Who I'd like to see run for President

[Oddball]

That would be a view consistent with that of a simpleton.

Ukraine holds strategic value to the United States for several reasons, including its geopolitical significance, its role in regional stability, and its potential as an economic partner. Key aspects of Ukraine's strategic value include:

1. Geopolitical Significance: Ukraine is located in Eastern Europe, sharing a long border with Russia to the east and Belarus to the north. Its position makes it a critical buffer zone between Russia and NATO member states in Europe, such as Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, and Romania. The U.S. has an interest in maintaining stability in the region and preventing further Russian aggression, which could potentially threaten NATO allies.
2. Regional Stability: A stable and democratic Ukraine is crucial for the overall stability of Eastern Europe. The United States supports Ukraine's efforts to strengthen its democratic institutions, counter corruption, and reform its military and security sectors. This, in turn, helps maintain regional stability and discourages Russian influence and aggression in the region.
3. Energy Security: Ukraine serves as a key transit route for natural gas from Russia to Europe, which makes its stability important for European energy security. The U.S. has an interest in promoting diversified energy sources and reducing European reliance on Russian gas, and Ukraine can play a role in these efforts by supporting alternative energy infrastructure projects.
4. Economic Potential: Ukraine has significant economic potential, given its natural resources, agricultural productivity, and a well-educated workforce. The U.S. has an interest in fostering economic growth and development in Ukraine, which could create new opportunities for trade and investment and contribute to regional stability.
5. Commitment to Democracy and Human Rights: The United States values and supports countries that share its commitment to democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. By assisting Ukraine in strengthening its democratic institutions and respecting human rights, the U.S. promotes its broader foreign policy objectives of promoting democracy and human rights worldwide.

What's the source of that neocon agitprop?

 

[Oddball]

View attachment 775880

Accurate rebuttal....You are dumber than a fucking doorknob.

 

[MisterBeale]

Mr. Schmidt, America needs YOU to run for president.

Upon the body politic, a peculiar figure emerges, one Mr. Steve Schmidt. A gentleman of moderate persuasion, leaning ever so slightly to the right, he finds himself estranged from his former party, the GOP. The transformation of the Republican Party under the influence of Mr. Trump has left Schmidt, and many a like-minded soul, bereft of their political home.

In these trying times, Mr. Schmidt has allied himself with the Lincoln Project, an endeavor that seeks to champion the cause of those running against the Trumpian politicians of our era, oftentimes the Democrats. It is a testament to the integrity of the man that he respects greatness, regardless of political stripe.

Our esteemed Mr. Schmidt, in his commentary on President Roosevelt, extols the virtues of a leader who, alongside the revered Lincoln, stands among the paragons of the presidential office. One cannot help but appreciate the elevated tone and high-mindedness with which Schmidt approaches the subject, offering a stark contrast to the incessant petulant whining that has become synonymous with that of Donald Trump.

Alas, the landscape of American politics needs men like Mr. Schmidt, who carry with them the dignity and gravitas of bygone days. Yet, one cannot help but dream of a day when a figure such as he would grace the stage of presidential contention, restoring a sense of decorum to the office and championing the cause of greatness, irrespective of party lines.

Let Mr. Schmidt go to Washington!


Transcript from the video (below):

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the 32nd president of the United States of America, died 78 years ago today on April 12, 1945. The occasion of his death is worth remembering because, alongside Lincoln, he is America's greatest president. His life was an epic one, and his legacy is a clear one. He saved free market capitalism, American democracy, and world civilization from fascism.

Franklin Roosevelt is the architect of the world that we live in today. He was the visionary who saw past the colonial era, and he was the person who saw the collective security arrangements of organizations like NATO that have helped prevent World War III. He was in favor of globalized free trade and was a champion of freedom, human rights, and human dignity. The United Nations was his idea, and the Declaration of Human Rights was his idea.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was unequal in the history of the United States as a political genius. He was 51 years old when he took office in 1933, with the country in a state of profound economic crisis. America's banking system was at the edge of failure, and there was panic in the air. And what did this man, who faced down polio from a wheelchair, say? He said, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

It's worth thinking about that as we ponder the value of fear as the fuel and currency of the extremist movement that we thought was vanquished in this country a long time ago, but it wasn't, and an ember still burned. Franklin Roosevelt saw the danger building in Europe in the 1930s; he understood that America would be drawn into the war, and he understood how essential it was for the United States to be prepared.

Between his election in 1932 and his death in April 1945, the United States was transformed. By the end of his life, it had become the most powerful nation in world history. He was the architect of the world that we live in. He was the foundational visionary who saw America as the indispensable nation. The world Franklin Roosevelt envisioned has reached the end of its long life, and Franklin Roosevelt knew that day would come. We have come to the end of that long era and are at the hinge of history where a new one rises.

There are profound lessons from the life of Franklin Roosevelt and his unique political genius for our dangerous and troubled era. He was a man of conviction, politics. He was controversial. He was courageous, he was principled. He was a singular figure in the history of this country, he was simply known in those days as "the president." Winston Churchill, when he died, aptly described him as a "great champion of freedom." What a legacy to have.

As we think about the smallness of American politics today, it makes us nostalgic for figures like Franklin Roosevelt. But Franklin Roosevelt was unique because he was an American who suffered, who persevered, and overcame. All around us are examples of goodness, decency, and genius. We need them to find their way to American politics again. We need leaders of the caliber of Franklin Roosevelt. We need leaders who have the courage to say in a world filled with fear, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

Steve Schmidt - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Three New Deals: Why the Nazis and Fascists Loved FDR​

Three New Deals: Why the Nazis and Fascists Loved FDR | Mises Institute

Critics of Roosevelt's New Deal often likened it to fascism. This was recognized to be true during the 1930s, by the New Deal's supporters as well as its

mises.org

". . . Mussolini, who did not allow his work as dictator to interrupt his prolific journalism, wrote a glowing review of Roosevelt's Looking Forward. He found "reminiscent of fascism … the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices"; and, in another review, this time of Henry Wallace's New Frontiers, Il Duce found the Secretary of Agriculture's program similar to his own corporativism (pp. 23-24).

Roosevelt never had much use for Hitler, but Mussolini was another matter. "'I don't mind telling you in confidence,' FDR remarked to a White House correspondent, 'that I am keeping in fairly close touch with that admirable Italian gentleman'" (p. 31). Rexford Tugwell, a leading adviser to the president, had difficulty containing his enthusiasm for Mussolini's program to modernize Italy: "It's the cleanest … most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I've ever seen. It makes me envious" (p. 32, quoting Tugwell).

Why did these contemporaries sees an affinity between Roosevelt and the two leading European dictators, while most people today view them as polar opposites? People read history backwards: they project the fierce antagonisms of World War II, when America battled the Axis, to an earlier period. At the time, what impressed many observers, including as we have seen the principal actors themselves, was a new style of leadership common to America, Germany, and Italy.

Once more we must avoid a common misconception. Because of the ruthless crimes of Hitler and his Italian ally, it is mistakenly assumed that the dictators were for the most part hated and feared by the people they ruled. Quite the contrary, they were in those pre-war years the objects of considerable adulation. A leader who embodied the spirit of the people had superseded the old bureaucratic apparatus of government.

While Hitler's and Roosevelt's nearly simultaneous ascension to power highlighted fundamental differences … contemporary observers noted that they shared an extraordinary ability to touch the soul of the people. Their speeches were personal, almost intimate. Both in their own way gave their audiences the impression that they were addressing not the crowd, but each listener as an individual. (p. 54)

FDR Praised Mussolini And Loved Fascism​

FDR Praised Mussolini And Loved Fascism

History is brandished like an AR-15 by the American left when it appears to fit their narrow worldview, but shunned when it turns out to be less favorable.

dailycaller.com

". . . Even Joseph P. Kennedy and Prescott Bush were waist-deep in cash derived from shaking the bloody hand of Hitler, a fact these self-appointed ruling families continue to whisk away from public view at crucial moments of political determination.

FDR and his foremost cheerleaders at the time specifically espoused open support for the efficiency of Mussolini and Hitler, and welcomed fascism (minus the war) at home.

Roosevelt himself once called Mussolini “admirable,” adding that he was “deeply impressed by what he has accomplished.” Mussolini returned the compliment with adulatory praise, writing of Roosevelt’s many reforms, “Reminiscent of Fascism is the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices … Without question, the mood accompanying this sea change resembles that of Fascism.”

Leftists from academia, the media, and Roosevelt’s own administration were among those rallying around a brownshirt pipedream.

FDR adviser Rexford Guy Tugwell said of Italian fascism: “It’s the cleanest, neatest, most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I’ve ever seen. It makes me envious,” adding that, “I find Italy doing many of the things which seem to me necessary … Mussolini certainly has the same people opposed to him as FDR has.”

For most of us, who have by now, gotten a feel for your posts, we are not at all surprised by your doe-eyed love of FDR, nor your weak minded succumbing to the seductions of a Lincoln Project statist/fascist, shilling for the false hope of;

Dirigisme - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I love the never ending ironies that this forum produces for our entertainment. . . .

 

[Flash]

This Rumpole dufus reminds me of some of the other stupid Moon Bats that post on this forum.

Like the idiot am couple of months ago that was bragging that Potatohead only had a $1.4 trillion deficit.

Or the moron today that was bragging that Potatohead's inflation this last quarter was only 5%.

Bragging about FDR's failed administration that caused a lot of pain for most Americans for extending the Depression is absolutely bat shit crazy.

 

[Flash]

No one is going to engage in a nuclear war, everyone concerned knows where it will end.
Noone, not even the Generals and war department (the Pentagon) want war.

There is no plan to 'defeat' only to 'contain'. However, if China invaded Taiwan, it is likely to involve the US military, which is the ONLY deterrent, or they would have invaded a long time ago. Taiwan is the centerpiece in our southwest pacific / asian foreign policy. It must be protected and it has tremendous strategic value (not just as the centerpiece, but the chip manufacturer is there) , as does the Ukraine.

Cheers,
Rumpole

You don't know jackshit about China.

The only thing you need to know is that the Chinese made the Biden family filthy rich and then they unleashed a bioweapon to undermine Trump so their man could get into the White House and thanks to you stupid Moon Bats they succeeded.

 

[Winco]

while his business partner at The Lincoln Project was soliciting children.

Those darn Republicans.
Can't keep their hands off children.

 

[Votto]

View attachment 775880

Stop pretending you won't vote for Joe Biden after he is given the nomination again.

 

[Rumpole]

Three New Deals: Why the Nazis and Fascists Loved FDR​

Three New Deals: Why the Nazis and Fascists Loved FDR | Mises Institute

Critics of Roosevelt's New Deal often likened it to fascism. This was recognized to be true during the 1930s, by the New Deal's supporters as well as its

mises.org

". . . Mussolini, who did not allow his work as dictator to interrupt his prolific journalism, wrote a glowing review of Roosevelt's Looking Forward. He found "reminiscent of fascism … the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices"; and, in another review, this time of Henry Wallace's New Frontiers, Il Duce found the Secretary of Agriculture's program similar to his own corporativism (pp. 23-24).

Roosevelt never had much use for Hitler, but Mussolini was another matter. "'I don't mind telling you in confidence,' FDR remarked to a White House correspondent, 'that I am keeping in fairly close touch with that admirable Italian gentleman'" (p. 31). Rexford Tugwell, a leading adviser to the president, had difficulty containing his enthusiasm for Mussolini's program to modernize Italy: "It's the cleanest … most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I've ever seen. It makes me envious" (p. 32, quoting Tugwell).

Why did these contemporaries sees an affinity between Roosevelt and the two leading European dictators, while most people today view them as polar opposites? People read history backwards: they project the fierce antagonisms of World War II, when America battled the Axis, to an earlier period. At the time, what impressed many observers, including as we have seen the principal actors themselves, was a new style of leadership common to America, Germany, and Italy.

Once more we must avoid a common misconception. Because of the ruthless crimes of Hitler and his Italian ally, it is mistakenly assumed that the dictators were for the most part hated and feared by the people they ruled. Quite the contrary, they were in those pre-war years the objects of considerable adulation. A leader who embodied the spirit of the people had superseded the old bureaucratic apparatus of government.

"Three New Deals: Why the Nazis and Fascists Loved FDR" is an article by David Gordon on the Mises Institute website. The article reviews a book by Wolfgang Schivelbusch, "Three New Deals: Reflections on Roosevelt's America, Mussolini's Italy, and Hitler's Germany, 1933–1939." The central argument of the book is that the New Deal policies implemented by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the United States during the 1930s shared similarities with the economic policies of fascist and Nazi regimes in Italy and Germany.

Critique:

1. Provocative title: The title of the article is attention-grabbing and provocative, which may attract readers interested in the topic. However, it may also be misleading, as the book itself does not argue that FDR was a fascist or Nazi, but rather that there were certain policy similarities between the New Deal and fascist/Nazi economic programs.
2. Lack of context: The article does not provide sufficient historical context about the political, social, and economic conditions in the United States, Italy, and Germany during the 1930s. Understanding these conditions is essential for readers to appreciate the similarities and differences between the policies implemented in these countries.
3. Limited exploration of differences: While the article highlights the similarities between the New Deal and fascist/Nazi economic policies, it does not delve deeply into the differences between them. For example, it could have mentioned the distinctly different political systems and the varying degrees of government control over the economy in these countries.
4. Lack of counterarguments: The article presents the author's perspective without offering counterarguments or exploring other scholarly opinions on the subject. Providing a more balanced view by addressing potential criticisms or presenting alternative interpretations would strengthen the article's credibility.
5. Limited analysis: The article primarily summarizes the book's main arguments without offering in-depth analysis or critique. Expanding on the implications of the book's thesis or discussing its relevance to current political and economic debates would enhance the article's value to readers.

Overall, "Three New Deals: Why the Nazis and Fascists Loved FDR" is an intriguing article that introduces readers to a provocative thesis. However, it could benefit from providing more historical context, exploring differences between the policies, addressing counterarguments, and offering more analysis to engage readers and encourage critical thinking about the subject.

What you are, in essence, doing, is a pseudo debate trick, you are trying to get the article to be the final word on FDR, which, on any scholarly level, is absurd. If you are really interested in exploring the subject with an open mind, you'd read a lot more than this. But, if all you are interested in is scouring the universe for any morsel that aligns with a certain political agenda, and dish it up on this forum in an attempt to score political points, you will do precisely as you are doing. But, that being said, since I do it, myself, I won't knock you for it. At least you are presenting an argument, something that I can sink my teeth into, and that's all I ask.

Now, let's see what else you have:

FDR Praised Mussolini And Loved Fascism​

FDR Praised Mussolini And Loved Fascism

History is brandished like an AR-15 by the American left when it appears to fit their narrow worldview, but shunned when it turns out to be less favorable.

dailycaller.com

Daily Caller is not a reliable source. It's extremely biased to the right, engages in loaded phases, weasel words, politically charged rhetoric designed to cater to the hard right, and on that count, is a questionable source.

But, okay, despite that fact, I will look upon the article with the soft scholar's eye, and though I could smash Dinesh D'Souza with an intellectual Hammer (his '2000 Mules documentary has been debunked by numerous sources), I'll go soft on him in my critique:

The article "FDR Praised Mussolini And Loved Fascism" published by The Daily Caller presents an argument that President Franklin D. Roosevelt was influenced by Italian fascist leader Benito Mussolini and his economic policies. The article uses quotes and historical context to establish its point. However, there are certain aspects of the article that could be improved:

1. Sensationalist title: The title of the article is sensationalist, implying that FDR was a supporter of fascism. This could potentially create a biased perception of the article's content even before readers engage with it. A more objective title would better serve the article's credibility.
2. Lack of context: While the article provides some historical context, it does not provide enough information about the broader political, social, and economic conditions of the era. This would be important for readers to understand the extent to which FDR's admiration for Mussolini's economic policies was a product of the time and how these ideas influenced the development of the New Deal.
3. Limited exploration of differences: The article emphasizes similarities between FDR's New Deal and Mussolini's fascist policies but does not adequately explore the differences between the two. Highlighting the distinctions between FDR's democratic principles and Mussolini's totalitarian regime would provide a more balanced and informative analysis.
4. Lack of counterarguments: The article presents a one-sided argument without addressing potential criticisms or alternative interpretations. Providing counterarguments or discussing differing scholarly opinions on the subject would strengthen the article's credibility and encourage readers to critically engage with the content.
5. Reliance on controversial sources: The article cites controversial author and filmmaker Dinesh D'Souza as a primary source. While D'Souza's work may provide some interesting insights, it is important to recognize that his views are often considered controversial and biased. Using additional, more objective sources would enhance the article's credibility.

In summary, the article presents an intriguing argument regarding FDR's admiration for Mussolini and the influence of fascism on the New Deal. However, the sensationalist title, lack of context, limited exploration of differences, lack of counterarguments, and reliance on controversial sources detract from its credibility and objectivity. Improving these aspects would create a more balanced and informative article for readers.

". . . Even Joseph P. Kennedy and Prescott Bush were waist-deep in cash derived from shaking the bloody hand of Hitler, a fact these self-appointed ruling families continue to whisk away from public view at crucial moments of political determination.

FDR and his foremost cheerleaders at the time specifically espoused open support for the efficiency of Mussolini and Hitler, and welcomed fascism (minus the war) at home.

Roosevelt himself once called Mussolini “admirable,” adding that he was “deeply impressed by what he has accomplished.” Mussolini returned the compliment with adulatory praise, writing of Roosevelt’s many reforms, “Reminiscent of Fascism is the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices … Without question, the mood accompanying this sea change resembles that of Fascism.”

Leftists from academia, the media, and Roosevelt’s own administration were among those rallying around a brownshirt pipedream.

FDR adviser Rexford Guy Tugwell said of Italian fascism: “It’s the cleanest, neatest, most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I’ve ever seen. It makes me envious,” adding that, “I find Italy doing many of the things which seem to me necessary … Mussolini certainly has the same people opposed to him as FDR has.”

For most of us, who have by now, gotten a feel for your posts, we are not at all surprised by your doe-eyed love of FDR, nor your weak minded succumbing to the seductions of a Lincoln Project statist/fascist, shilling for the false hope of;

No, not really. As a liberal, they resonate with me. And the consensus of FDR is that he is a great President.

Dirigisme - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I love the never ending ironies that this forum produces for our entertainment. . . .

Dirigisme, the opposite of Laissez-Faire, in other words, the polarity of the left and right spectrum, I've addressed in detail in my OP on the subject:

Finding the equilibrium of the two primary political forces between the left and the right

There's a pendulum in politics. Swing too far to the left, it rebounds, and swings too far to the right. and vice versa, in a never ending going from one extreme to the other, and back again only to repeat. But where does the pendulum rest? Well, an actual pendulum, it rests upon arrival at...

www.usmessageboard.com

Laisse-Faire and neoliberalism have a lot in common

Let's discuss 'neoliberalism'. What is it? Is it good or bad and who's doing it?

My view is that neoliberalism is the big cause of the rich/poor gap, which was accelerated under Reagan and that ship hasn't been fully reversed yet, despite Obama and Biden, who helped a little, but without a filibuster proof senate and control of the house, Dems can turn the neoliberal ship...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[Rumpole]

Those darn Republicans.
Can't keep their hands off children.

The guy was rebuked by the staff of LP

 

[Winco]

The guy was rebuked by the staff of LP

Still a (R) Child Molester.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Newsom vs. DeSantis

 

[Rumpole]

Accurate rebuttal....You are dumber than a fucking doorknob.

Evidence of your ineptitude is your use of a crude simpleton's vocabulary, your propensity to traffic in cheap shots, ad homs, etc.
More evidence of same is your lazy retort.
More evidence of same is your lack of evidence, a solid path of reasoning for your claim.

In fact, your slinging mud diminishes your credibility to zero, and you simply cannot be taken seriously.

 

[Rumpole]

Still a (R) Child Molester.

True, the Rs have them, don't they?

 

[Oddball]

Evidence of your ineptitude is your use of a crude simpleton's vocabulary, your propensity to traffic in cheap shots, ad homs, etc.
More evidence of same is your lazy retort.
More evidence of same is your lack of evidence, a solid path of reasoning for your claim.

In fact, your slinging mud diminishes your credibility to zero, and you simply cannot be taken seriously.

Where did you get that fucking boilerplate dreck pimping for Ukraine, doorknob?

 

[Oddball]

Daily Caller is not a reliable source. It's extremely biased to the right, engages in loaded phases, weasel words, politically charged rhetoric designed to cater to the hard right, and on that count, is a questionable source.

Ad hominem attack....Get that plank out of your own eye, doorknob.

 

[Rumpole]

What's the source of that neocon agitprop?

No source, I study the subject, have for years (I'm 72, while you youngsters read about history, I remember a lot of it) I'm no neocon, I'm a liberal libertarian toying with centrism these days and a conservative on some issues.

Ad hominem attack....Get that plank out of your own eye, doorknob.

No evidence for that claim.

 

[Oddball]

No source, I study the subject, have for years (I'm 72, while you youngsters read about history, I remember a lot of it) I'm no neocon, I'm a liberal libertarian toying with centrism these days and a conservative on some issues.

Fucking liar....I'm to the right of libertarians and you're nowhere near that philosophy.

No evidence for that claim.

The evidence is in your attack of Daily Caller with no evidence...An homenim....Again, get the plank out of your own eye.

 

[Rumpole]

You moron.

The Great Depression was world wide and affected most countries. Just about every other country got over it in a couple of years but it lingered on in the US due to the stupid Leftest policies of FDR. A complete failure.

Specious logic. We're a much bigger economy, and bore the brunt of the price of the depression because it started here. The fact that you cannot grasp this is testament to your parochial point of view.

Your statement is a historically inaccurate and a simplistic (as in a simpleton's) view of the Great Depression and the policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR).

Firstly, it is true that the Great Depression was a global economic crisis that affected many countries around the world. However, the idea that "just about every other country got over it in a couple of years" is not entirely accurate. While some countries did experience a faster recovery than others, the Great Depression lasted for many years and had a profound and lasting impact on the world economy.

Secondly, the assertion that FDR's policies were "stupid Leftist policies" is a subjective and politically charged view that is not supported by historical evidence. FDR's New Deal policies, which included measures such as the establishment of social security, the creation of jobs through public works programs, and the regulation of financial markets, helped to stabilize the US economy and provided relief for millions of Americans during a time of great hardship. While there is debate among historians about the effectiveness of certain aspects of the New Deal, the idea that it was a complete failure is not supported by the facts.

In summary, the Great Depression was a complex global crisis that had long-lasting effects on the world economy. While some countries did experience a faster recovery than others, it is inaccurate to suggest that the US was the only country to struggle with the effects of the Great Depression. Similarly, while there is debate about the effectiveness of FDR's policies, it is not accurate to characterize them as "stupid Leftist policies" or a complete failure.

Some of the countries not only got over it but was able to expand their economies. Not FDR's America.

You are an idiot and prove it most of the time you post your dribble.

Nobody will take you seriously.

No one will take you seriously, your puerile prose and lack of a scholarly approach to a subject that requires it is incontrovertible, inescapable, immutable, irrefutable evidence of your mental midgetry.

I have no choice, therefore, to put you on ignore. Now pester someone else

 

[Rumpole]

Fucking liar....I'm to the right of libertarians and you're nowhere near that philosophy.

I said 'liberal/libertarian'. That is NOT a 'libertarian'. It means a liberal with some libertarian values. (I support the legalization of drugs, for example) Play closer attention to the printed word.
Now look up the word 'liar', you're not using it correctly.

The evidence is in your attack of Daily Caller with no evidence...An homenim...[sic].Again, get the plank out of your own eye.

Learn how to spell. What, are you so lazy you cannot use spellcheck?

Moreover, Ad Hominem means 'to the man', it applies to an attack on a person, not a magazine
Magazines are fair game for criticism, they ARE the medium and message. Ad hominem attacks are attacks on the person rather than the message they are delivering, which is where the attack SHOULD be, you idiot

Now THAT was an ad hom. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

 

[Oddball]

I said 'liberal/libertarian'. That is NOT a 'libertarian'. It means a liberal with some libertarian values. (I support the legalization of drugs, for example) Play closer attention to the printed word.
Now look up the word 'liar', you're not using it correctly.

I stand corrected...."Poseur" is far closer to the truth.

Learn how to spell. What, are you so lazy you cannot use spellcheck?

Moreover, Ad Hominem means 'to the man', it applies to an attack on a person, not a magazine
Magazines are fair game for criticism, they ARE the medium and message. Ad hominem attacks are attacks on the person rather than the message they are delivering, which is where the attack SHOULD be, you idiot

Now THAT was an ad hom. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

In this case, the "man" is the journalism outfit your attacked, with nothing more than your leftist crackpot bias as the "evidence...It IS an ad hom.