them, he's fighting in Congress to combat global anti-Semitism, fight Holocaust denial, protect Israel and stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
Sincerely,
Andy Lappin
--------------------
Now, finding even five instances of off-color remarks from among the tens of thousands of posts and comments left at Daily Kos isn't that hard to do. That is why the DKos community polices itself and those users who have earned "Trusted" status (by writing regularly and receiving "recommendation" ratings) can make comments "Hidden" from readers who do not have "Trusted User" status. It's just a means of balancing between the free speech rights of allowing people to have their say and reasonably supervising the resulting multitude of comments.
Despite Mr. Lappin's alarmist finger-pointing, making a comment "Hidden" isn't some nefarious activity. It's simply a reasonable attempt to punish those whose comments are vitriolic and unbecoming. With nearly 500,000 daily visitors, there are bound to be a few jerks (let alone partisan opponents "planting" dark comments). Mr. Lappin found a handful. Welcome to America the melting pot, where even the creeps can speak out loud.
Even so, a quick review of the so-called instances of anti-Semitism finds that some of them have been twisted/distorted in Mr. Lappin's zeal to play "gotcha" (and note that several of the five were indeed removed from the DKos site for their vitriol).
Link #1 is not in the least anti-Semitic. It is anti-Lieberman. Now, Mr. Lappin's wife, Diane, donated to Joe Lieberman for President so perhaps this is why Mr. Lappin is upset. But the comments, as stupid and petty as they are, are in opposition to the candidate Lieberman, not his religion or heritage.
Link #2 is only a half-quote (the entire quote actually reads the opposite of the half-quote ... it was sarcasm). The full quote is:
"because as everybody knows, jews ONLY care about the welfare of other jews; thanks ever so much for reminding everyone of this most salient fact, so that we might better ignore all that jewish propaganda about participating in the civil rights movement of the 60s and so on"
Also, link #4 clearly includes a disclaimer from MissLaura which concludes
"To be clear, the fact that the images stay is in no way an endorsement of their content."
After that little gotcha game, we come across a veritable resume for Mark Kirk. Mr. Lappin seems to know Cong. Kirk's House record very well ... almost as if he had been coached on what to say or found the accomplishments listed somewhere. Strange.
More importantly, nowhere does Mr. Lappin actually find any instances of either Dan Seals or Jay Footlik making anti-Semitic remarks (advocating peace is hardly anti-Semitic). But he sure does breathlessly run through innuendo after innuendo, doesn't he?
For those who don't appreciate being labeled anti-Semitic by strangers with broad brushes, Mark Kirk's campaign office can be contacted to ask them why Cong. Kirk's supporters are doing these things and suggest that they ask volunteers and donors to discontinue such vile practices.
(c/p at Illinois Reason and Daily Kos)
41 comments:
Rob -
Cry me a f-ing river.
You know how many times I've been called "racist" by partisan supporters of Jesse Jackson, Jr. over at ArchPundit? I don't appreciate it much, either, but I'm not going to force everyone here to scroll through five feet of hissy complaints about it.
Seriously, do you really want to start a slap-fight over who's supporters have said the most "vile" things about the other side?
Rob,
I sort of half to agree with GOP on this one.
Anyone who been involved with partisan politics for a while has to deal with this stuff.
If you want someday I will tell you about the stuff some folks said to me at a Hastert appearance.
About me, about the Speaker (he was still speaker at the time) etc.
So sorry no real sympathy here
Mr. Lappin charges the left with anti-semitism.
Sounds like something Blagojevich's Hate Crimes Panel could clear up.
Actually, one of the best things about blogs is that there's an open forum for rebuttals of partisan silliness. Just because over-the-top attacks are common, Bill and oneman, doesn't make it right or constructive. And clearly this was coordinated by Kirk supporters to smear two viable opponents as anti-semitic.
Kirk is nervous, and rightly so.
"And clearly this was coordinated by Kirk supporters to smear two viable opponents as anti-semitic."
Yeah coordinated by Kirk supporters....
Republicans in this state can't coordinate lunch...
Note that I did not delete the comment left at 5:04pm. I don't even know what it said.
--
Bill, Oneman...
Mr. Lappin can say whatever he likes (so long as it is not illegal for him to do so).
I and others are free to point out the ridiculousness of his lies, smears, and half-witted innuendos.
Nor was anyone looking for your sympathy or compassion (or even your vote since neither Mr. Lappin nor myself are candidates for the office in question).
Mr. Lappin's point is that some of the words posted at the most popular political blog on the Internet can be twisted into sounding really bad, therefore (in his strained logic) nearly the entire Democratic party and base must be bad for associating with said blog.
My point is that Mr. Lappin is a yahoo for attempting such weak innuendos and guilt-by-association baloney (based on half-truths and outright lies, no less).
And I question a candidate who attracts such ne'er-do-wells without, on some level, repudiating them.
Kirk should just keep playing Andrew Marcus's video from Kos.
The Mearcheimer stuff or the progressive Middle East stuff. It speaks for itself.
It's the US support of Israel that fuels Islamic terrorism.
It's Israel controling US Foreign Policy.
If that's whre Liberalism's at today. If Kos is the mainstream left, than why hide that message?
It's ugly for sure, but if you that's who you share space with; admit it.
Bill,
At risk of further diving into national/international politics on an otherwise Illinois-specific blog...
Acknowledging such things doesn't make one anti-Semitic. It merely puts one at opposite ends from the Dominionists and neo-cons who collectively hold great sway over the modern-day Republican Party.
And seeing as how bin Laden himself has said his ire at the US is in part due to our strong alliance with Israel ... why wouldn't folks take that to heart? (Conservatives are fond of reminding us all that bin Laden did in fact declare war against the US.)
PS: The comments that were "Hidden" at Daily Kos by being downrated were offensive. Same thing happens to comments that are racist, cuss-laden, conspiracy theory-based, etc.
It's not a question of "admitting" you share space with people who are offensive. It's a matter of self-policing the DKos blog. (Any more than the racist, violent, anti-American and other number of offensive posts at any given conservative blog may or may not be "self-policed" or edited -- whether Bill O'Reilly dot com, Illinois Review, etc.)
"I and others are free to point out the ridiculousness of his lies, smears, and half-witted innuendos."
- Just as others are free to point out the same from Kos bloggers.
"My point is that Mr. Lappin is a yahoo for attempting such weak innuendos and guilt-by-association baloney"
- Hate to break it to you, Rob, but you're doing the same thing.
To summarize:
Rob is complaining about a random Kirk supporter who is complaining about random Kos bloggers.
Rob condemns guilt-by-association by employing guilt-by-association.
When CD10 Democrats are limited to this level of political thinking, is it any wonder that Kirk managed to get re-elected in '06?
Don't forget though Kos was looking at a new policy for the middle east. The panelists asserted... the US through it's a support of Israel fueled terroristm ... and US foreign policy was direct by Israel.
These are legit concerns for voters in the 10th and if the Dem candidates were at Kos and listening to these panels, the voters deserve to know.
It's a little more than isolated comments.
As a guy who spent much of his time on the left, I'm well aware of the kind of anti semitism that pops up there now. I hear things said of Jews among people that consider themselves staunch liberals that are very surprizing.
When Israel faces an existential threat from Iran, it's legit for voters in the 10th to ask what their candidates are listening too.
ilvoter,
Andy Lappin just happened to have an entire litany of Kirk votes in his back pocket?
Get real.
This was coordinated on some level. Pretty hard to ignore that, but somehow you choose to do so.
As for "Kos bloggers" -- there's a world of difference between an official "Kos blogger" (of which there are only about a dozen) and Kos visitors (of which there are about 130,000+).
And if you think Lappin's repetition of half-quotes and ignoring the fact that the Kos community itself railed against the other posts is a worthwhile venture, more power to you.
That is the "weak innuendo and guilt-by-association baloney" of which I speak.
The Kos community itself routinely rails against anti-semitic and other off-color statements (that's why several of those comments were troll-rated and the diary with the pictures was slapped with a disclaimer and a "troll diary" tag). Besides, in Mr. Footlik's own response to the attack email he actually did speak out against anti-semitism...
Pops your balloon rightquick.
--
Bill,
Several of the Republican presidential candidates went to the CPAC conference earlier in the year during which Ann Coulter called Sen. Edwards a f----t. The audience all cheered and laughed.
Does that mean the GOP candidates are all bigots?
...Besides, where is any proof that either Seals or Footlik were in the one session (out of dozens upon dozens) that you cite?
Were you there? Did you see them in the room?
As for your note about liberal bigots, I wouldn't doubt there are some. Same goes for the conservative side of things. It's an unfortunate fact of life.
--
The conservative-partisans' rants against Yearly Kos and Daily Kos all bank on the premise that the general public is unfamiliar with the convention and the blog, and so the cons hope to be able to define it through innuendo-based attacks like this one.
PS Bill, that one session you cite is not anti-semitic in and of itself.
Discussing the ways in which Israel is affecting regional policy in the Middle East and national policy in the US is not a reflection of any sort of prejudice ... or is there some twisted-logic loophole that allows you to think such?
PS ilvoter,
The major fallacy of your post is that the citations listed by Lappin are not in any way associated with Misters Seals or Footlik.
They were not sent out in their names.
They were not written by major contributors to their campaigns.
They were not effectively endorsing either Mr. Seals or Mr. Footlik.
...On the other hand, Mr. Lappin's vitriolic, hollow attack was sent out with the direct intent of supporting Cong. Kirk's reelection.
Thus, perfectly reasonable to expect him to distance himself from the attack, as Mr. Footlik has distanced himself from the rare anti-semitic remarks left at DKos (of which most of Mr. Lappin's examples actually were not).
Watch the video form Kos.
It's the Jews directing US Foreign Policy from Israel.
US support for Israel fuels terrorism.
Of course Lappin wants Kirk to win. He's worried about people who associate with groups that think Jews have to much influence in America, and that seems to have been an accepted notion at Kos.
I don't think many at Kos voicing concerns that Iran might take out another six million Jews if Iran gets nukes. I don't think there was much talk of that at Kos. Instead far more concern that Bush was going to strike Iran.
Lappin should tell the citizens of the 10th.
From Robert Goldberg's (vice president of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest) editorial in the Aug 1 Wash Times,
There are thousands of posts blaming Israel for all the terror and conflict in the Middle East: One post, which captures the anger and intent, states that "Israel is showing the entire world why the Iranian President was absolutely right to suggest that Israel cease being a sovereign state as is." Most people responding to that statement supported it on DailyKos, as they did a diarist who claimed that Hamas was actually a positive force in Gaza.
One would hope for a Sister Souljah moment from the likes of Sen. Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. Indeed, if as Mr. Wolfson claims, these are isolated comments, condemning them would be a political free-throw shot.
For Mrs. Clinton, it would be in keeping with her condemnation of Don Imus and her 2005 speech to AIPAC, where she spoke of her pledge to Eli Wiesel to be "vigilant about monitoring hate and incitement and anti-Semitism" and "to shine a bright spotlight on these messages of hatred."
Instead, through Mr. Wolfson, Mrs. Clinton said (and probably speaks for all candidates showing up) "Sen. Clinton does not agree with everything said on Daily Kos, but isolating a few comments as a way to smear a blog frequented by hundreds of thousands of people a day is wrong... Sen. Clinton is looking forward to attending YearlyKos."
Martin Luther King Jr. said "there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular — but one must take it simply because it is right." Translation: If you can't tell the YearlyKos there's no place for anti-Semitism you lack moral courage.
That's the challange to put before all the candidates in the 10th. For the rest of Illinois for that matter.
Lets see how many have courage.
Bill -
I was at the panel in question, and a conspiracy minded individual asked that question (US foreign policy controlled by Israel). The panelists immediately shot that assertion down, as it is
a) not true and
b) a rank and vile thing to say.
Next, the US policy toward the ME has been f'ed up for a long time, and not just in regards to I/P. The ugliness with the ME really started when the CIA and MI-6 engineered the overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran. Which set in motion the events that led to the rise of the Ayatollah.
Dr. Mearsheimer's speech was not about past policy to begin with. He was speaking of the future of the I/P conflict, and that it appears to be inevitably moving toward apartheid.
And since when is criticizing the actions of a state and government tantamount to any kind of hate or predjudice in and of itself? If I criticize the actions of Vladimir Putin, does that make me anti-russian? If I criticize the actions of Chavez or Castro or Calderon, does that make me racist?
If I criticize Kim Jong Il or the Chinese government, does that mean that I hate asians?
I've never seen anyone make that kind of an assertion in and of itself, so why is that people are so quick to throw around the term "anti-semite" when someone criticizes the actions of the government of the State of Israel? Is Israel somehow above being criticized? Is there some kind of rule I'm unaware of that Israel is never wrong?
And just to state again, in no uncertain terms, that every panelist at YKos stated, clearly, that the idea that Israel controls US foreign policy is absurd. One moron asked that as a question and was shot down by all the panelists.
The only thing that was discussed was that the right-wing AIPAC does, in fact, have a great deal of influence, in part due to a lack of an offsetting group on the left. But having a great deal of influence, in large part due to a lack of effective counter, does not mean that Israel or any proxy of Israel controls US foreign policy.
"Andy Lappin just happened to have an entire litany of Kirk votes in his back pocket? Get real. This was coordinated on some level."
- Ah, another fine example of the "weak innuendo" you railed against earlier.
"And if you think Lappin's repetition of half-quotes and ignoring the fact that the Kos community itself railed against the other posts is a worthwhile venture, more power to you."
- I didn't defend Lappin's venture, just pointed out the similarities of his and yours. Try to keep up, Rob.
"The major fallacy of your post is that the citations listed by Lappin are not in any way associated with Misters Seals or Footlik."
- Correct. They're were just associated with their Kos supporters. Just as Lappin is a supporter of Kirk.
"Pops your balloon rightquick."
- Awe, poor Rob. Wit doesn't win elections, and apparently neither do CD10 Democrats.
Bill,
Working on a reply to you, though Jerry 101 did cover several of the points I was planning to make.
It's funny how conservative-partisans always say they're against "political correctness" ... until they're for it.
Also, note that the Washington Times editorial you refer to also references one of the exact same Daily Kos diaries that Andy Lappin used in his attack email.
That diary was toned down by the author himself (including the line you've quoted via the editorial) after Daily Kos readers chastised his over-the-top writing. Essentially, the editorial no longer reflects reality given that it ignores that the DKos community did speak out against such a remark (the editorial complains that the community and Democratic leaders which respond to it do not speak out against such things).
--
ilvoter...
"Andy Lappin just happened to have an entire litany of Kirk votes in his back pocket? Get real. This was coordinated on some level."
- Ah, another fine example of the "weak innuendo" you railed against earlier.
Fair enough. If you choose to think there was no coordination I suppose it's possible that Mr. Lappin took the time to read Congressional Quarterly himself and put together all that information.
The fact remains, though, that Andy Lappin supports Mr. Kirk directly (both in word and deed) and Mr. Kirk graciously accepts such support, benefitting from the smears related in Mr. Lappin's email and having cashed his thousands of dollars worth of checks over the years.
These things tie Mr. Kirk directly to Mr. Lappin.
The two men didn't randomly pass in the hallway at some conference (although Mr. Lappin's only gripe about the conference itself was that Mr. Seals and Mr. Footlik attended it).
The two men don't randomly post information at some blog, unbeknownst to each other.
They are in a direct relationship with each other, giving and receiving support.
"And if you think Lappin's repetition of half-quotes and ignoring the fact that the Kos community itself railed against the other posts is a worthwhile venture, more power to you."
- I didn't defend Lappin's venture, just pointed out the similarities of his and yours. Try to keep up, Rob.
Try to keep up yourself "il"... You are defending Mr. Lappin through your muddying of the waters for him.
"The major fallacy of your post is that the citations listed by Lappin are not in any way associated with Misters Seals or Footlik."
- Correct. They're were just associated with their Kos supporters. Just as Lappin is a supporter of Kirk.
You're contradicting yourself.
Their "Kos supporters"?
There were five Kos writers mentioned by Mr. Lappin. OneCrankyDom (whose post was opposing Sen. Lieberman, not Jews), tomjones (whose post was clipped down to a half-quote to completely alter its meaning), Wiseprince (who edited his post after the DKos community railed against his over-the-top vitriol, not that Mr. Lappin bothered to acknowledge that the DKos community disapproved of the heated rhetoric), Ben Heine (whose diary posting received so much criticism from Kos posters that the diary's tags were modified and a front-page editor added a disclaimer, again, not that Mr. Lappin bothered to acknowledge this), and heathlander.
Are these the Seals and Footlik "Kos supporters" to whom you refer? Please provide your evidence that these five Kos posters have ever supported either Mr. Seals or Mr. Footlike in a manner even remotely similar to Mr. Lappin's direct and substantial support for Mr. Kirk.
If you cannot do so, then what "Kos supporters" are you referring to?
The entire point to Mr. Lappin's email was that he considers all of Daily Kos blog (and, apparently, therefore the entire Yearly Kos conference) to be anti-semitic based on five examples that have turned out to be more about politics than prejudice.
Are you saying the entire Republican Party is racist because Rep. Tom Tancredo doesn't like illegal immigrants? That's the same leap of logic Mr. Lappin makes.
"Pops your balloon rightquick."
- Awe, poor Rob. Wit doesn't win elections, and apparently neither do CD10 Democrats.
Funny "il".
It's too bad Mr. Kirk is apparently relying on lies from his direct supporters to win.
Mr. Kirk, every time I've met him, has been a gentleman and seems to be a decent guy. It would seem to me he'd want to do the right thing even if, as ilvoter is trying to argue, he doesn't have to.
"Try to keep up yourself "il"... You are defending Mr. Lappin through your muddying of the waters for him."
- First off....love the comeback, Rob. Secondly, a criticism of you is not a defense of Lappin, regardless of how earnestly you insist that it is.
Who's position is the most foolish? Let the readers decide!
Lappin's position - Criticize Seals and Footlik for associating with Kos which Lappin makes a stretch to claim is at least somewhat anti-Semitic.
Rob's position - Criticize Kirk for associating with Lappin because his criticism of Kos, which Rob doesn't think is anti-Semitic enough to be a problem.
It is somewhat troubling that an e-mail from a private citizen is being held up to this kind of scrutiny and condemnation. While everyone realizes that e-mails can be forwarded and forwarded, one can presume that Lappin's intended audience was the people on his e-mail list, not the blogosphere.
Is there any difference between private and public correspondence anymore?
Anonymous 4:55pm...
Mr. Lappin's intent clearly was to influence people via that email.
Is a lie more valid if you say it in the hopes it might remain private?
Certain people that the email was sent to strongly objected to its content (including its lies). Those people forwarded it on to others with their own comments added.
And yes, the email was eventually forwarded to me (and other bloggers) who have noted the many fallacies and errors.
For better or worse, the Internet makes ours a more open society.
--
ilvoter...
Who's position is the most foolish? Let the readers decide!
If only Illinoize blog offered a polling function for you to freep. ;)
Lappin's position - Criticize Seals and Footlik for associating with Kos which Lappin makes a stretch to claim is at least somewhat anti-Semitic.
Dumbed down, but mostly accurate.
Rob's position - Criticize Kirk for associating with Lappin because his criticism of Kos [1], which Rob doesn't think is anti-Semitic enough to be a problem [2].
Nice twist of words there "il" to try and squeeze what I've written into your self-designed box.
1. My position is that Mr. Kirk ought to distance himself from his direct supporter who sent out an email smear in an attempt at benefitting his re-election effort ... lest Mr. Kirk appear to endorse the use of lies, baseless innuendo and mud amongst his supporters.
2. I've also noted that while a very few of the 130,000+ active DKos users are bigots of this sort (only one of Mr. Lappin's five comes even close) the site itself is an open site.
Do you consider Chicago to be a Nazi town simply because a Nazi rally was once held there? For that matter, since a judge had permitted that same Nazi group to stage their rally in nearby Skokie would you consider Skokie to be Nazi too?
Those despicable people were using the same first amendment rights as the jerks who post bigoted material at DKos ... just as the multitude of other DKos users who oppose that material are also using their 1A rights to downrate the material and speak against bigots.
Your twisted logic and willing ignorance of facts is truly bizarre, as is that from Mr. Lappin's and Mr. Baar's.
Anti-semitism is a problem, on that you and I appear to agree.
But the DKos community itself is not anti-semitic. A very small number of posters to that open forum are indeed despicable anti-semites and the DKos immediately and as a matter of course (on the rare occasions such posts are made) react to oppose the prejudice -- as Mr. Lappin's own examples actually reveal once one actually looks at the material and the reactions to it.
Bill,
In response to your earlier remarks about the conservative-partisan video from Mr. Marcus....
Jerry 101 has already noted several of the problems with your claims. And since he was there and you were not... his account seems more reliable, or do you disagree?
Also, Bill, please answer the question I posed earlier. Let me rephrase it to be more clear:
Where is your evidence that Mr. Seals or Mr. Footlik espouse the sentiments you describe?
Did they attend that session and applaud (conservatives took a lot of videos -- maybe you know of one showing what you're alluding to)?
Jerry101 indicates very few people were in attendance at that particular session. And, of those in attendance, he describes the one comment as having come from a questioner, not a panelist, with that questioner being roundly panned by the other attendees in the room.
Also, where is your evidence that the entirety of the YearlyKos convention or the DailyKos blog are "anti-semitic" as you've claimed and as Mr. Lappin tried to claim?
Have you reviewed every session transcript and every blog post to confirm this?
Please provide actual links and/or citations of publications to back up your claims.
Keep in mind that both Mr. Footlik and Mr. Seals are strong supporters of Israel. Mr. Footlik is Jewish himself. Does this mean that, since you oppose him on this matter, you yourself are anti-semitic (using your own twisted logic, it would seem to be so).
Like any conference, there are lots of different sessions, and with 1500 people in attendance there are bound to be a few at any given extreme on an issue. That doesn't mean that any given attendee agrees with every single session at the conference or every statement made by an attendee.
What a load of bunk.
Again, by your twisted logic, the Republican presidential candidates must be anti-gay bigots because they attended a conference in which a keynote speaker (Ann Coulter) used a gay slur (and the entire audience cheered and clapped when she did so).
Further, by your own twisted logic, Mr. Lappin wants to bring about Armageddon because he is on the board of the IFCJ. Therefore, because Mr. Kirk accepts his support and his money (several thousands over the years), Mr. Kirk must agree with that premise.
...Bill, your lack of reason is astounding.
Rob's position - Criticize Kirk for associating with Lappin because his criticism of Kos, which Rob doesn't think is anti-Semitic enough to be a problem.
"Your twisted logic and willing ignorance of facts is truly bizarre, as is that from Mr. Lappin's and Mr. Baar's."
- FACT: Rob wrote "I've also noted that while a very few of the 130,000+ active DKos users are bigots" and "A very small number of posters to that open forum are indeed despicable anti-semites" and "But the DKos community itself is not anti-semitic."
- LOGICAL CONCLUSION: Rob does not believe there are enough anti-semites writing on Kos for the site to considered anti-semitic.
Sorry, Rob. Due to the limitations of blog comments, I can't draw you a picture.
Instead of trying to wrap you head around concepts of simple logic, perhaps you could focus your efforts on lessening your use of "weak innuendo" and "guilt-by-association" which you both condemn and engage in by your own admission.
If Mr. Lappin is reading along, I would suggest that he do the same.
Sorry to be slow to the party on this one, but I think I can shed a little light.
I'm a former AIPAC staffer, strong supporter of Israel and a regular DailyKos reader. These things are not mutually exclusive.
Andy Lappin is not just "some Kirk supporter" as some have suggested. I worked with Lappin way back when. He is not only personally close to Kirk, but also to Caryn Garber, the head of Kirk's district office who used to be head of AIPAC's office before she was fired. Garber is the one who threatened a Seals supporter with a congressional funding cutoff if that person didn't get on the Kirk train.
This is part of a coordinated right wing effort to paint Democrats as closet anti-Semites. I've seen it for years and it is INFURIATING.
Contrary to what Bill O'Reilly or Andy Lappin might believe, Kos isn't the slightest bit anti-Semitic. Pulling a post out of context is intellectually dishonest in the extreme. If you want to know what they think, look at the front page items. If you find any from there that are the least bit anti-Semitic, then you've got a point. But since I've been reading the damned thing for 3 1/2 years now, I can guarantee you you won't find it.
These tactics by the right are disgusting and dishonest.
Chi Cyn,
You really think the notion that it's US support of Israel that fuels Islamic terrorism isn't a widely held view at Kos?
And that Israel wields for too much control over US Foreign Policy?
My experience is those are two widely held views among many on the left today.
Whether those are anti semitc view points each should judge for themselves, but I think these notions that went unchallanged at Kos.
It's hardly a right-wing smear to ask the candidates in the 10th if they agree.
Do you or Rob believe this the case?
Bill wrote, "You really think the notion that it's US support of Israel that fuels Islamic terrorism isn't a widely held view at Kos?"
Bill, when Osama bin Laden says that US support for Israel is one of the reasons he has "declared war" against the US ... why would anyone not get the notion that US support for Israel helps fuel Islamic terrorism?
Seriously, Bill; read what you're writing.
As for your second citation, it has just as loose a grip on reality.
Jerry101 already explained that the one person who made that remark was panned at the Yearly Kos conference.
Nevermind the fact that groups like AIPAC and other hard-line conservative and pro-"hawkish Israel" groups actually do wield dramatic influence over the current power structure in Washington (among both parties). It's a very powerful lobby along the lines of Big Pharma and Big Ag. (None of that is to say that I think there is any sort of direct Israeli control over Washington, but the pro-hawkish lobby is very strong and very aggressive in that town.)
As for your claim that those two are notions that go unchallenged at DKos, you're right and you're wrong. Like any forum open for debate, people of many sides on these issues present their beliefs on the matter as best they can -- with many nuances and shades of gray in between.
ilvoter summarized... "- FACT: Rob wrote 'I've also noted that while a very few of the 130,000+ active DKos users are bigots' and 'A very small number of posters to that open forum are indeed despicable anti-semites' and 'But the DKos community itself is not anti-semitic.'"
ilvoter continued ... "- LOGICAL CONCLUSION: Rob does not believe there are enough anti-semites writing on Kos for the site to considered anti-semitic."
I respond: Correct. Just as there are not enough anti-semites in all of the US to consider our great nation to be anti-semitic (though there are some anti-semites in our midst and, as they are at DKos, they are reviled by the vast majority and called out for what they are).
Why do you not understand this concept?
Chicago Cynic bolsters my conclusion in this simple exercise in basic logic by relaying the experiences he (or is it she) has had both with AIPAC, Mr. Lappin himself, and also as a reader of Daily Kos.
ilvoter then whined because he doesn't understand basic logic, saying: "Instead of trying to wrap you head around concepts of simple logic, perhaps you could focus your efforts on lessening your use of "weak innuendo" and "guilt-by-association" which you both condemn and engage in by your own admission.
Please explain where I've engaged in "weak innuendo" or "guilt-by-association"?
Mr. Lappin is a strong supporter of Mark Kirk, facts from financial records to past campaign actions prove this. That is neither a weak innuendo nor a guilt by association. It's a fact.
Mr. Kirk has graciously accepted this support by cashing Mr. and Mrs. Lappin's checks and not speaking out against Mr. Lappin's written and verbal support. This too is a fact.
I've asked folks who agree with me that Mr. Lappin's baseless attack email was beyond the pale to call Mr. Kirk's campaign to inquire as to "why Cong. Kirk's supporters are doing these things and suggest that they ask volunteers and donors to discontinue such vile practices".
That too is neither weak innuendo nor guilt by association. It's simply a request for like-minded individuals to take action against hollow smear campaigns.
Either Mr. Kirk appreciates these sorts of fallacy-based attacks or he doesn't. If he does enjoy the benefits he feels he may receive from them then he ought to ignore such inquiries. If he finds them as worthless as many of his constituents do, then he ought to encourage his own supporters to stop.
ilvoter concludes: "If Mr. Lappin is reading along, I would suggest that he do the same."
Agreed, seeing as how his baseless malarkey is what has led to this discussion in the first place.
Bill,
While I agree with you that there are those on the far left who believe Israel is the cause of Islamofascism, I haven't seen evidence of that on the front page of the DailyKos. And since I've been reading it pretty much everyday for 3 1/2 years, I'm pretty comfortable that I know more about their views than you do.
The key point is that you really need to distinguish between the views of the site's owners, as manifested in the comments by Kos and his authorized contributors on the front page, and a few whacked out lefty loons who may post random comments in the diaries. I think it's grossly unfair to slam the site and the community, as Lappin and Bill O'Reilly have done, based on a few random comments deep in the blogs. You can go to any blog on the left or right and find crazy comments, but that doesn't mean the blogs themselves agree with them.
I mean do you really want to be held responsible for some of the more extreme views of those neocon nutjobs like "hey, let's bomb Iran and just get it over with" or Tancredo's "let's bomb Mecca if there's a terrorist attack here." Yet that kind of thinking is all over right wing talk radio and blogs.
On the AIPAC front, I read the Mearsheimer and Walt pieces and think they added 2+2 and came up with 27 on AIPAC. I mean does AIPAC wield influence on the Hill? You bet. But that's not why we went to war in Iraq and it's not why our policies are so closely aligned with the Israeli right.
The fact is there is a convergence of perceived interests between the Neocons and the Israeli right, so naturally we follow similar policies. But that doesn't mean there's a causal relationship.
As someone that loves Israel and hopes for peace, I happen to think most of those policies (Iraq war, Lebanon war, etc.) have been a disaster for both the US and Israel, but that's another story.
Finally, I think it is worthwhile to clear something up. When the left blames Islamofascism on Israel, I think they are flat wrong and missing the larger lessons of history. Israel has been used as a scapegoat for decades by repressive Arab regimes to cover up their own outrageously bad policies of personal enrichment and public impoverishment. And it works. Whenever you have trouble at home, blame it on Israel, or stir up a phony Israel issue. You'll have thousands of angry Arabs on the street in 10 seconds flat. But that's not the real cause of their discontent.
Osama Bin Laden is no different. His primary stated concern in the years leading up to and including immediately after 9/11 was the presence of American infidels on sacred Arab land (Saudi Arabia) and their support for the corrupt Saudi regime. Israel and the Palestinians were an afterthought.
But over the past few years, he's found the same thing as those other Arab governments. There's no better way to stir up the street than to point to those barbaric Jews hurting the poor defenseless Palestinians. So voila! Osama becomes a champion of the Palestinians. It's all very convenient. But that doesn't make it true.
On that score, the US has played right into his hands by giving a cause celebre and phenomenal terrorist recruitment tool with the Iraq war.
I admit I'm not a kos reader. I just know Mearsheimer went unchallanged on that panel. (And Rob was there and could have challanged him. He didn't.)
My experiences have been with Boycott Israel advocates at Church.
Mine is Unitarian Universalist but the other mainline Churches have gone further down this path.
You'll hear some surprizing stuff about Jews especially if peoples guards are down.
I think this anti semitism is more prevelant on the left than one whould think but it's just like the gas Lieberman remark on Kos; polite people push it underground.
Engage over in the UK follows the rise of leftist anti semitism which is more open in Europe.
Here's a letter from an American Sociology Prof writing on the boycott of Israeli academics.
I'm not a kos reader but engage many progressives in debate about the middle east and you'll get some ominous responses about Jews.
Chicago's Carl Davidson on organizing anti war demos this fall,
'The same old way' is something like this:
All the hard left and anti-imperialists call a meeting--one person, one vote, no matter what they represent size-wise or constituency-wise. They then decide the slogans, theme and key elements of the day. They may also decide who they want to keep away, such as 'capitalists' or elected officials who won't sign a pledge or antiwar Jews with wrong line on Palestine (take your pick), then set up an outreach committee to make visits and calls to get other people to come to the party and help put up the additional trimmings, besides what's already done.
This produces a few more names, but the demo still ends up basically the same old militant minority.--sometimes large, sometimes smaller.
Don't get me wrong. I'll do this any day over doing nothing.
But this Fall we want something different.
The anti war Jews with the wrong line on Palestine. As though anti war Gentiles would be ok? Not really, but today's left needs to single out the Jew for a special exclusion.
"ilvoter continued ... "- LOGICAL CONCLUSION: Rob does not believe there are enough anti-semites writing on Kos for the site to considered anti-semitic."
I respond: Correct."
- Correct? Oh, I'm glad you changed you mind from when you previously called that conclusion "twisted logic and willing ignorance of facts". I guess spelling it our for you was worth the effort after all. Kudos Rob!
"Just as there are not enough anti-semites in all of the US to consider our great nation to be anti-semitic"..."Why do you not understand this concept?"
- I get the concept Rob. How many times do I have to repeat or rephrase it for you? You do not think the level of anti-semitism at Kos is high enough to consider the site anti-semitic. You just wrote that you thought it was "correct"! That is a subjective judgement that you and Lappin disagree on. If an opposition candidate for office in which you are a constituent went before a group that you DID believe to be anti-semitic or bigoted in some other way, would you be upset? Would you call him/her out on it publicly? Would you consider that to be a valid reason to continue supporting your preferred candidate?
"Please explain where I've engaged in "weak innuendo" or "guilt-by-association"?"
- OK, from your 1:34PM comment:
["Andy Lappin just happened to have an entire litany of Kirk votes in his back pocket? Get real. This was coordinated on some level.
- Ah, another fine example of the "weak innuendo" you railed against earlier.
Fair enough."]
Bill... Oh, Bill...
Bill writes, "I admit I'm not a kos reader. I just know Mearsheimer went unchallanged on that panel. (And Rob was there and could have challanged him. He didn't.)"
First, you are not a Kos reader.
Go there and read the blog before you start labeling half a million Americans.
At least you now admit your own inequity here. What right do you have to label that blog if you're not even bothering to read it?
And as for "Rob was there" that's news to me. I did not attend Yearly Kos.
But, every session's video is online because part of the premise of Yearly Kos is that folks could view the proceeding remotely if they so choose. (And I don't mean the partisan opponents' carefully edited videos.)
So that's twice that you've presumed way too much.
Your arguments have no ground to stand on.
Bill continues digging his hole deeper, "My experiences have been with Boycott Israel advocates at Church.
Mine is Unitarian Universalist but the other mainline Churches have gone further down this path.
You'll hear some surprizing stuff about Jews especially if peoples guards are down.
I think this anti semitism is more prevelant on the left than one whould think but it's just like the gas Lieberman remark on Kos; polite people push it underground."
Kind of like conservative Senators from Virginia, eh?
Prejudice can be found among all political stripes Bill so your allegorical attempts to pin it on "the left" don't fly -- esp. in light of your confession that you don't even know what you're talking about in the first place. ;)
Opposing the political practices of a given nation's political leadership does not equal prejudice against that nation's predominant religion.
ilvoter....
Now you're truly diving off the deep end.
The earlier statements by Bill Baar and others continued to promote the false notion that Daily Kos is "anti-semetic" because a few random jerks post there.
Such a lack of context is what I labeled "twisted logic and willing ignorance of facts".
Try to keep up instead of skipping around to parse out clipped half-quotes (which is precisely what Mr. Lappin originally did, if you recall).
...As for Andy Lappin's back-pocket reference guide to Mr. Kirk's Congressional career, all I said was that the smear email had been "coordinated on some level". Did Mr. Kirk's political staff help feed the info to Mr. Lappin? Maybe. Did a group of Mr. Lappin's friends at the IFCJ put the info together? Perhaps.
But, as Chicago Cynic has also posted, it's clear enough that the effort was coordinated somehow. Lists of specific votes don't just magically appear.
How is pointing that out "weak innuendo"? Even if it were "innuendo", what is the implication.
You've yet to explain your rantings.
You sat in a meeting at Kos Rob where Mearsheimer said,
US support for Israel fuels Islamic terroirism agains the US.
Israel controls US foreign policy.
You said nothing.
Forget kos... explain yourself before you go after Mr. Lappin.
Bill,
I didn't attend Yearly Kos. You want to subpoena my timesheets from the office and take a deposition from my wife and coworkers as to my whereabouts?
Sheesh.
No wonder conservatives are in such dire straights in this country; you presume to know way too much, sir.
You agree with M?
Does US support fuel Islamic terror against us?
Does Isreal control US Foreign Policy?
No one spoke out against that on the kos video.
Here's your chance. You consider M's statements reason?
That the crowd you're with Rob?
Bill,
You've gone past the line of no return. It is your myopic, willfully ignorant self who is unreasonable here.
Read Daily Kos for a week and then get back to us on whether or not you think the entire site is full of anti-semites as you've been obliquely implying for a week.
And maybe next year you'll spring for a trip to the annual conference so you can see that that conference is also not full of anti-semites, despites your best attempts to prop up someone else's infopimping.
As for your questions, I've already answered them but, as you've already stated, apparently have a problem reading.
Now back to you. Why do you continue to support and defend false notions being used to commit ad hominem attacks, willful attempts to distort facts in order to slur people, and rank lying on the part of your political allies?
I won't hold my breath waiting for an honest answer from an intellectually dishonest man.
As for your questions, I've already answered them but...
Where?
Again,
Do you believe Americans support of Israel fuels Islamic terror against Americans?
Do you believe Israel runs America's Foreign Policy?
Do you believe those two things?
Are you supporting Kirk's opponents because you think they believe these things?
Bill asks: "'As for your questions, I've already answered them but...' Where?"
I reply: Upthread plus here, again.
Bill asks: "Do you believe Americans [sic] support of Israel fuels Islamic terror against Americans?"
I reply: Osama bin Laden has said that he is waging war (fatwa issued in 1996 and 1998) against the US in part because of our support for Israel, so yes, I believe American support of Israel (in part) fuels Islamic terror against Americans.
I ask Bill: Why do you choose to ignore this?
I further remark to Bill: This does not mean I think the US should abandon its ally. But it does mean I think we ought to recognize the consequences of standing alongside our historic ally in the region and act accordingly.
I also ask Bill: Given that bin Laden wants to engage in war (because it draws more recruits and more money to al Qaida) I ask you whether or not you think generating more war in the region is responsible and reasonable... or if perhaps there might not be a different approach which achieves the aims of the war in Iraq (peace in the region, less terrorism overall) while simultaneously cutting bin Laden off at the shins.
Bill asks: "Do you believe Israel runs America's Foreign Policy?"
I reply: No.
But I do believe there is a very strong lobbying group which is ardently in favor of an "aggressive Israel" that does have significant influence among both parties. This is no different than other large lobbying groups like PhARMA, the American Banking Association, etc.
Witness the actions of Andy Lappin who, clearly, falls into the category of supporting an "aggressive Israel" -- Mr. Lappin has donated healthy sums of money to a variety of Federal-level candidates of both parties. He and his wife have donated the max to Mark Kirk and Mr. Lappin also obviously supports Cong. Kirk through other actions.
Like any American, Mr. Lappin offers his support and donations to Cong. Kirk with the expectation that Cong. Kirk will view Mr. Lappin's desires favorably (in this case, an "aggressive Israel").
Bill asks: "Do you believe those two things?"
I reply: On the first yes, and on the second, no; as stated in several different ways throughout this comment thread.
Bill asks: "Are you supporting Kirk's opponents because you think they believe these things?"
I reply: Why are you so confused?
Both Mr. Seals and Mr. Footlik are strong supporters of our ally Israel. Both have forcefully stated that they stand beside that nation. Indeed, Mr. Footlik is himself Jewish and is married to an Israeli woman who previously served in the Israeli national defense forces.
Moreover, where have I indicated I am supporting either one of them?
I will defend them against fallacy-based smears such as the ones promoted by Mr. Lappin and others who wish to trivialize anti-semitism by conflating such vile prejudice with political debate -- as I would hope any other honest and loyal American would do.
But nowhere have I suggested that I am volunteering for, donating to, or in fact voting for (ie, "supporting") either Mr. Seals or Mr. Footlik for any particular reason.
...Finally, Bill, another question for you: Since you've been reduced to harping on a single person from a single session (out of 1500 convention attendees and scores of sessions) and trying to somehow stretch out a relationship between that one person and that one session to the Democratic candidates in the 10th CD, where is your evidence that Mr. Seals or Mr. Footlik espouse the sentiments you describe?
Mr. Baar, strangely responding to my queries on a completely different blog, sayeth:
--
Rob_N,
This question: where is your evidence that Mr. Seals or Mr. Footlik espouse the sentiments you describe?
I have none. I know little about the candidates other than one of them attended Kos. I think they’re questions to be asked of any candidates for Congress. Especially if they were at that subject conference.
I’d ask them of Lauzen… I’ll probably see him at the Campton Township GOP picnic.
-- (bold emphasis added)
Thanks for proving my point Bill. Mr. Lappin did not have any evidence either, yet he did not hesitate to distribute his smear email as far and wide as he felt comfortable doing.
(By the by, Rich Miller and many of the bloggers who post at Illinoize also attended the Yearly Kos conference as I understand it. Since you've erroneously claimed I also attended, when in fact I did not, you best see to posing your inane questions to all of those other 1500 or so folks who did attend.)
Post a Comment