Kos Takes #6

Left-wing posterchild Kos picks Number 6.

Kos has 50 sources where this allegation appears, however, none of them were sourced by any unnamed federalies whose expertise were used to further the story. Not one. Instead, Kos chose to take route #6: blame the Bush administration. Since he couldn’t blame the administration for actually desecrating a Koran, he blamed them for trying to cover up the story.

He equates accusations from the Center for Constitutional Rights and Human Rights Watch to Newsweek using unnamed sources inside the US Government.

No wonder the Democrats love him so much. He plays their game just as good as they do.

Update: I will concede the point that Kos himself did not write the post in question, however, appearing on his site would seem to indicate an endorsement of the content, or he would disappear it like he did the infamous “screw them” post.

This entry was posted in Funny. Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://www.robertkbrown.com/ RKB

    Dude. That’s a user diary by somebody named SusanHu (see the byline immediately below the title). Totally not written by (or even endorsed by) your left-wing poster child.

  • http://www.robertkbrown.com/ RKB

    :)

    He no more endorses the content that appear in the diaries on his site than you endorse all the comments that appear. If somebody clicks on one of your prominently featured “reader thoughts” and find something offensive, you shouldn’t be held responsible for what an RKB or a Gordon has to say. This particular diary entry never even made it to the home page, which does sometimes happen, and is an endorsement of the content (as in this example, which was “pushed” to the front page).

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com Vinny

    He no more endorses the content that appear in the diaries on his site than you endorse all the comments that appear.

    Except that there’s a major difference between a comment section and producing content. Only two other people have ever produced content for IT (Dodd from Ipse Dixit and Craig from MT Politics). If something were to happen because of something they wrote, I would be responsible since I own the site and they’re producing content for me.

    You know what though? In a way it’s neither here nor there because the reaction still proves the point. We can piddle on and on about who put their weight behind it, but in the end it’s the same reaction that I expected on a site from someone with a history of not correcting himself.

  • http://www.robertkbrown.com/ RKB

    You know what though? In a way it’s neither here nor there because the reaction still proves the point. We can piddle on and on about who put their weight behind it, but in the end it’s the same reaction that I expected on a site from someone with a history of not correcting himself.

    You’re right, of course, but I’m in a nit-picky mood this morning. I guess it’s the difference between the SITE (which has countless people pushing content to it, ala Boing Boing, or Metafilter) and the INDIVIDUAL who is the primary identity behind the site (Cory Doctorow, or Matt Haughey). But when the site is your name (ahem), it’s easy enough to blend the two together.

  • http://www.robertkbrown.com/ RKB

    Dude. That’s a user diary by somebody named SusanHu (see the byline immediately below the title). Totally not written by (or even endorsed by) your left-wing poster child.

  • http://www.robertkbrown.com/ RKB

    :)

    He no more endorses the content that appear in the diaries on his site than you endorse all the comments that appear. If somebody clicks on one of your prominently featured “reader thoughts” and find something offensive, you shouldn’t be held responsible for what an RKB or a Gordon has to say. This particular diary entry never even made it to the home page, which does sometimes happen, and is an endorsement of the content (as in this example, which was “pushed” to the front page).

  • http://www.robertkbrown.com/ RKB

    :)

    He no more endorses the content that appear in the diaries on his site than you endorse all the comments that appear. If somebody clicks on one of your prominently featured “reader thoughts” and find something offensive, you shouldn’t be held responsible for what an RKB or a Gordon has to say. This particular diary entry never even made it to the home page, which does sometimes happen, and is an endorsement of the content (as in this example, which was “pushed” to the front page).

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/ Vinny

    He no more endorses the content that appear in the diaries on his site than you endorse all the comments that appear.

    Except that there’s a major difference between a comment section and producing content. Only two other people have ever produced content for IT (Dodd from Ipse Dixit and Craig from MT Politics). If something were to happen because of something they wrote, I would be responsible since I own the site and they’re producing content for me.

    You know what though? In a way it’s neither here nor there because the reaction still proves the point. We can piddle on and on about who put their weight behind it, but in the end it’s the same reaction that I expected on a site from someone with a history of not correcting himself.

  • http://www.robertkbrown.com/ RKB

    You know what though? In a way it’s neither here nor there because the reaction still proves the point. We can piddle on and on about who put their weight behind it, but in the end it’s the same reaction that I expected on a site from someone with a history of not correcting himself.

    You’re right, of course, but I’m in a nit-picky mood this morning. I guess it’s the difference between the SITE (which has countless people pushing content to it, ala Boing Boing, or Metafilter) and the INDIVIDUAL who is the primary identity behind the site (Cory Doctorow, or Matt Haughey). But when the site is your name (ahem), it’s easy enough to blend the two together.

  • http://www.robertkbrown.com/ RKB

    You know what though? In a way it’s neither here nor there because the reaction still proves the point. We can piddle on and on about who put their weight behind it, but in the end it’s the same reaction that I expected on a site from someone with a history of not correcting himself.

    You’re right, of course, but I’m in a nit-picky mood this morning. I guess it’s the difference between the SITE (which has countless people pushing content to it, ala Boing Boing, or Metafilter) and the INDIVIDUAL who is the primary identity behind the site (Cory Doctorow, or Matt Haughey). But when the site is your name (ahem), it’s easy enough to blend the two together.