Mary Rosh Helps Put AEI "In the Tank"

[MrBenchley]

Yes, the gun nuts' favorite pseudoscientist summarizes the intellectual decline of the American Enterprise Institute...thanks to rubbish like Lott's, AEI has gone from a centrist think tank to a haven for far right wing nutcases...


From the Washington Monthly via a Mary Rosh "fan" site...

"This spring, two economists, Ian Ayres of Yale and John J. Donohue III of Stanford, published a paper charging Lott with falsifying his statistics. Then things really got weird. Someone named "Mary Rosh" started turning up on Web sites where Lott's work was being discussed, claiming to be a former student of the embattled academic and defending him vigorously. Some Web loggers investigated and couldn't find any student of his by that name. Eventually, Lott admitted that he himself was "Mary Rosh." Criticism continued to mount, though both Lott and his sponsors at AEI have argued that Ayres and Donohue's paper contained inaccuracies of its own. Several other academics called into question separate aspects of his scholarship, the National Academy of Sciences set up an expert panel to establish whether he'd fabricated data (the panel is still investigating), and the editor in chief of Science called Lott a "fraud."
Since coming to AEI, Lott, not previously known as a polymath, has expanded his range of pronouncements, penning papers and op-eds on everything from the disputed votes in Florida (he published a study which seemed to show that blacks hadn't been discriminated against, a charge which was vigorously disputed), to the McCain-Feingold campaign reform bill (he's against it) to Rush Limbaugh's firing from ESPN for saying the media let black quarterbacks like the Philadelphia Eagles' Donovan McNabb off the hook too easily (Lott dashed off a quick regression analysis which purported to show that the media was, indeed, less inclined to criticize black quarterbacks). Last month, AEI proudly led its Web site with an op-ed by Lott, arguing that gun-safety locks "are more likely to cost lives than to save them." The scholarship of others at the think tank has been challenged. Laurie Mylroie, a leading Iraq scholar and AEI fellow, has theorized that al Qaeda is an agency of Iraqi intelligence, that Saddam Hussein was behind the first bombing of the World Trade Center, and that Iraqi intelligence was linked to Oklahoma City bomber Terry Nichols--claims dismissed by countless experts in the field, and for which Mylroie has been unable to supply credible evidence (See "Armchair Provocateur" on page 27). And James Glassman, an AEI fellow and ubiquitous pundit, hosts an influential Web magazine whose editorials frequently mirror arguments made by lobbyists for its corporate sponsors (See "Meet the Press" on page 32). "

http://www.whoismaryrosh.com/wash_monthly.html

[juancarlos]

1. Can't attack the research, so attack the man...

Typical gun-grabber response. Bellesiles and Lott, both partisan, but Lott's research hasn't been proven false.

[MrBenchley]

2. "the editor in chief of Science called Lott a "fraud." "

The goon's research is a pile of crap...and yes, it has been proven false again and again.

[1a2b3c]

4. Why not post something proving it false

Instead of this garbage? Start a thread listing all of the proven false documents put out by Lott. That would be a thread worth our time.

[MrBenchley]

5. Gee, next ask me

if I care what you think I should do.

[juancarlos]

17. It would help your credibility

if you would post specific information, instead of your rants about racism.

[CO Liberal]

18. And It Would Help YOUR Credibility...

...if you would not accuse someone of posting "rants about racism" when the only reference to racism in this thread is your post.

[MrBenchley]

19. Next he should ask me

about the RKBA crowd's utter lack of credibility....

[alwynsw]

45. Historically, the racism card

is a trump in his deck. Or are we going to revise this bit of history?

[CO Liberal]

8. Lott's Proven False Documents

Would probably be the same thing as a list of all documents written by ol' "cook The Books".

[1a2b3c]

9. CO dont tell me youre going to join in on this pantload

I wanna see some proof, someone post it for me so we can do a rebuttal. DId i spell rebuttal wrong? It looks funny. Who is ol' cook the books? Bellesiles? Or am i too young to know what youre talking about?

[CO Liberal]

10. I'm Talking About John "Cook The Books" Lott

Remember, he helped the GOP "prove" that they won the Florida election in 2000, so no self-respecting Democrat should have anything to do with that scumbag asshole.

[1a2b3c]

11. Dont remember

Honestly i never followed any of his work before joining DU. I still dont. I would like to see a thread proving any of his work on guns or gun control being false. I know its not gonna happen though because if it was false i would have heard about it already.

[Valarauko]

13. ROFLMAO!!!

LOL!

[MrBenchley]

12. And just recently he jumped in

to help "prove" Rush Limbaugh's racist horseshit. The guy's no more a scientist than Faux Noise is "fair and balanced."

[Spoonman]

92. Refer to post #45 n/t

[1a2b3c]

3. Typical

Sad but true. Did you know Bellesiles recently got busted using an online persona too? He went by the name Benny Smith.

[MrBenchley]

6. Too frigging funny...

I quote the editor of Science...and you quote stupidity from some idiot on a college newspaper.

You sound like the right wing asswipes who scream "B-b-b-b-but Clinton..." everytime anyone criticizes the unelected drunk....

[1a2b3c]

7. "B-b-b-b-b-but.......

What a pantload.

[MrBenchley]

14. Too funny...

A tireless blogger has found another sock puppet for Lott...over on Free Republic...

http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/2003/12#othersock

By the way, from Newsweek:

"Look at John Lott’s 31-page resume, and you’ll see that he got his Ph.D. from UCLA by the time he was 26. At 31, he was chief economist for the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Not bad. But then you’ll see that he’s been shown the door at some of the nation’s finest schools.
There were brief stints at Texas A&M, Rice, UCLA. Four years at Wharton, four harsh winters at U. of Chicago. Most recently, Lott managed to catch on at Yale Law, doing research from a basement office that even the receptionist can’t find. He’s applied for literally hundreds of tenure-track jobs and received just one offer—in Australia. "

[CO Liberal]

15. He Could Always Go Work for Faux News

He's on often enough to be on the payroll.....

[MrBenchley]

16. The NRA is starting a TV station

that might get him a job...."Tune in with your cold dead hands..."

By the way, guess that announcement about "We reload, you die" means that LaPierre's idiotic theme restaurant scheme is officially in the crapper...

[MrBenchley]

20. And an Australian critic finds

the gun nuts' favorite crackpot hard at work on that "peer-reviewed journal of science"...Amazon.com book reviews. Too too funny....

http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lott98update.html

[MrBenchley]

21. Nutso finds his true element

Lott also publishes in that other fine "peer reviewed scientific journal"...the Free Republic website...

Note that his new book is going to be published by far right wing cesspool Regnery Publishing, home to distinguished "scholars" as "radio host Laura Ingraham, National Review editor Rich Lowry, country music legend Charlie Daniels, and best-selling authors David Limbaugh and Oliver North..."

http://www.regnery.com/regnery/regnery.html

Attend all! Dr. Rosh, I mean, Lott, speaketh of matters great and small...

"Here is a response to some of what has been going on over the web. I have already sent much of this information to people who have already contacted me in person. If Eugene would like to post this on his web site, I must ask that all the e-mail addresses and telephone numbers be removed. If you all don't trust the leg work done by Dan Polsby on this issue since Christmas, you can nominate someone else to go and do it, but I don't think that it is appropriate for everyone from Lambert on to go and harass these people.
Regnery (the publisher of my new book due the middle or end of March) wants me not to release the results from the poll last year. They want me to keep quite about the book until it comes out. As has been reported previously, the survey was done with similar questions in a very similar way to what was done earlier and the results were essentially the same. I will check with the publisher about releasing this data early, but it is still two months before the book is due to be published. In the interim, I am sure that I could arrange it so that interested parties could question the person who keep the survey results as they came in to confirm that we only got one person who said that they had actually fired a gun and that the rest were brandishings.
Here are some of the things that I have done to try to establish a record of events. 1) My wife contacted the bank that we had in Chicago and tried to get copies of bank statements and checks from the period of time. Unfortunately, the bank does not keep copies of statements or checks longer than five years. (If you would like to verify, we talked to Yvonne Macias in the book keeping department at University National Bank.) Lindgren does not accurately report my conversation with him about how I paid people (in that I said that I possibly paid by check), but this information makes that point irrelevant. 2) I asked Sam Peltzman last year about whether the Alumni Association has the e-mail of past students. Sam, who seems to know virtually everything that is going on at the University, told me that they have the e-mail addresses for at most 10 percent of the former students. 3) I had a former alumni and several time co-author, John Whitley, placed in an ad in the Alumni magazine in the December issue to track down the students. I don't know if the ad has appeared but thus far I have gotten no response. "

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/821579/posts?page=22#22

I suspect he'd have been better off keeping "quite" than enlisting the help of the freeper community.

[MrBenchley]

22. The racist Dr. Lott

Gee, who'd have thunk it...a gun rights piece of shit who's also a racist...

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/lott200312100915.asp

[1a2b3c]

23. Benny Smith is racist too

Or so ive heard.

[MrBenchley]

24. Try to look a bit more desperate

Maybe you can find some more lies from that kid on the student newspaper.

[1a2b3c]

26. cry me a river bench

maybe you could cry that river on Benny Smiths shoulder.

[MrBenchley]

27. Better yet, fold up the student newspaper

it will make a better hat than a new source.

[1a2b3c]

29. i cant fold a hat out of paper

I didnt make it out of high school.

[MrBenchley]

32. It shows

[1a2b3c]

33. easy on the personal attacks mrb

I dont want you to hit 30 before the weekend. :-)

[MrBenchley]

34. Too too funny...

Agreeing with your post is by you a personal attack? That IS rich.

You might recall that when the thread about civililty was shut down for personal attacks, I'd launched nary a one.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Moderator]

48. Actually, both the mods and the Admins found enough to remove it

and have told you why it was removed in ATA.

Gang, the new rules are here to stay. Familiarize yourself with them, abide by them. When a post is removed you can appeal it with Skinner - you may NOT discuss it on the board. If Skinner feels you are wasting his time you may get another removal charged against you - that is why he suggests you try to figure out what rule you broke BEFORE you make complaints about it.

Thanks,

DU Mod

[BullDozer]

25. Where?

What exactly is racist about that article?

I'll make it easy for you and just ask you to quote the parts that show the author is a racist please.

[MrBenchley]

28. Hahahahahaha!

Leave it to the RKBA crowd to defend the National Review on race...especially when it's trying to pretend blacks weren't disenfranchised in Florida....

[BullDozer]

30. Answer the question

What exactly is racist about that article?

I'll make it easy for you and just ask you to quote the parts that show the author is a racist please.

[MrBenchley]

31. I DID answer the question dozer....

Now go stick up for this racist asswipe to someone who gives a steaming crap..

[BullDozer]

36. Where is that?

I'll make it easy for you and just ask you to quote the parts that show the author is a racist please.

[MrBenchley]

37. Been there, done that....

Now go and complain to somebody who gives a steaming crap that there's nothing at all racist about a right wing loony lying about the deliberate disenfranchisement of black citizens in Florida during 2000 to other right wing loonies in Crazy Bill Buckley's cesspool of a magazine.

By the way, since you're always sticking up for this dishonest fucktard's "scholarship," answer us this: since Florida, like all states, has a secret ballot, how DOES this piece of shit know that black Republicans were disenfranchised, as he ludicrously claims here?

Answer: He's writing for bigoted imbeciles too ignorant to ask the question themselves.

Tell me, is there ANY right wing piece of shit that the RKBA crowd won't try to defend?

[BullDozer]

38. I see

So the answer really is there's nothing quotable in that article that one can show to back up your claim that the author actually is a racist.

You're going to rely on the fact that it's a righty column in a righty publication as your only "proof" that the author is a racist.

Yeah that's about the lowest standard I've heard of for labeling someone a racist there Benchley.

[MrBenchley]

39. And I see

you're not going to answer the question of how Lott could possibly make his idiotic claim about disenfranchised black Republicans...

But hey, if you want to stick up for Lott's racism, be my guest.

Of course, you were also trying to pretend that Larry Pratt holding kaffeeklatches with the Aryan Nation and the League of the South and working for Pat Buchanan didn't say Pratt was a racist fucktard either. When that SCREAMS racist in big letters.

[BullDozer]

40. hahahahahahahaha

But hey, if you want to stick up for Lott's racism, be my guest.

You have to prove this racism first.

You cite an article as proof of his racism yet you can't cut and paste a quote from it that will even bolster your claim? Yeah ok bub that's some real proof you've got there.


Larry Pratt holding kaffeeklatches with the Aryan Nation

and when there telling them that he doesn't agree with their views is racist? Yeah ok! (that's sarcasm there bub)

you're not going to answer the question of how Lott could possibly make his idiotic claim about disenfranchised black Republicans...
How in any way shape or form does that reflect upon your claim that Lott is a racist? Here's your answer "it doesn't"!

[MrBenchley]

41. Keep on spinning, dozer...

"Larry Pratt holding kaffeeklatches with the Aryan Nation
and when there telling them that he doesn't agree with their views is racist? Yeah ok! (that's sarcasm there bub)"
Gee, dozer, when did he tell them that? Before or after they sat around sobbing for white supremacist Randy Weaver?

And since you ignored that first question, here's another one for you to ignore....since the meeting was attended only by pieces of shit like the Aryan Nation and Pratt, who's word exactly is it we are supposed to be taking that he denounced their views?

[BullDozer]

42. Dodge dodge dodge but back to the question...

Nice try at avoiding the orignal question bench. It's ok you can admit that you have nothing at all to back up your claim, no one here will think any less of you for it.

All of your other static is just an attempt to dodge away from the original question which is all that matters right here.

The racist Dr. Lott
Gee, who'd have thunk it...a gun rights piece of shit who's also a racist...

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/lott200312100915.asp"

What exactly is racist about that article?

I'll make it easy for you and just ask you to quote the parts that show the author is a racist please.

Just highlight the parts press control C on your keyboard and then open a reply box on DU and press control V on your keyboard. That should be simple enough for you to do and it will eliminate all of the other non-relavant noise that you are trying to use to avoid the question with.

[MrBenchley]

43. Dozer....

If you want to pretend the article isn't racist, or that Larry Pratt isn't racist, feel free, By now this blanket denial of yours has made its own point...and reinforced mine. In spades.

P.S.: Your constant claim to be unable to see a speck of racism in Lott's attempt to spin away the very real and deliberate disenfranchisement of black voters in Florida three years ago might be a bit more convincing if Lott hadn't also written pieces "proving" that minority police officers cause more crime and "proving" that Rush Limbaugh isn't a bigoted piece of shit.

[BullDozer]

44. whatever Bub

You can't even quote proof from the article you are trying to wield as proof.

Who are you trying to kid?

[MrBenchley]

46. Yup....

Like I said...it's wonderful to see that Lott is the sort of vicious racist who would openly LIE about what even the state of Florida has admitted...

"he NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) joined other civil rights organizations in announcing the settlement of a landmark class action lawsuit stemming from the 2000 presidential election. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of thousands of African American and Haitian American Floridians who were unable to vote in that election. Named as defendants, the state of Florida, seven Florida counties, and a private company that did work for the state.
"We are very pleased with the settlement, but we recognize it will require monitoring and diligence on the part of local and national civil rights organizations," stated LDF President and Director-Counsel Elaine R. Jones. "LDF is not prepared to walk away from the table on this - we will continue to make sure that the favorable terms negotiated actually benefit Florida voters." "

http://www.richmondvoice.com/091002Floridavotingrights.htm

"This would be the second NAACP lawsuit filed against the state for voting machine problems, which largely affected Blacks and other minorities' ability to vote. Earlier this year, Florida and several counties settled a lawsuit that focused on the irregularities during the 2000 presidential election.
At Pilgrim's Rest Missionary Baptist Church in Liberty City, only 89 votes were recorded. Through a recheck, Elections Department officials found 610 votes were cast, the Herald reported. "

http://www.bet.com/articles/1,,c1gb3936-4622,00.html

<sarcasm>Yeah, but gun rights certainly isn't racism hiding under another color of sheet...</sarcasm>

[BullDozer]

47. Big bench keep on spinning

and you still manage to show nothing that proves or even bolsters your claim that Lott is a racist.

We aren't discussing wheher or not there was a problem with Floridas elections, hell the Lott article you cited as proof of his racism even says there were problems, so that's a none issue for this discussion.

What exactly is racist about the original article that you citedas proof of racism?

I'll make it easy for you and just ask you to quote the parts that show the author is a racist please.

[MrBenchley]

49. Not nearly as furiously as dozer does...

"We aren't discussing wheher or not there was a problem with Floridas elections, hell the Lott article you cited as proof of his racism even says there were problems"
Yeah....And what problems does this racist imbecile say there WERE, dozer?

[BullDozer]

50. It's your article

so I'd think you'd have actually read it and thus would know the answer to the question you pose as yet another attempt at diversion.

So why don't you just go right back to that very same article and answer the real question?

What exactly is racist about the original article that you cited as proof of racism?

I'll make it easy for you and just ask you to quote the parts that show the author is a racist please.

[MrBenchley]

51. Yeah, and it's another one of your racists....

"What exactly is racist about the original article that you cited as proof of racism? "
Yeah, dozer...what could possibly be racist about denying that the state of Florida discriminated against black people, even after the state of Florida has admitted to it? Who could possibly think there was anytthing at all racist about calling the US Commission on Civil Rigths and the NAACP liars, even after they've been proved to be telling the truth?

I can tell it's a mystery to you...just like you're baffled, utterly baffled, by how anyone could call Larry Pratt a racist just because he
--met with the Aryan Nation and a bunch of other racists to snivel about how harshly annother white supremacist had been treated
--met with the neoConfederate League of the South
--heads up an immigrant-bashing club, and
--worked for Pat Buchanan's campaign (until evenn racist Pat had to flee Pratt's company)

[BullDozer]

52. See clue... go buy it

Yeah, dozer...what could possibly be racist about denying that the state of Florida discriminated against black people

Really? Where exactly does the article you cited claim that? Quote please. I see where it spells out that there was discrimination, but it argues that the"group most victimized in the Florida voting was African-American Republicans, and by a dramatic margin, too."

How is that supposed to be consistant with your ridiculous charge of racism?

Who could possibly think there was anytthing at all racist about calling the US Commission on Civil Rigths and the NAACP liars

So now calling any minority a liar has to be a racist act?
Come on bench get a grip buddy.


As for your attempted diversion this tells volumes about you.
snivel about how harshly annother white supremacist had been treated
Oh I see, having your son and wife killed is harsh treatment in your book? Weaver did win his lawsuit against the Federal Governemnt over that BTW.

I laugh at what you try to show as proof that Larry Pratt is racist, it's weak weak weak weak weak. Either that or you have the lowest threshold in the world for determining what makes someone a racist and your citing of this Lott article as proof that he is racist just further reinforces that fact.

[MrBenchley]

53. See: "racism, defense of"

"it argues that the"group most victimized in the Florida voting was African-American Republicans, and by a dramatic margin, too." "
Too TOO funny, dozer...

"this tells volumes about you.
snivel about how harshly annother white supremacist had been treated
Oh I see, having your son and wife killed is harsh treatment in your book?"
Hello...the racist asswipe was wanted by the cops and CHOSE to retreat to his armed compound and start a shootout with them.

"Weaver did win his lawsuit against the Federal Governemnt over that BTW."
Which doesn't make him any less a racist piece of shit.

"I laugh at what you try to show as proof that Larry Pratt is racist"
Go ahead...it shows how far and desperately you'll go to try and spin away open racism.

[BullDozer]

54. Bought and paid for

So why don't you just go right back to that very same article and answer the real question?

What exactly is racist about the original article that you cited as proof of racism?

I'll make it easy for you and just ask you to quote the parts that show the author is a racist please.

Since you've been diverting and spinning for days it's clear that NOTHING in the article you cited shows Lott to be a racist, otherwise you would have quoted it by now right?

Hello...the racist asswipe was wanted by the cops and CHOSE to retreat to his armed compound and start a shootout with them.

Right sure whatever. So Vicky Weaver was shooting at who when the bullet killed her? In fact who other than the FBI was shooting at that time? Face it bunkly the FBI screwed up.

Which doesn't make him any less a racist piece of shit.
Who said he wasn't racist? Was his racism justification for having his son and wife killed?


was wanted by the cops
Because Weaver was given an incorrect court date and then indicted before that date.

and CHOSE to retreat to his armed compound
Right, they lived in shacks on a hilltop, no one whos even seen one photo of it could call it a compound.

and start a shootout with them.
There is plenty of evidence that shows that the shootout was a direct result of federal agent Arthur Roderick’s actions, in which he killed the Weaver family dog in proximity to Samuel Weaver, which caused Samuel to return fire in self-defense and FBI fired first when Vicki Weaver was killed by Lon Horiuchi.

I don't see anyone holding Randy Weaver up as an example of all that is right and good but to try to argue that he and his family deserved what they got because they were racists, white supremacists, and isolationists is at best subhuman.

Now we will return you from yet another of benchleys attempts to divert from the real topic which is:

What exactly is racist about the original article that you cited as proof of racism?

I'll make it easy for you and just ask you to quote the parts that show the author is a racist please.

[MrSandman]

55. On a charge shown

to heve been a result of entrapment by ATF.

"was wanted by the cops
Because Weaver was given an incorrect court date and then indicted before that date."


ed for sp--s

[MrBenchley]

56. Yup, Lott is a shill for the scum of the earth

"I don't see anyone holding Randy Weaver up as an example of all that is right and good"
Jeeze, he's an honored guest on the gun show circuit...

"he and his family deserved what they got because they were racists, white supremacists, and isolationists "
Didn't say that...said they started a firefight with cops after Weaver evaded arrest. Which is true.

[BullDozer]

57. Just the facts

Yup, Lott is a shill for the scum of the earth

Spin and divert, the issue at hand is whether or not the article you cited shows that Lott is racist. You haven't shown that it does.

But I can play the Weaver game for a moment.

said they started a firefight with cops after Weaver evaded arrest. Which is true.


Hahahahaha how about a bowl of facts?

They (meaning the Weavers) started the firefight is a fact? There is plenty of evidence that shows that the shootout was a direct result of federal agent Arthur Roderick’s actions, in which he killed the Weaver family dog in proximity to Samuel Weaver, which caused Samuel to return fire in self-defense. That means the Weavers didn't fire first.

"When U.S. Marshals crept onto Weaver’s property to arrest him, for missing his court date, they were given away by barking from the Weaver’s dog. Following proper military procedure in dealing with guard dogs, they shot it. Upon seeing the family pet shot, 14-year-old Sam Weaver fired into the woods, allegedly hitting one of the agents. It would later be revealed that the agent more than likely fell victim to "friendly fire" and was actually hit by his fellow agent. In any event, the remaining Marshal shot Sam in the back as he fled toward the home, killing him"

http://www.houstonreview.com/articles/lohmeier/KL20010620.html

Vicki Weaver certainly wasn't shooting at anyone she was holding the 10 month old child and only the child the the time she was killed.

"On January 22, 1991 Randy received a letter stating that his court date was scheduled for March 20, 1991, however the letter contained one crucial error - the actual date was February 20, 1991. It is unknown why Randy was provided with the wrong date and it has since been declared a typographical error. When Randy failed to show up at his February hearing, US Attorney Ron Howen asked Judge Harold Ryan to declare Randy Weaver a federal fugitive. Even though both men had just been informed of the date mix-up, Ryan agreed with Howen and issued an arrest warrant for Randy."
http://www.crimelibrary.com/gangsters_outlaws/cops_others/randy_weaver/7.html?sect=18

Having a warrant issued for your arrest before the date your paperwork says you are to appear in court has passed is evading arrest? In what world is that right and just?

BTW the charges that started this entire mess were eventually dropped once a judge ruled the BATF agents entrapped Weaver.

Now we will return you from yet another of benchleys attempts to divert from the real topic which is:

What exactly is racist about the original article that you cited as proof of racism?

I'll make it easy for you and just ask you to quote the parts that show the author is a racist please.

[MrBenchley]

58. And the fact is that Lott is a shill for the scum of the earth

You really do a hilarious job dredging stuff up, dozer.

"The Houston Review is an independent, conservative, student-run journal of news and opinion serving the Houston area. "

http://www.houstonreview.com/about.htm

What was the name of this place again?

And hilariously, the current issue contains TWO idiotic attacks on affirmative action....one cheering for the way Jeb Bush has managed to keep blacks out of Florida colleges...

http://www.houstonreview.com/0803/mich.htm

and this piece of crap...

"Unfortunately, we are now faced with the reality that “diversity”, along with “tolerance”, both improperly understood under currently politically correct definitions, have become our twin civil religions, firmly embedded in our civic, educational, business, and cultural institutions"

http://www.houstonreview.com/0803/pilgrim.htm

<sarcasm>Yeah, that tolerance and diversity is really tragic for white pinheads.....

That sure convinces me that gun rights isn't just good old fashioned bigotry under a new sheet.</sarcasm>


And from your other source.....

"On March 4, 1992, Chief Deputy Marshal Ronald Evans and Deputy Marshal Jack Cluff decided to drive up the mountain road leading to the Weaver cabin.  They were in plain clothes and rode in an unmarked four-wheel drive vehicle.  As the two men made their way up to the Weavers’, they saw signs reading, "White Power is Supreme" and "Bow Down to Yahweh."  Cluff and Evans then saw Randy Weaver, armed with a rifle, and a boy and a girl, also armed, standing above them on a rock formation. "

http://www.crimelibrary.com/gangsters_outlaws/cops_others/randy_weaver/8.html?sect=18

You've got just the nicest playmates, dozer....

[BullDozer]

59. Ever get dizzy from all of your spin?

Wow all of that from you and not one damn thing to dispute the facts I posted nor have you addressed the real point of all of this.

Funny how you since you can't deal with the arguement presented you just attack the messenger.

Gee isn't there a rule about that sort of behavior?

Now we will return you from yet another of benchleys attempts to divert from the real topic which is:

What exactly is racist about the original article that you cited as proof of racism?

I'll make it easy for you and just ask you to quote the parts that show the author is a racist please.

[MrSandman]

60. I keep up with this thread

just to see the quote from that article. Waste of time?

[BullDozer]

62. It'll never happen

I keep up with this thread just to see the quote from that article. Waste of time?
It is if you are looking for benchley to pull something from that article to show as proof of his claim that Lott is a racist because there is nothing in that article to support such a bogus charge.

In the article Lott indicates that the group most victimized in the Florida election were African-American (he says republican African-Americans but the R does nothing to change the race).

Where is the racism?

I've been asking and asking and asking but the crickets keep chirping on, all the while spinning, dodging, and diverting.

[MrBenchley]

61. Too TOO funny

You want to pretend that this idiot Lott's racist article isn't racist....and along the way you post your own source that has TWO racist articles...

"not one damn thing to dispute the facts I posted"
What facts? The only fact is that you want to pretend open racism isn't open racism...and are willing to go to any lengths to pretend so.

[BullDozer]

63. hahahahahahaha

You want to pretend that this idiot Lott's racist article isn't racist

No I just want you to show EXACTLY what in that article is racist. Barring your ability to do so it's clear that your claim of racism based on that article is pure 100% bunk.

Just cut and paste the parts that will make your claim stand.

What facts?
Try reading and comprehension buster. They are there, you didn't dispute them you only attacked the messenger and not the message.

you want to pretend open racism isn't open racism

I'm still waiting for you to show the part of Lotts article that show open racism.

[MrBenchley]

64. Been there,done that dozer....

Next time, try not to dredge up some bigoted right wing humholes attacking diversity and tolerance to back up your claim that there's no racism....

[BullDozer]

65. Where is that?

Been there,done that dozer....

Bullshit, you've done no such thing.

I'm still waiting for you to show the part of Lotts article that show open racism.

to back up your claim that there's no racism....

You'd better go back and re-read exactly what the sources that were cited were being used to doucmument. Here's a tip it had nothing to do with the existance of racism.

However anytime you want to address the initial question feel free to get around to it instead of spinning off onto side issues.

What exactly is racist about the original article that you cited as proof of racism?

I'll make it easy for you and just ask you to quote the parts that show the author is a racist please.

[MrBenchley]

67. Been there, done that...

"What exactly is racist about the original article"
What ISN'T, dozer?

[MrSandman]

68. Make an assertion and ask someone else to validate

"What exactly is racist about the original article"
What ISN'T, dozer?

[BullDozer]

69. Hahahahahaha

We are nearing post #70 here and on post #25 I asked you

"What exactly is racist about that article?

I'll make it easy for you and just ask you to quote the parts that show the author is a racist please"

You never have shown anything in that article that shows Lott to be a racist and now you want me to show you that it isn't racist?

Too funny bunkly.

Your inability to show the article as racism isn't enough proof for you that it's not racist?

That's even funnier bunkly.

You say the moon is made of green cheese, I ask for proof that it's made of green cheese and you respond with "Prove it's not made of green cheese."

Grow up.

[MrBenchley]

70. Too TOO funny...

There's nothing that ISN'T racist about that article, dozer.. But if you want to carry water for this pinhead and his bigoted idiocy, feel free to do it without me from now on.

"Your inability to show the article as racism"
Even the state of Florida admits they discriminated against blacks. The only people still pretending it didn't happen are Mary Rosh, the idiots who actually believe what's printed in National Review....and YOU.

[BullDozer]

71. Where is the proof?

There's nothing that ISN'T racist about that article

Is that why you haven't been able to quote anything racist from the article? Come on now get a grip on reality!

The only people still pretending it didn't happen

Quote where the article says that blacks were not discriminated against.

If you should try to pull some of your infamous spin out of that article then reconcile it with the fact that in the article Lott indicates that the group most victimized in the Florida election were African-American (he says republican African-Americans but the R does nothing to change the race of those discriminated against).

Face it bunkly you are so hyped up on your racism bandwagon that you see it everywhere and this entire sub thread is clear proof of it.

Admit you were wrong and just go away.

[MrBenchley]

72. Dozer

Go pimp for racism to somebody who gives a steaming crap...

"If you should try to pull some of your infamous spin out of that article then reconcile it with the fact that in the article Lott indicates that the group most victimized in the Florida election were African-American (he says republican African-Americans but the R does nothing to change the race of those discriminated against)."
Yeah, surrrrrrrrrrrrrre...

[BullDozer]

73. All you have to do is

Quote where the article says that blacks were not discriminated against and you will have made your point.

It's too bad for you that you can't do that.

[MrBenchley]

74. For what?

To demonstrate how desperately you're trying to spin away this ugly bit of bigoted gibberish? Tell us again how Lott can "prove" black Republicans were discriminated against...THAT ought to be good for another big belly laugh.

"you will have made your point. "
Oh, I made my point quite a long while ago...all we're doing now is laughing about how desperately you're trying to pretend that Lott and Pratt aren't racist scum.

[BullDozer]

75. Look back to #25

For what?

What the hell do you think?

To show that this article that you held up as proof of Lotts racism is actually proof of his racism.

You've been dodging and spinning away for the better part of a week now and you still haven't been able to prove your point.

Please, using the article you cited as proof that Lott is racist show us the quotes that prove his racism.

Should be simple enough if he is as you claim racist based on that article.

Or maybe you can get this thread locked while I'm at work, and unable to reply, so you can get the last word in.

[MrBenchley]

76. Too TOO Funny....

"You've been dodging and spinning away for the better part of a week now"
Gee, I'm not the one that's been pimping for this racist numbnutz and his idiotic and bigoted article in Crazy Bill Buckley's propaganda rag.

It's a racist piece of shit that tries to spin away the discrimination against black people that Florida already admitted to. If you want to dredge in this puddle of pus for something you think exonerates this crackpot, be my guest.

But then you're also the one who tries to pretend that somebody who's not a racist would have kaffeeklatches with the Aryan Nation and the League of the South...

[BullDozer]

77. Show the proof or shut the hell up.

Gee, I'm not the one that's been pimping for this racist numbnutz

You're the one who pulled the article up and tried to use it as proof that Lott is a racist.

You're the one who can't quote anything from the article to show that Lott is a racist.

You're the one who has spun so hard and fast on this that you can't even see straight enough to read what is in the article and what has been quoted here shows that Lott says african-americans were victimized in Florida.

If you want to dredge in this puddle of pus

No benchley it's YOUR obligation to find something in that article that will support your claim that this very article shows that Lott is racist.

It's your claim you need to back it up or shut up.

Does or does not this article prove that Lott is a racist?

If so what exactly is racist about that article and quote the parts that show the author is a racist please.

[MrBenchley]

78. Been there, done that....

"Does or does not this article prove that Lott is a racist? "
Hey, dozer...Larry Pratt held hands with the Aryan Nation and the League of the South, associated with rracist Pat Buchanan (until Buchanan had to flee his company) and heads up an immigrant bashing group...and you want to pretend he's not racist either.

Yeah, this article is a racist piece of shit, written by the same racist who tried to pretend that Rush Limbaugh isn't a racist scumbag and that minority police officers "cause" crime..

Suggest you go snivel to your buddies at the Houston Review....they like to pretend tolerance and diversity are some kind of threat and THEY'LL be glad to agree with you.

Then you can ALL pretend gun rights isn't racism under a new sheet...but you still won't fool anyone.

[BullDozer]

79. Where is that?

Yeah, this article is a racist piece of shit

What exactly is racist about that article and quote the parts that show the author is a racist please.


Everything else is just more spin spin spin from you.

YOU brought this article up as proof that Lott is racist. Back up your claim using this article.

Anytime soon would be good.

[MrBenchley]

80. Been there, done that, dozer...

Now go spin to somebody like the Houston Review...

[BullDozer]

81. Where is that?

Been there, done that, dozer


What post number was it that you showed exactly what is racist about that article and quoted the parts that show the author is a racist?

Come on if you have done what you now are claiming to have already donw all you have to do is type 2 numbers to tell me what post it is that has the ansers in it.

You can handle that can't you?

[MrBenchley]

82. Been there done that

If you need more than #22, you'd better ask over at Houston Review...

Maybe Larry Pratt will tell you...or Randy Weaver...

[slackmaster]

83. I saw 100% Republican spin in Lott's piece

There is no denying that.

No overt evidence of racism, however.

[BullDozer]

84. Yeah ok sure thing bub

Yes I do need more and you've been avoiding it for days and days now is it because there is nothing in the article to show that Lott is racist? It seems to me that must indeed be the answer.

Or you can try again

What exactly is racist about that article?

I'll make it easy for you and just ask you to quote the parts that show the author is a racist please.

[MrBenchley]

85. If you need more

I suggest you ask over at the Houston Review....since you didn't see any racism over there either in those cementheads pissing and moaning about how awful tolerance and diversity is....

[BullDozer]

86. You're the one that needs more

Like perhaps a shred of proof to back up your claim that Lott is a racist based on the article you cited.

Your diversion attempts won't work but it's a shame that you couldn't even try to dispute the facts that were presented regarding what you called harsh treatment of Randy Weaver and his family that must be because you can't tackle the truth just like you can't pin racism on Lott based on the article you cited.

Now we will return you from yet another of benchleys attempts to divert from the real topic which is:

What exactly is racist about the original article that you cited as proof of racism?

I'll make it easy for you and just ask you to quote the parts that show the author is a racist please.

Not that you can provide an answer for the question.

[MrBenchley]

87. Sez who?

Somebody trying desperately to pretend Larry Pratt isn't racist? Somebody who expects us to take the Houston Review seriously, with its attack on diversity and tolerance?

"you couldn't even try to dispute the facts that were presented regarding what you called harsh treatment of Randy Weaver and his family"
Yeah, that's it....I said dirt-ignorant bigot shot it out with the cops from his armed compound, and that turned out to be the case. Yeah, let's all have a big cry over that racist piece of shit.

[BullDozer]

88. And all of this

Has what to do with the fact that you are unable to show how the article you cited as proof of Lotts racism shows nothing of the sort?

Somebody trying desperately to pretend Larry Pratt isn't racist?

Or is it somebody calling that which you are trying to use as proof of racism pretty damn weak and feeble?

Somebody who expects us to take the Houston Review seriously, with its attack on diversity and tolerance?

It's funny how you didn't dispute the information presented from it you just attacked the source. Argue the message benchley not the messenger. Is the information prsented from it about Ruby Ridge incorrect?

bigot shot it out with the cops

Funny, I've seen no evidence what so ever that Randy Weaver fired a shot.


armed compound

Yeah a couple of shacks on a hilltop is really an armed compound.


Yeah, let's all have a big cry over that racist piece of shit
Yeah lets not give two craps that his son and wife were killed, the soen shot as he ran away and the wife shot in the head, while she held her infant, by an FBI sniper, but I guess that's OK with you.


Now we will return you from yet another of benchleys attempts to divert from the real topic which is:

What exactly is racist about the original article that you cited as proof of racism?

I'll make it easy for you and just ask you to quote the parts that show the author is a racist please.

Not that you can provide an answer for the question.

[MrBenchley]

89. Dozer, I already spelled out as much as I care or need to.....

"Or is it somebody calling that which you are trying to use as proof of racism pretty damn weak and feeble?"
<sarcasm>Yeah, of course there's a perfectly innocent explanation for how someone would speak at a "Preparedness Expo" on the same program as a racist loony handing out hate literature....

And also hold a kaffeeklatch with the Aryan Nation, Christian Identity and a bunch of other racist scum to sob and moan about what a raw deal another white supremacist got when he shot it out with the cops...

and that same person would start one of the nation's ugliest anti-immigrant groups...

And then that he'd be campaign chairman for racist Paty Buchanan's ugly campaign (until news of the Aryan Nation meeting came out, and even racist Pat had to flee his company)

And then that the SAME guy would be keynote speaker for the neoConfederate loonies at the League of the South this year...

Maybe he's just a trusting good-hearted guy misled by others....<sarcasm>

Really dozer...who the hell do you think you're kidding?

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45/085.html

http://www.mhrn.org/news/prattv6.html

http://www.rickross.com/reference/lecturer/lecturer8.html

[BullDozer]

90. Feel free to stop at anytime

Yeah, of course there's a perfectly innocent explanation for how someone would speak at a "Preparedness Expo on the same program as a racist loony handing out hate literature

Is that the very same expo where Larry went to the show's promoter and successfully urged him to order several racist organizations to remove their booths from the premises?

And also hold a kaffeeklatch witht he Aryan Nation and a bunch of other racist scum to sob and moan about what a raw deal another white supremacist got when he shot it out with the cops...

The metting where Pratt told the racists at the meeting that he rejected their views?

Have to love that you think Weaver got tretaed harshly and it was just a raw deal. How do you feel about that happened to MOVE in Philadelphia?

I already spelled out as much as I care or need to

Anytime you want to stop replying, without having backed up your claim that the article you cited is proof of Lotts racism, feel free to do so, and how that article is racist is the question asked in post #25 which has gone unanswered ever since.

[MrBenchley]

91. No, I'm perfectly willing to go on

demonstrating how far the RKBA crowd here will go to spin away the very obvious racism in gun rights public figures.

"The metting where Pratt told the racists at the meeting that he rejected their views?"
Gee, he had to go all the way to the meeting and hold their hands to do that? Hahahahahahahaha.....of course, since it was the scum of the earth was there, wonder who we have to thank for that account? Who exactly tells us that he made this brave announcement, dozer?

"Have to love that you think Weaver got tretaed harshly and it was just a raw deal. How do you feel about that happened to MOVE in Philadelphia?"
What happened to them 20 years ago? Is that what you are moaning about now? Tell you what, dozer...tell us what Larry Pratt said about it.

"how that article is racist"
Geeze, it's a racist article in a far right wing racist magazine...the same one that ran the insanely offensive "Look honey, good negroes!" article pretty much the entire internet (except the Free Republic) was jeering about.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/jgraham200310060900.asp

But if you want to keep wailing that you can't see even a speck of racism about Mary Rosh trying to spin away discrimination that even the state of Florida admits occured, be my guest. I'm happy to keep this thread kicked near the top, so that anybody who drops in can see what an ugly fucktard this crackpot is.

[Wickerman]

93. Gang, is it time to lock this thread?

Give me some good reasons to keep it open...

[Spoonman]

94. At least keep it open until

we get something that supports the "racist" claim. I read the article and can't see it.
Maybe I just don't have the literary insight that some have.

[MrBenchley]

97. Gee, spoon...

Just because you asked so nicely, here's a couple extra just for you....

Here's a link to people making fun of the gun nuts' favorite crackpot sticking up for Rush Limbaugh....who you may recall also ran into that racist claim...mostly because he's a racist bag of shit.

http://www.pandagon.net/archives/00001825.htm

And here's a right wing think tank using this turd to pretend that Florida didn't discriminate against blacks during the 2000 elections....which as we've seen even Florida admits to.

But hey, the RKBA crowd's perception of racism Is truly amazing:

Ted Nugent says black people have bones in their noses, but he don't seem racist to the RKBA crowd here...

Larry Pratt holds kaffeeklatches with the League of the South and Aryan Nation, but he don't seem racist to the RKBA crowd here...

John Lott says the reason black folks didn't get to vote in Jeb Bush's Florida was because they weren't bright enough, but he don't seem racist to the RKBA crowd here...

NRA board member Jeff Cooper calls black people orangoutangs, but he don't seem racist to the RKBA crowd here....

But Iverglas mentioned the other day that white Thomas Jefferson WAS white...and that seemed racist...

[Spoonman]

98. I'm not sure your reply

Has ANYTHING to do with the article YOU posted.
I, and others, failed to see where Lott was being racist in YOUR posted article.

The sensless slamming of the keys on the keyboard is not the answer to the question.

Instead of picking apart each and every statement you made, I'll just state that they are all bullshit, and leave it at that.
I do believe that refering to your statements as bovine fecal matter is an understatement, however, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck......

[CO Liberal]

99. Look, Spoonman

If David Duke read "The Cat In The Hat" to his children, would there be anything in "The Cat In The Hat" that is racist? Of course not!!

It has been proven time and time again that John "Cook The Books" Lott is an ignorant, dishonest, bigoted, racist, spin-the-facts-for-the-highest-bidder scumbag. Whether this article states do or not.

[MrBenchley]

101. And bear in mind

that here, Lott is calling the NAACP and the Civil Rights Committee liars over discrimination that the state of Florida now admits in court it committed. Nor is this the only time Lott has gone to bat for the Republican proclivity for keeping people of color from the polls...

But then some people here still want to spin away Pratt at the Aryan Nation jamboree....

[Spoonman]

102. Look, CO

Just because you say he's racist, does not make it true.Millions of people think Jr. George is a great president, does that make it true?
Millions of people think Brussel Sprouts taste good, does that make it true?
Well, of course not, that is why we are asking for PROOF, or something/anything that lends credibility to that opinion.
If you or anyone else can demonstrate good cause to back it up (other that inference), great, I'm on board with you. Otherwise, it's an opinion and should be stated it as such.

[MrBenchley]

100. Gee spoon.....

I said I was giving you a few extras....

"I'll just state that they are all bullshit, and leave it at that."
Fine with me, spoon. I consider the source.

"however, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck....."
Unnless we're talking about Larry Pratt, who, according to the RKBA crowd, once stood up in the middle of a flock, flapped his wings and quacked "I detest duckness."

[Spoonman]

103. How do you think I came up with my opinion

I consider the source......

[slackmaster]

95. One good reason to keep it open

It's entertaining.

[MrBenchley]

96. I'd be curious to see

if dozer can come up with an even more racist site to link to than the Houston Review..so few "Democrats and progressives" think Jebbo keeping blacks out of Florida colleges is a GOOD thing.

[CO Liberal]

104. You Might As Well Lock It

We're at an impasse. Some of us know that John Lott is a sorry excuse for a human being, and others worship the ground that he slithers on.

[MrBenchley]

105. Of course consider the opposite

He could be pimping for Jebbo's discrimination against blacks in the 2000 election for some purely mathematical reason....which is nodoubt why the article was submitted to a peer-reviewed scientific journal like Crazy Bill Buckley's Nazional Review.

[CO Liberal]

106. The Best "Peer-Reviewed" Journal For John "Cook-The-Books" Lott.....

...would be "Cracked".

:-)

[MrBenchley]

107. LOL! He's already been on Free Republic

through a sock puppet...

Come to think of it, Freepers ARE Lott's peers....or slightly better.

[BullDozer]

113. All you need to do is

"Geeze, it's a racist article"

So you say but you do not prove it. Why haven't you been able to draw proof from the article itself and prove your claim?

What exactly is racist about the original article that you cited as proof of racism?

I'll make it easy for you and just ask you to quote the parts that show the author is a racist please.

Not that you can provide an answer for the question.

Prove your claim or shut up. It's really pretty simple.

[MrSandman]

66. I've read the article

and did not see the racist portion. Please let's see it.

[CO Liberal]

108. This Particular Article.....

....has no raciast content, but other writings and action by John "Cook The Books" Lott have. Particularly his writings that "justified" the theft of the 2000 Election in Florida.

[MrBenchley]

110. Actually I disagree....

The "scholar" speaks:
"The stolen election supposedly incorporated many wrongs, but foremost was discrimination against Democratic African-American voters: Faulty voting machines were said to have thrown out their votes at higher rates. Also included are claims that the voters' intent wasn't properly divined, that Republicans on the Supreme Court felt compelled to covertly snatch the election, and that African-Americans were intimidated into not voting or were erroneously placed on the ineligible list at higher rates than other racial groups."

This paragraph is meant to make it seems as if the Civil Rights Commission and the NAACP is lying about black citizens being prevented from voting, and it is of course, the purest horseshit. Not least because Florida has already copped to doing just that….

Damned if I know what other motive BUT racism would generate such a phony bit of rubbish. Why would anybody pretend that no discrimination at all had occurred when it clearly had? It's certainly not science....

But Lott has a long history of making dry pseudoscience do David Duke’s work…..

"An abstract of one of Lott's studies details his findings that "increases in the percent of minority police officers increase crime rates" and that "racial and gender changes in the composition of police forces resulted in at least 2,000 more murders" in cities he studied.
---"Does a Helping Hand Put Others At Risk? Affirmative Action, Police Departments, and Crime," Abstract listing by Social Science Research Network Electronic Library, July 25, 1997."

http://www.mediatransparency.org/people/john_lott.htm

<sarcasm>White male cops only...we can prove they're better for you.</sarcasm>

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

111. Hahahahahaha...

<sarcasm>Yeah, how could a right wing numbnutz pimping for Jebbo's voter intimidation and discrimination in a far right wing propaganda rag possibly be racist? All black people have to do is read that piece, and they'll understand how wrong they were to have thought they were prevented from voting.</sarcasm> Of course this isn't the first time that Crazy Bill's scummy Nazional Review has expressed its joy at ballot box bigotry breaking out again...

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1282/25_52/68163650/p1/article.jhtml

Needless to say...here's what Lott and Buckley are trying to spin away with crackpot science:

"There were widespread reports in newspapers across Florida describing how Black voters were intimidated and kept from voting.  Among the allegations were complaints from voters who were allegedly turned away from the polls for showing up without their voter registration cards but were not permitted to vote by signing affidavits that they are registered to vote, voters who were intimidated by a Florida Highway Patrol checkpoint set up in precincts where nearly one of every three voters is Black.  Haitian-American voters in Miami-Dade County also claimed they were not given language assistance as required by law.
The NAACP, one of the plaintiffs in the recently-filed lawsuit, said a poll watcher in Hillsborough County reported a deputy posted outside a polling place asked Black men for identification and turned them away after checking their police records. The civil rights group also said it had reports from Hillsborough County that ballots were disqualified because the voter's race on their IDs didn't match state records.
The reports were so widespread that the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights held hearings in early December to take testimony from Florida citizens who claimed that "discrimination, intimidation and fraudulent activity by election officials stripped them of their constitutional rights to vote on Election Day."  The commission held subsequent hearings on January 11 and 12 in Tallahassee  to hear from voting experts, elected officials and civil rights attorneys from various organizations.  "

http://www.aclufl.org/body_overview1-01.html


"unable to understand what lies outside the bounds of your black & white, steel trap system of beliefs."
No, I understand perfectly well that gun fetishists will desperately defend anything they think is pro-gun, no matter how idiotic, racist or dishonest.

[Moderator]

112. locking

do we even have to say why