It would be unthinkable for me to refuse to look at someone’s work — and fire back with your “Where’s your facts?” refrain of an automaton because they don’t instantaneously appear.
Let’s get real: That’s a stunt (like smugly slinging “I’ll wait”) — not a genuine inquiry in the interest of truth.
And the only thing you’re “waiting” for is fodder to fuel your next fix.
If you operated anywhere in the same galaxy of these claims below — the mountain of material I’ve written over decades wouldn’t exist.
It’s all marketing
If he were the genuine article — those books would not be so one-sided.
The notion that feelings over facts is limited to the Left is ludicrous. If you were trying to solve a problem instead of sell books and boost your popularity — you’d be fair-minded by addressing how this behavior applies across the board.
If it were truly about following the facts, you wouldn’t need slogans — and wouldn’t want ’em.
Your record would speak for itself.
Do these people really wanna solve problems anyway? Do you?
Man is at least as much a problem-creating as a problem-solving animal. Better a crisis than the permanent boredom of meaninglessness.
— Life at the Bottom
But even if you look at it from a purely political viewpoint:
Had you held Trump to higher standards, he might still be in office. Same goes for the other side — had they not wallowed in woke and played their tried and untrue games on race, Trump would not have won the White House in the first place.
But keep the faith
Speaking of Religion
If it were about “following the facts” . . .
Why did I have to write all this and much more — to beat the truth into people who refuse to even look at it?
- Repeat slogans: “Everybody believed Iraq had WMD”
- Question people’s motives: Bush hater, Bush basher, Bush Derangement Syndrome, Plamegate & plenty more. Adding to the arsenal of childish crap to continue the tradition: Snowflake, Libtard, Libturd, Cupcake, TDS, Demon-crat, Democrat Party
- Bold assertions: Russians said so, British said so, Bill Clinton said so, Leaders of both parties said so . . .
No coherent argument, Repeat slogans, Vent their emotions, Question people’s motives, Bold assertions:
People who talk glibly about “intelligence failure” act as if intelligence agencies that are doing their job right would know everything.
— Thomas Sowell
D.O.E’s standard is to spin a tube at 20% above 90,000 RPM before failure — so 48,000 short is a pretty loose definition of “rough indication.”
And since the entire point of testing should be to replicate the conditions of centrifuges, one would think that the full-blown testing would be performed before the N.I.E. was completed.
— Richard W. Memmer: Act II
Between Sowell’s words and mine
Which ones strike you as glib?
But believe it or not
There’s a higher purpose in play here . . .
One Tweet is all it should take:
He & his followers preach
Follow the facts . . .
Well there they are right at your fingertips. But the Tweet below tells the story of what I almost invariably face in telling the story above:
And that — is an opportunity
How do we make people realize they’ve been lied to? You have to knock down one small pillar that’s easier to reach.
The people who Tweeted those lines I combined from a conversation I came across — had no idea that they perfectly captured the principle of my Clear the Clutter plan.
I’ve got the perfect pillar
As exposing Sowell is my bridge to expose it all
It’s time to start solving problems instead of endlessly talking about them and getting nowhere. And to do that — first we gotta clear the clutter that’s crippled this country.
To the uneducated, abstract ideas are unfamiliar; so is the detachment that is necessary to discover a truth out of one’s own knowledge and mental effort. The uneducated person views life in an intensely personal way — he knows only what he sees, hears or touches and what he is told by friends. As the unknown sage puts it, “Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.”
But more than ever, even the most educated minds act in an uneducated manner in service of their interests — and do colossal damage by doing so.
Many are sincere in service of their aims — but you’re all operating under umbrellas of interests that don’t account for complexities outside of them.
I’m not just taking Thomas Sowell to task because he’s got it comin’ — I need this guy. The ultimate irony is that your blind loyalty limits him — while my criticism could elevate him to heights your hero-worship ensures he’ll never go.
So you’re saying that your plan will elevate Thomas Sowell to worldwide recognition — by holding him accountable? That if he comes clean — he could be the catalyst to turn the tide?
That’s exactly what I’m saying
It won’t matter that Sowell blew it on WMD or why — all that matters is having the guts to say:
I was wrong — and I’m trying to make it right
Shouldn’t you abide by the principles upon which you put him on a pedestal — even if it knocks him off of it? Wouldn’t the genuine article want you to hold them accountable to their claims?
Admitting where he’s wrong will work wonders for where he’s right — which benefits everybody.
Elevating him is not my aim, but I can live with it to stem the systematic self-delusion that’s taken this nation totally off the rails:
Right & Left
CIA is not the all knowing God of the Bible. The CIA could do everything 100% correct but still not know everything.
There’s another reason why they wouldn’t know everything: Nuclear scientists don’t work there — they work at the Department of Energy.
And that — is what this is all about
You’d know that had you watched Trillion Dollar Tube instead of trying to educate me on things you know nothing about.
Then tell me how he was wrong about one thing that he has no expertise in.
lemme get this straight
A layperson with limited resources and no connections:
- Can do countless hours of research & writing
- Interview a world-renowned nuclear scientist
- Correspond with Colin Powell’s chief of intelligence — along with a key physicist
- Spend $15,000 of his own money to write & produce the most detailed documentary ever done on WMD (taking both parties to task for it)
Qualifying me to exhaustively explain how half the country could not be more wrong on this issue of world-altering consequence.
But it’s all good . . .
That Sowell cranked out this crap that any Iraq War cheerleading jackass could issue in chain-letter lies — topped off with smug sloganeering.
After all — he doesn’t have any expertise in it.
Talk about Thomas Sowell’s vast history of continuously demolishing leftist nonsense.
We’re not talking about THAT — we’re talking about THIS
I threw down the gauntlet and you have a choice: To ignore or engage. But I have another old-fashioned rule on that front:
Show up or shut up!
At every turn, the faithful tap dance around reality — oily evading anything that requires them to hold Sowell to his own standards.
Hard to Imagine:
That I have to explain that quote to people who seemingly live to flood the internet with his words.
He and his flock incessantly complain about the media — and they don’t make policy. But the second I scrutinize Sowell — suddenly you have new standards.
180 — how fitting
In the aftermath of 9/11 — did Thomas Sowell have motive to lie in order to support his party in the invasion of Iraq?
I asked that question to the guy running The Genius of Thomas Sowell podcast — and he wouldn’t even acknowledge what could not be more obvious.
For all these geniuses you love to laud — you sure aren’t learning much.
Lemme get this straight
Sowell shot his mouth off on WMD without any effort to ascertain the truth — not even bothering to address the marquee evidence that Powell presented.
But because he’s not known for foreign policy — he’s free to flagrantly ignore the facts, peddle partisan hackery, reap the benefits for it:
Be honored for issuing opinions outside his wheelhouse — but not be held accountable to them.
You introduce statements and arguments of people who aren’t Thomas Sowell
As this story is also
About the behavior of the echo chamber around Sowell — it’s kinda necessary to include other people to properly illustrate the problem.
And I wouldn’t mind explaining everything — if you thought about anything.