:rolleyes: You know damn well that to go back and delete a seemingly anodyne tweet like that after six years is verrry fishy.
You apparently don’t realize that there is no conceivable thing you could say that would compliment me more than comparing me to Christopher Hitchens. I’m walking on a cloud now!
So how do you explain my great affection for Sarah Haider (who was on Bill Maher’s show last weekend, BTW)? Did she somehow become less swarthy by leaving Islam and encouraging other Muslims to do the same? :dubious:
No, I was pretty sure that you’d consider it complimentary to be compared to a writer who built much of his career on sounding sassy and provocative in order to distract attention from his underlying irrationality and ignorance.
You’re nowhere near as eloquent or interesting a writer as Hitchens, of course, but you definitely somewhat resemble him in the use of disingenuous rhetorical tricks to disguise and gloss over logically inconsistent arguments.
Whatever you want to say about me: calling Hitch, of all people, irrational and ignorant? That just makes you look ridiculous. I would say he is like a god, but as he pointed out: God is not great. And Hitch is (sorry, “was” sigh) as great as they come.
No, it’s incredibly mundane. Especially knowing that deleting old social media posts doesn’t do a damn thing – it’s all there forever, at least for prominent people.
This is all just rumor and innuendo, which you have admitted to desiring to spread due to your biases. There’s no actual evidence.
Yeah, Hitchens was an incredibly smart guy, and he wrote some very interesting and provocative essays during his lifetime, but he ran seriously off the rails in the wake of 9/11. That article about Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 was a perfect example of him letting his outrage get in the way of his analysis. We had a big thread on it at the time, and I wrote a long review of the Hitchens piece as part of that thread.
Well, there you go again showing all that you are not even a Sage.
The idiot certificates goes actually to your already demonstrated incompetence on your “deduction methods”.
First idiotic certificate goes to your argument here, it comes **after **your ratty brain was actually aware of how stupid was to rely on the blog or internet images by telling me that you stopped relying on them and that we should look at other evidence, my hunch that you were not able to let go of the very stupid internet image evidence was correct.
Second idiotic certificate goes for not even looking at the examples that explained where I was coming from, about what one has to look for when looking to find the value of pictures like the Buffalo Bill ones.
The point that you spectacularly missed was that all the Buffalo Bill pictures were not falsified, point being that thanks to the direct testimony of the current owner of the pictures and other evidence showing the context, it was established that 2 pictures were just prints of the usual images sold in the traveling show of Buffalo Bill. Except one that showed Bill in a very rare business suit instead of the cowboy one he usually used. That then applies to the issue at hand in the sense that anyone can add captions to a picture or image on the internet, but unless they ones that took the picture show up to testify about the context and the status of the persons in the picture, your evidence is worthless.
And as a bonus that lead us to the third idiotic certificate that you won.
It is about you trying to polish the turd you are still trying to make it shine. And a fourth idiotic certificate can go to your incapability of dealing with how stupid it was the evidence you used against Omar just by her having a picture with relatives of a lawyer that was arrested by a dictator.
I went to see F911 in the theater, as I had liked Moore’s earlier movies and especially loved his 1990s FOX TV series. But I was just cringing right out of my socks during this one, especially in the segment Hitch highlights:
Also cringey was Moore’s insistence that members of Congress couldn’t vote for a war unless they sent their own children to fight, as though one’s children are property, without agency of their own.
Then why would she take the time to go find an old post and delete it? :dubious:
It’s true, as you say, that doing so actually is counterproductive because it just calls attention to something people would otherwise probably not notice (akin to the “Streisand effect”). But honestly, I don’t think Omar understood that. Even you would have to admit that she clearly didn’t understand basic principles of campaign law, correct? Unless you think she understood them and purposely defied them?
I think you will find less insight there than many thought that there was, before this I had not identified him as prone to fall for stupid evidence, but here we are.
In the Buffalo Bill example I linked to, there was one picture that was indeed valuable, and it was thanks to experts that noticed the details and took into account the family history of the ones that took the picture. But what it is shown on TV are usually valuable pictures or other objects that beforehand it was established that they did have direct testimony and other evidence from the picture takers or the owners of them.
When there is no testimony by the owners or by the original picture takers, or a trail of ownership, or more context from the ones that took the pictures; then images are deemed to be not valuable. Besides the Antiques Road Show, similar things are taken into account by researchers of history or even respected news organizations. The point here is that there is not yet a need to check if the images are fake! It is just that in the Omar case the ones that took the picture were not shown to be the ones pushing the allegations, and/or the ones that posted the images are hiding. It is then worthless evidence until someone appears with context and testimony of the status of the subjects in the pictures.
Sage Rat completely ignores the point only because without it he can continue with his stupid “deductions”.
Somali children are usually given the name of their father as their second and third names. The British guy she married is called Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, so his father’s name was probably Nur Said. Omar calls her father Nur Said, so Ahmed is totes obviously her brother.
(If you are wondering why her name is not Ilhan Nur Said Elmi, the allegation is that as a child back in Somalia, she and her father and siblings changed their names in order to pretend to be related to a different Somali family (the Omars) in the US, who could then sponsor their immigration to the US.)
Because sometimes people do dumb and pointless things, even apparently smart people like Ilhan Omar.
She obviously didn’t understand the principles of the law she violated, but those are complicated laws that I don’t fully understand either. Presumably, she understands them better now.
None of this has anything to do with the bullshit and evidence-free accusation that she married her brother. Just rumor and innuendo.
I don’t find it uncomfortable at all. I find it comical at times the way people have to twist themselves into pretzels when called out for hypocrisy instead of admit fault. Andy being the prime example here. For many threads he has espoused a position of ‘we need to believe’, yet when it happens to the other side , it’s A-ok!
