CATO Institute Commentary: 'Mosque' Debate Is a Red Herring

[Yurt]

that darned left wing Cato Institute.

i see you have modbert's stupidity as well....just because cato leans right does not mean all its articles also lean right...

why is it you left wing hacks ingore the fact that reid wasn't mentioned? that is a huge ommission....

why wasn't Madonna mentioned?

Just give it up lots of people were not mentioned i the article.

has madonna entered the debate about the mosque? didn't think so....idiot

 

[Sinatra]

i see you have modbert's stupidity as well....just because cato leans right does not mean all its articles also lean right...

why is it you left wing hacks ingore the fact that reid wasn't mentioned? that is a huge ommission....

You are right to be suspicious of the article's motivations.

CATO is a very interesting and often valuable resource for conservative/libertarian fiscal policy.

They are also not without purpose in what they do - there could be a less than clear motive behind the Ground Zero Mosque article.

The article was certainly not the best work to come from CATO - but it does make a potentially valid point. Then again, it might simply be muddying some waters.

It is...curious.

it is interesting....contrary to dumbert's assertions, if the issue is creating a red herring....why is reid not also held accountable for creating a red herring?

modbert is just stuck on stupid though and can't get past the facts, instead he moronically relies on the fact that cato does lean right as "proof" this article also leans right however.....it is a partisan article

The articles author, Gene Healy, is a devoted proponent of limiting executive and federal authority. Check out his great book The Cult of the Presidency. He's a bright guy with an axe to grind.

Not sure what the motivations of the Ground Zero Mosque might be - perhaps simply based upon his strongheld private property rights stance?

Who knows - but while this particular article is far from his best work, and appears to have been hastily put together, he is an often interesting and yes, provocative libertarian voice among the wolves of liberalism...

 

[uscitizen]

Umm just a thought could the article have been written Before Reid had his say on the Mosque?

the article was probably not written after the 15 due to submission deadlines.

 

[Modbert]

The articles author, Gene Healy, is a devoted proponent of limiting executive and federal authority. Check out his great book The Cult of the Presidency. He's a bright guy with an axe to grind.

Not sure what the motivations of the Ground Zero Mosque might be - perhaps simply based upon his strongheld private property rights stance?

Who knows - but while this particular article is far from his best work, and appears to have been hastily put together, he is an often interesting and yes, provocative libertarian voice among the wolves of liberalism...

Actually, this is a great article. Problem is, your bosses wouldn't allow you to have a opinion that goes against their precious party.

Perhaps he's actually consistent because he has principles.

 

[Yurt]

Umm just a thought could the article have been written Before Reid had his say on the Mosque?

the article was probably not written after the 15 due to submission deadlines.

if you click the link, it says august 17

 

[Yurt]

The articles author, Gene Healy, is a devoted proponent of limiting executive and federal authority. Check out his great book The Cult of the Presidency. He's a bright guy with an axe to grind.

Not sure what the motivations of the Ground Zero Mosque might be - perhaps simply based upon his strongheld private property rights stance?

Who knows - but while this particular article is far from his best work, and appears to have been hastily put together, he is an often interesting and yes, provocative libertarian voice among the wolves of liberalism...

Actually, this is a great article. Problem is, your bosses wouldn't allow you to have a opinion that goes against their precious party.

Perhaps he's actually consistent because he has principles.

the irony of this post is above modbert's small intellect

 

[uscitizen]

I think Reid is not in the article because it was written before Reid made his statement in support of the Mosque.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Notice how Sinatra doesn't give a real answer, her bosses don't pay her to do that.

Sinatra is a she????

yeah, a momma grizzly - 300 lbs, a scary face, big yellow teeth, a miserable disposition,

and hair in all the wrong places.

 

[uscitizen]

Notice how Sinatra doesn't give a real answer, her bosses don't pay her to do that.

Sinatra is a she????

yeah, a momma grizzly - 300 lbs, a scary face, big yellow teeth, a miserable disposition,

and hair in all the wrong places.

Really a she???

I never would have guessed from her posts.
I had her pictured as frank burns.

 

[Yurt]

just to show how stupid modbert and usc are regarding hanging their hat on "its cato"....the article wasn't even written for cato....

This article appeared in The DC Examiner on August 17, 2010.

 

[uscitizen]

just to show how stupid modbert and usc are regarding hanging their hat on "its cato"....the article wasn't even written for cato....

This article appeared in The DC Examiner on August 17, 2010.

On Cato's site...
took ya long enough to figure that out
And likely written before Reid made his stance on the Mosque.

 

[Modbert]

just to show how stupid modbert and usc are regarding hanging their hat on "its cato"....the article wasn't even written for cato....

This article appeared in The DC Examiner on August 17, 2010.

Gene Healy is a vice president at the Cato Institute and the author of The Cult of the Presidency.

The Washington Examiner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When Anschutz started the Examiner in its current format, he envisioned creating a conservative competitor to The Washington Post. According to Politico.com, "When it came to the editorial page, Anschutz’s instructions were explicit — he 'wanted nothing but conservative columns and conservative op-ed writers,' said one former employee." The Examiner's conservative writers include Byron York (National Review), Michael Barone (American Enterprise Institute, Fox News), and David Freddoso (National Review, author of The Case Against Barack Obama). Conservative blogger Matthew Sheffield is in charge of the Examiner's web site. [9]
The paper endorsed John McCain in the 2008 Presidential election.[10]

 

[Sheldon]

just to show how stupid modbert and usc are regarding hanging their hat on "its cato"....the article wasn't even written for cato....

This article appeared in The DC Examiner on August 17, 2010.

That doesn't really matter, though. If it's on the CATO site, and they don't do a critical dissection of the content, then that would mean they support the points the article made. This ad-hom is really a red herring. Irony!

 

[Modbert]

That doesn't really matter, though. If it's on the CATO site, and they don't do a critical dissection of the content, then that would mean they support the points the article made. This ad-hom is really a red herring. Irony!

Well it's written by the same guy I'm pretty sure. Fact is DC Examiner is probably one of the most Conservative papers out there. So all Yurt is doing at this point is something like this:

 

[Yurt]

just to show how stupid modbert and usc are regarding hanging their hat on "its cato"....the article wasn't even written for cato....

This article appeared in The DC Examiner on August 17, 2010.

That doesn't really matter, though. If it's on the CATO site, and they don't do a critical dissection of the content, then that would mean they support the points the article made. This ad-hom is really a red herring. Irony!

yet you ignore the fact that those two claimed the article was not partisan because it was from cato....it wasn't from cato...it was from another site

usually you handle facts better than this...

 

[uscitizen]

just to show how stupid modbert and usc are regarding hanging their hat on "its cato"....the article wasn't even written for cato....

That doesn't really matter, though. If it's on the CATO site, and they don't do a critical dissection of the content, then that would mean they support the points the article made. This ad-hom is really a red herring. Irony!

yet you ignore the fact that those two claimed the article was not partisan because it was from cato....it wasn't from cato...it was from another site

usually you handle facts better than this...

Squirm Yurt, squirm.
You skewered yourself good.

 

[Yurt]

just to show how stupid modbert and usc are regarding hanging their hat on "its cato"....the article wasn't even written for cato....

This article appeared in The DC Examiner on August 17, 2010.

On Cato's site...
took ya long enough to figure that out
And likely written before Reid made his stance on the Mosque.

so...you and modbert claimed it was from cato, therefore it must be right....cato merely took it from another site...

it amazes me how much you two really want to argue and moan about the fact the article didn't mention reid....you "think" it was maybe written before hand....

it is pointless to further discuss this, you two never admit anything...

 

[Sheldon]

just to show how stupid modbert and usc are regarding hanging their hat on "its cato"....the article wasn't even written for cato....

That doesn't really matter, though. If it's on the CATO site, and they don't do a critical dissection of the content, then that would mean they support the points the article made. This ad-hom is really a red herring. Irony!

yet you ignore the fact that those two claimed the article was not partisan because it was from cato....it wasn't from cato...it was from another site

usually you handle facts better than this...

I'm not interested in what USC or Modbert claimed about the validity of this article, I missed several posts in this thread and haven't gone back to read them. It's irrelevant to my point, anyways.

And my point is: wherever the article was originally published doesn't matter. CATO chooses what material they put on their website. The articles linked on their site can be considered the same as if their staff had written the content themselves.

CATO wouldn't put an article from another source that they disagreed with, and then not criticize it. They didn't criticize this article, so it stands that they support the content itself and it can be treated as an original CATO publication.

Thanks for the compliment in the last sentence, though.

Are you going after the source because you disagree with what the article is saying?

 

[Modbert]

So Yurt's argument is that it's not from Libertarian/Conservative Think Tank CATO but rather Conservative DC Examiner. Which proves this article is biased because Conservatives love Harry Reid but hate Republicans.

...

 

[uscitizen]

Squirm Yurt squirm.