More spinonymous sourcing: Politico quoted GOP strategist "who declined to be named" attacking Obama
An April 13 Politico article by reporter Kenneth P. Vogel on German Ambassador Klaus Scharioth's attendance at an April 11 fundraiser for Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) quoted a "Republican strategist working on the 2008 presidential race" saying it was "a glaring sign of inexperience that [Obama] would showcase support from a foreign diplomat." According to Vogel, the strategist "declined to be named out of concern for the campaign." At no point did Vogel explain which campaign the Republican strategist was "concerned" about, or even what the anonymous strategist's "concern" was. Rather, Vogel simply allowed a Republican operative to attack a political opponent from behind the shield of anonymity.
From Vogel's April 13 Politico article:
Obama's campaign confirmed Scharioth's attendance but didn't answer several specific questions about it. Scharioth's spokesman stressed that the ambassador is not supporting Obama but rather trying to meet all the presidential candidates.
If Obama wins the Democratic presidential nomination, Republicans might try to use the incident to bolster criticism he's weak on national security and deferential to dovish countries in Europe, said University of Virginia political science professor Larry Sabato. But they'd try to apply the same storyline no matter the Democratic nominee, he said, adding: "The German ambassador committing a faux pas on one occasion isn't enough to ratchet up that equation."
A Republican strategist working on the 2008 presidential race differed. The strategist, who declined to be named out of concern for the campaign, called it "a glaring sign of inexperience that he would showcase support from a foreign diplomat."
After a long and distinguished career in the German foreign service, Scharioth, who has graduate degrees from the Fletcher School for international affairs at Tufts University, presented his credentials as the German ambassador to President Bush last March.
As Media Matters for America documented, Politico chief political correspondent Mike Allen wrote a 1,200-word March 27 article about Obama's purported inconsistencies, which even Allen characterized as "trivial." The article was headlined, "Rookie Mistakes Plague Obama."
Why are these GOP Smearers Allowed?
To spew this type of lie on any Democratic candidate without being identified? They are allowed to say any hateful thing and be hidden. Its shameful.
The GOP party are bad people.
Warmongers, too. You forgot that.
Corrupt warmongers.
Corrupt CHICKENHAWK warmongers
I'm coining this term, inspired by Imus' use of the English language- Politico= Politic-ho!! Well, that's all I got- still early up here...
Politico is pathetico.
This week is Obama's turn, I guess. The problem remains the Corporate Media itself, though: any opportunity - and if none presents, invent one - to scourge the Dems - OK, LIE about the Dems - is to be seized. If inventing sources is required, simply ensure that they are granted anonymity, so that they cannot be traced and proved to be inventions.
One would think that Corporate Media must be afraid the Dems will attack the media oligopoly that the Repugnants have created? Maybe a strong dose of MORA (again, with or without a Fairness Doctrine, breaking up a concentration of only four corporations controlling media for 80% of the population is a good thing).
"Republicans might try to use the incident to bolster criticism [Obama]'s weak on national security."
What? He let a German invade his fundraiser? I don't even get what the smear is, unless the Repub. operative is just admitting they'll try anything.
What? How can you NOT see it?
Obviously, Obama is friendly with the Germans. Think about this country if he's elected...Fat jolly ho's with giant boobs and their hands full of 40oz steins of Olde English 800, fried liverwurst, velvet lederhosen, purple mercedes' with tiny gold spoke wheels, smoking your crack out of a meerschaum, pimps with polished cuckoo clocks hangin around their necks, oktoberteenth or junetoberfest....OMG!!!1!!!!!!!!!
I can certainly understand the unnamed campaign advisor's concern. Obama MUST be stopped!!!!1!!!!!!!!!1!!!!
I don't imagine many people would see the problem. That's why they need an anonymous political operative to tell them what the problem is.
The Corporate Media Isn't Any More Afraid of the Dems Than They Are Of The Repubs. The Democrats Would Rather Lose Elections and Live in Mansions Than Win Elections and Live In Apartments. That's Why The Right Wing Controls The Debate in This Country. 95% of the Population Thinks Corporations Shouldn't Have the Rights of Citizens. This Is Something The Democrats Could Hammer and Make a Big Political Issue, But They Don't Because They Want Corporate Money.
You should check out the link - Media Ownership Reform Act has been submitted annually since 2002 - by Dem Representative Hinchley. That makes six straight years of opposing the Repugnant FCC rules changes that have repeatedly relaxed limitations on ownership of media, when he and his co-sponsors submit it this year. You might even urge Rep. Hinchley to get a move on, and register your take on the inclusion of the "Fairness Doctrine" in the package, now that there are enough Dems in Congress to allow a chance of passing this. You might also register your position with your Senators and Representative. If the Senate doesn't scuttle it through Repugnant procedural manuever (quite likely), Bungle will demonstrate the position of the Repugnants with a veto. THEN this issue is properly framed, for the 2008 elections.
Repeat link to MORA
So, has Drudge linked to this juicy nugget yet? Enquiring minds want to know...
It's the same "source" that said Michael Ware was heckling McCain. LOL
Hahaha...
I guess MMFA and Obama don't know a gift horse when they see one.
Obviously the 'campaign' is Obama's and the advice given should be taken for what it is worth. Foreign Ambassadors at a campaign fundraiser make it look like the country they represent is trying to influence the election.
I don't know about you, but I don't want Germans or anyone else overtly (and for that matter covertly,) meddling with our Presidential Candidates. Do you?
Sometimes MMFA outdoes itself in its agenda driven mania to try to create bias when in fact the news article suggests something that would help. Doesn't anyone remember the controversy Kerry got in when he alluded that "world leaders" were telling him he needed to be elected. (Of course that was Kerry and we know everyone here took him at his word.)
And who can forget Clinton's election campaign links to the Communist Chinese government?
But then again, it makes for good reading and has a calming effect by this conservative knowing the lengths radical leftists will go to cut off their nose to spite their face.
Obviously the 'campaign' is Obama's
Hmm. I'm having a little bit of difficulty figuring out how "Republican strategist working on the 2008 presidential race" obviously refers to the Obama campaign.
But that could be because I'm a libtard.
I guess that makes two of us (of two so far noting a perception). That means you win, unanimously!
I don't know about you, but I don't want Germans or anyone else overtly (and for that matter covertly,) meddling with our Presidential Candidates. Do you?
Oh, not at all. That's why I think it's abhorrent when Bush and other Right Wingers ask us to take into consideration what terrorists want every time we vote.
Funny.
Now if those islamofacists and their allies are showing up at Democratic politician fundraisers, I might have a problem with them. Oh wait, the islmofacist allies are the Democratic Party politicians! Sorry for the misunderstanding. ;-)
There is still no such thing as an "Islamofascist."
There is according to Savage, O'Reilly and Bushie.
So my point is proven to be correct.
There is also no such thing as "Islamofacist..." unless there is some philosophy favouring people with "Islamofaces" that I am heretofore unaware of.
"Islamofacism" is what since 9/11 we've been conditioned to practice when in airports, or watching 24.
It makes it easier to recognize the tourists that Bush talks about, the ones that hate our freedoms and want to blow us up.
What an absolutely disgusting remark. To call those with dissenting political views allies of Islamofascists. You really are poor excuse for a human being, much less an American. What a sad state this country is in when people like you feel empowered to behave like this.
I agree with you Prof. Playing the name game i calling anyone who disagrees with them "Islamofacist" which I think is a disgusting term on its own is disgraceful.
prof - Don't get your shorts in a bunch. I can see by your handle, if it is true that you are a prof, why you would be so offended. To the rest of us the little emoticon at the bottom signifies that I was just poking a little fun.
Wrong again falfel breath. The Al Queda allies are in the Bush administration. Bush has been better for al Queda than IEDs. I bet Osama ben Forgotten has a pin up poster of Bush in his cozy apartment and praises Allah for him every night. What with the lets get as many Americans killed as possible policy and the I dont really think that much about him policy and the outright ignorance of the Bushies they are a gift that keeps on giving to the terrorists.
I'll Take The Germans Over The Saudi Royal Family Any Day Of The Week.
Since we're talking about 'outside influences,' let's not forget Republicans, big oil and Saudi monarchs.
Having contact with foreign representatives could be a good thing. Bush certainly could have used it. In that memorable interview when he was a presedential candidate in 1999 he couldn't name any of the leaders of Chechnya, Taiwan, India, or Pakistan.
I expect that savage guy to post any minute now why the fairness doctrine would destroy this "market driven" truth. Like that's a bad thing...
Just how would the Fairness Doctrine, the liberals favorite equalizer, address some strategist's opinion? Perhaps, "A Democratic strategist says this Republican strategist's opinion on this is just wrong"........now that would really fix things, wouldn't it?
do you disagree that an operative would be less likely to make trumped up statements if he knew that someone from the opposite spectrum was going to be given a stage to defend themselves or perhaps air what is wrong about the statement?
It's not a trumped up statement, it's a partisan driven opinion by a Republican - that's all the information really necessary to take it with a huge chunk of salt.
I think you're avoiding my point though. My main reason to mention the doctrine has to do with the two most important tenants that were eliminated - those that forced stations to give equal airtime to opposing opinions. Right now all we have is sensationalist driven statements passing for "market driven" reporting. And the latest study I posted shows that the more partisan the "news" channel, the more uninformed their viewers are. When people know they are going to be called out for their statements not only will they be less likely to push the envelope in the name of entertainment news, their audience will become more informed. You aren't against that, are you?
What I am against is some governmental agency watchdog sitting in their cushy offices deciding what is opinion, what is fact, what is fair, what needs refuting, monitoring millions of partisan websites, cable channels, talk radio - the list is endless, and the implementation is impossible.
We are not in the 1970's with three TV networks only to monitor.
Hmmmm...yes. I see your point. We're much better off now that the government is the *source* of most of the lies, misinformation, and propaganda we get on the MSM. The problem is that too few individuals (or corporations) own too many media outlets. I'd like to see media returned to public--you know, those people thingies that actually own the air waves.
"What I am against is some governmental agency watchdog sitting in their cushy offices deciding what is opinion, what is fact, what is fair, what needs refuting, monitoring millions of partisan websites, cable channels, talk radio - the list is endless, and the implementation is impossible."
Tell ya what, Tommy. I'm going to be clear as I can about the part of the doctrine I wholly support. From wikipedia:
"Two corollary rules of the doctrine, the "personal attack" rule and the "political editorial" rule, remained in practice until 2000. The "personal attack" rule was pertinent whenever a person or small group was subject to a character attack during a broadcast. Stations had to notify such persons or groups within a week of the attack, send them transcripts of what was said, and offer the opportunity to respond on the air. The "political editorial" rule applied when a station broadcasts editorials endorsing or opposing candidates for public office, and stipulated that the candidates not endorsed be notified and allowed a reasonable opportunity to respond."
There is nothing in those two correlaries about the government doing anything you claim. It does allow for the victim of said attack to escalate the issue and start an investigation should said accusation have merit. Suggesting that the government would create some huge machine to do what can be simply initiated by the victim appears at best baseless to me.
Snark: We can easily avoid all that complexity: simply require that the first 34 minutes of any program allowing a Repugnant to speak - even CSPAN's "yea" and nay" - be devoted to an exhaustive listing and analysis of that speaker's history of lies; then the Repugnant, max 90 seconds; and begin the loop again. 34 minutes may at first glance appear excessive, but many of the Repugnants in Congress, and ALL the Repugnants in the Administration would require greatly condensed versions even at 34 minutes. This paragraph is my cleanest version of snark - take it for what it is worth, someone recently told us.
Next, the mighty FCC is now proposing to monitor for violence to protect our innocent eyes, proposing that none be allowed, even in cartoons, from 6:00 AM to 9:00 PM; if they can manage that task, I'm quite certain they can tag lying Repugnants.
Oh, by the way, if you had READ MORA, you would have found that it does not address the web; and, so long as we can maintain true "net neutrality", need never do so. Finally, if we force divestiture of outlets in excess of national or local maximums, diversity would probably obviate "Fairness" anyway.
Dude, what's all this even have to do with a website article?
Yeah, like Dude where does it all end? ;-)
Is it only TV and radio or should the NYT be obligated to have a forced right wing counter-article on every story that some conservative group thinks is biased to the left?
You can't regulate free speech with the fairness doctrine. Which free speech do you accept and which do you deny? Are there only two sides to every story or is there a libertarian, radical left, Christian right, isolationist, facist, communist, anarchist, or any other point of view that also qualifies? Which views get airtime and which don't?
Exactly, it's an antiquated idea floated out by those who whine their point of view, or the vehicle to deliver that point of view, can't compete in the free marketplace. Figure that out before you expect the government to "level" an impossible playing field.
Tommy, if "the free marketplace" had delivered a fair media... or even, say, a not-completely-dysfunctional media, I might concede your point.
Instead, what we have is slanted-news-as-product carried to such an extreme that a majority of Americans believed in 2003 that evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda have been found, that weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, and that world public opinion favored the US going to war with Iraq.
I don't question that markets are, in general, an efficient way of delivering goods and services. I am just not that impressed with the results of deregulation in most instances.
Advertising pays for the media. YOUR idea of a free marketplace has nothing to do with popularity. Remember that Donahue was fired for his political leanings when he was the most POPULAR show on his network but the network was afraid of the ADVERTISERS, that is the business community not liking him sending a message that MIGHT spark public opinion. IT is only a free market for those who pay the advertising revenue.
Correct AA
I like most Americans hate a biased media, but I do not believe the FD will solve anything. I think I mentioned this on a thread a little while ago, but their are PLENTY of other options to go about sorting through biased media coverage. This site is one way; other ways could be just turning off the channel that spews partisanship(I have Fox News blocked on my TV..lol) or stopped reading the biased newspaper. The government is already full of inefficient bureacracies(FEMA...among others), why add another one?
Barry, see my response above. I could be wrong, but the 2 most important pieces of the doctrine worth bringing back do not appear to require a huge beaurocracy to support. I think there are much more efficient ways to implement. It is way to easy to dredge up the argument that democrats = big beaurocracy as a way to dismiss this (and Bush hasn't been a small gov't type of guy anyways! ;)) Just consider what I wrote.
Say what you want about the fairness doctrine. I can take it or leave it.
Just remember that FEMA was not always so screwed up. Effective government does exist, it just doesn't exist under anti-government conservatives.
How can we expect conservatives to lead effectively when they don't respect or even believe in government?
The NYTimes doesnt use OUR airwaves ANYONE is free to publish whatever tract, newspaper or book they choose and are able to. Those who DO use OUR airwaves, our RESOURCE to make THEIR money are supposed to provide a public service for the staggering amounts of money they make off of OUR RESOURCE. That isnt too much to ask and allows for government regulation in forms that facilitate the public service funtion so we ABSOLUTLY can make a free speech argument for the fairness doctrine it only demands both sides be heard instead of allowing the business community, which has their own agenda, to domiate what is being propigated to the people as discourse.
Brrzt. Most "liberal" media people I watch and listen want nothing to do with the Fairness doctrine. And I don't want it.
Glad to hear it, but the number of people from the left who bring it up here all the time would disagree with you.
Perhaps. I understand their sentiment. It's frustrating when you've got a bunch of Right Wingers caring only about power, happily distorting the truth and outright lying, and seemingly nothing holds them in check. Righties figured out the loophole before others did is all.
But then, maybe proponents of the Fairness Doctrine haven't thought it through. Air America, Franken's program, Bernie Ward here in the Bay Area as well as late night leftie Ray Taliafaro... these wouldn't be around (or wouldn't have been) were the Fairness doctrine in play. (Olbermann's "Special Comments" would probably survive, though, being on cable. Thank god for that.)
And the Fairness Doctrine would never have applied to a website.
So then what's "fair" about it if it doesn't apply to the fastest growing segment of the media today - where millions of people get the news and information?
The Fairness Doctrine doesn't even apply to Cable stations, only broadcast stations. The FCC has no jurisdiction over the Internet because it isn't something that is broadcast over the air using the television spectrum.
I would hope you would understand that, but the fact that you raise the same debunked points over and over again in a Pavlov-type auto-response every time you see the words "Fairness Doctrine" means that you are probably unable to learn.
Yep Marv
I am not a huge fan of the FD for that reason(among others). I think we all have a RIGHT to express are views(no matter how crazy they may be). The first ammendment is the most important amendment in our constitution, and is the only thing protecting us from FASCISM.
Exactly HOW would the freedom of expression (which I assume is the part of the first amendment you are referring to) be damaged in any way by obligating the other side be heard? Its not saying you CANT say something only that when you editorialize or attack someone THE other side has a right to respond. I dont see any chilling effect to free speech involved.
Which other side? The Green Party side? The Law Party side? Aren't they minorities that have every right to be heard and shouldn't the fairness doctrine be fair to them? If not, it's a sham.
A specious argument the Green party side is still the same side, the left side just a bit more to the left. What you leave out is we HAD the Fairness doctrine for DECADES and it was NOT causing the huge problems you allude to. It was gotten rid of specifically to allow a rightwing propaganda barrage, subsidized by the business community, and unburdened by the other side being heard. We all know propaganda is much more effective if the other side isnt HEARD. THAT is your problem with the fairness doctrine.
Nice liberal theoretical dodging.....you didn't address the concern I raised at all. And what about the Communist party, or the Socialist party, or any number of political and social ideologies that people in this country have every right to have expressed over the airwaves in your "Fairness Doctrine" world.
Figure out how to accommodate their point of view and then get back to us........until you can, your argument in favor of such nonsense is hollow.
I did address it. YOUR patented purposeful obtuseness wont change that. While there might be a dozen variations on a theme there are still basically two sides either we should do this or we shouldnt to virtually every political policy. ALSO you keep dodging the FACT that we HAD a fairness doctrine for decades and the problem you posit here didnt raise its head as any pandora's box. Its not my argument that rings hollow its that yours is nonexistant.
I interpret this "Fairness" doctrine as having one Republican versus one Democrat mandated per whatever. Which equals out to two right-wing ultranationalist corporate viewpoints with no left-wing or liberal viewpoints whatsoever. Just a reinforcement of the two-party monopoly on political power.
Therein lies the problem - it's cherry picking the ideology of the two majority parties - does nothing to let minority voices and opinions have their say. What's "fair" about that? Nothing.
Whats fair is THE OTHER SIDE IS GIVEN. Propaganda is so much more effective when the other side isnt heard.
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” The_CravenJoseph Goebbels quotes
See Goebbels understood. Keep saying the same thing and dont let the other side be heard is BASIC PROPAGANDA 101
“I think there is a good reason why the propaganda system works that way. It recognizes that the public will not support the actual policies. Therefore it is important to prevent any knowledge or understanding of them.”Avram Noam Chomsky quotes
Or as Chomsky points out keep UNDERSTANDING of the issue far from the public. Just repeat dogma so there is no real discussion about the issue only dogmatic reinforcement THAT IS WHY IT IS FAIR.
The "controversy" concerning Kerry's allusion was a shoddily manufactured forerunner of the very item presented by MMFA:
"WARNING! You cannot judge the Dem candidate on truthfulness, passion, policy, or intellect; judge only by the Corporate Media drumbeat of malicious attacks! Conversely, Repugnants are supposed to lie, cheat, steal, and get our spouses and kids killed in some insane occupation how else could they reward us, now that their FCC has granted our wish to monopolize media!"
And AnotherAmerican announces his arrival as the first wingnut of the week with a hearty "hahaha" (conservative for "warning:BS approaching").
So let's amend the list of those groups thatconservatives are wetting themselves over;
Gays
Illegal Immigrants
Iraqis
Women who are smarter that they are
Journalists
and now, German ambassadors.
Seems cons are terrified about potential influence on our political system by just about everybody except one group, members of which made up the majority of the 9/11 Hijackers.
Not really, they don't mind taking money from Sun Myung Moon.
http://consortiumnews.com/2004/090704.html
I stand corrected, Snoop. You may have overloaded AA's reality deflection shield with the addition of that one.
AnotherAmerican wrote: And who can forget Clinton's election campaign links to the Communist Chinese government?
Who, other than those who have removed their eyes with a salad fork, have managed to get that vision of our PRESIDENT walking hand in hand with an oil monarch off the back of our retinas?
...or trading nukes for mangos?
And that's just the kind of thing that gets them all hot and bothered if a Democrat does it. Does anyone remember what Limbaugh and all the rest said when the hand holding was shown on tv?
Now which one is the salad fork?
;-)
"Now which one is the salad fork?"
-----
Match it to the first set of marks made in your forehead when you try to feed yourself, and then you will know. The larger marks, made later, are the ones left by the dinner fork.
Hahaha... so that's what those holes are doing there!
Oh my god! Some Republican wrote something bad about Obama on a website! Panic! It's horrible! It's terrible! Quick, write an article about it!
And people get paid to do this?
If you think there's a valid reason for anonymity here, you're free to say what it is. Otherwise, the point of the post is pretty obvious.
The point of the post is that some right-wing Repub hack voiced an opinion about a candidate that was juvenile at best...and then some right-wing Dem hack had to write an article about it that's juvenile at best. It's hardly elevating the political debate above the level of the playground. This isn't combating misinformation, this is just whining.
The point is that there's no valid reason for anonymity here. If they named him, or withheld his comment because he demanded anonymity, there would be no article. It's really very simple.
AA, I have been reading your posts for quite a while and also those of HBL and have come to the conclusion that you are not just ANOTHERAMERICAN but ONEOFAKINDAMERICAN, along with the other 25% who follow the goose steps of the NEOCONS talking points. But it is interesting and you have won the award as the best Artist on the thread with your uncanny ability to make those little smiley things like the kids do.
As far as HBL stalking you, are you sure it is just HBL...ever see Murder on the Orient Express?
Prince,
Thanks for taking the time to read my posts. I'm not sure you enjoy reading them, but at least I hope they provide you with an alternative to so many of these childlike and hatefilled posts.
As for talking points, that is one of those statements that has no reply. Anyone can label anyone else's post as talking points, (HBL's posts excepted). ;-)
My opinions are my own after reading and watching and reflecting. I live in the midwest and other than being registered as a Republican, do not engage in any political activity. I simply enjoy the political dialogue and offering my two cents.
Speaking of which, feel free to keep the change!
Thank you for the Enlightenment and the penny...I only offered a penny for your thoughts. and I'll keep buying your "corn" so you don't starve out there in the Midwest
Much appreciated! I'm all ears!
"As for talking points, that is one of those statements that has no reply. Anyone can label anyone else's post as talking points"
Interesting...
"can you provide more than just talking points ... When I see posts like yours, I'd like to see the proof that back up your statements. Otherwise they look to the rest of us as typical liberal left "we hate Bush" talking points."
"Your assertion that the GOP cannot execute a "prosperous economy" is just a lefty talking point not based in reality.
You cite a very good standard for what a "talking point" is, it's something that has no basis. Of course, when you're called on the same thing, then it's just something that anyone can say that has no reply, and therefore has no meaning. If you had a revelation that your own citing of the phrase in the past was improper, I would suggest you re-think that.
Brab,
For one who demands citations yours is surprisingly lacking.
But hey, we all know there is one set of rules for conservatives here and another for the looney left. ;-)
What are you talking about? I use the same definiton you were using when you were criticizing your opponents for using "talking points". Now when you're called on it, you dismiss the very concept of "talking points". How is it I am using a double-standard here, instead of you?
Nah, the ignorant right posts with the same rules as the left. Its just the IGNORANT right expects to be treated with respect even when they treat US disrespectfully. The WWWAAAAAAAHHHHH is getting tiresome
Yeah, your thoughts that just HAPPEN to comply practically word for word to what rightwing media bloviators repeat ad nauseam. Also known as TALKING POINTS.
Uh huh.. And yours don't?
Don't get confused. I'm not saying you sound like righty talk show hosts. You posts sound to me like you work for MMFA and the DNC.
But then who cares if they are talking points or your interpretation? Lets get off this. I made my point and illustrated it. The rest is very much starting to bore me.
Yeah, getting chased by peasants with pitchforks and torches can get old reeeeealy fast. I've had that experience a few times myself, on some freeper boards. OTOH, *I* didn't deserve it, insofar as being willing to explicate and illustrate for those whose limitations and preconceptions precluded catching the first pass; and being willing to supply real links to back up any controversial questions of fact that I might raise (or oppose).
conleyg,
I have been attacked for showing my sources, for having sources, for not listing my sources, and for refusing to rehash arguments. For being an apologist, a right wing talking point, and a troll. I've been attacked here as just about everything, as a hatemonger, racist, babykiller, homophobe, sexist, and christophobe, (whatever that is.) and those are generally the compiments. :-) I'm used to it.
I find it laughable that the so called open minded and liberal/progressives are so close minded and so biased that they cannot take an alternative viewpoint without degenerating into in this case, childish namecalling.
As I have said many times before, I enjoy a good debate and I don't mind a good barb (or fork) sent in my direction. Some of them are indeed funny and make me laugh. As some of you have noticed, I will also dish it out. So fair is fair. But if I ever get to the point that HBL is at and pointed those remarks he posted toward any of a number of you, I'm sure I would have been flagged as troll and tossed out long ago.
Having said that, I know I am no angel and I stir the pot. You may not like what I say nor accept the reasons I give, but I give them and I will argue my side with as much passion as any on your side. I make no apologies for that.
Frankly I'm surprised, (although I should know by now,) at the vociferoursness that came my way because of my post. Oh well...
I will confess freely that I usually view your posts as "A Recipe For Talking Points"; and your links as equally laughable; but at least you are not lacking in persistence, and either immune or oblivious to insult, so the show (quite literally) goes on . . . and on . . . and . . .
Besides, who will we argue with, when we have educated adequately all those who troll here?
No I dont. I am not even a Democrat. Desperation is the worlds worst cologne and you stink of it.
LIAR!
;-)
You are a fool. I am not a democrat I havent been for years. Retire your amazing mind reading powers they dont exist and highlight your already apparant ignorance. We already know you are a moron, further blatant exposure of that fact isnt necessary. If you EVER achieve the feat of higher brain function get back to us, until then you are committing the ultimate chatroom sin. YOU ARE BORING.
They cant be ALTERNATIVES to childlike hatefilled posts when they ARE childlike hatefilled posts do you remember posting THIS?
the islmofacist allies are the Democratic Party politicians! <<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Why do you rightwingnuts keep snivelling like little children that you are treated the way you treat us? Why do you think you have a God given franchise on insulting remarks? You arent a martyr just another snivelling crybaby conservative who likes to throw mud but doesnt like it when mud is thrown at YOU.
Solon,
As usual, you haven't a clue.
We've already gone over that one. It was a joke in reply to another joke regarding conservatives.
Get over yourself.
;-)
Of course, saying that Democrats in Congress are allies of terrorists was a joke, but then later you say...
"Instead by refusing to meet the Prez while Pelosi just returned from visting a State sponsor of terrorism who is sending suicide bombers through his country to kill U.S. servicemen, is refusing to talk to her own President. That does not make sense and in my mind further shows her agenda, which is based on defeat of the U.S. just for political purposes."
That sounds a bit like your "joke" but there's no smiley face on this one. But somehow I'm sure that there's some subtle difference between being an "ally" of terrorists and wanting terrorists to win the war.
Brab,
The facts speak for themselves.
You can deny it till the moon comes up, but the Democratic Leadership in Congress is doing everything they can, including consorting with State sponsors of terorism, in order to damage the foreign policy and to see the U.S. pull out of Iraq. I don't know why you can't see that if the Democrats had their way, by pulling out we lose the war. It seems rather simple to me.
Oh, but this was the relevant point;"We've already gone over that one. It was a joke in reply to another joke regarding conservatives."
If it's such a simple, obvious thing in your mind, then don't try to pass it off as a "joke" when you get called on it. That's called "lying".
As for Pelosi, you know Bush didn't disapprove of her trip and five Republicans went as well. When Republicans go, it's fine, but when a Dem goes, then it's obviously some sort of subversive activity. You accuse people of reading minds when they say Bush wasn't interested in negotiation, when the White House itself said it wasn't going to be a negotiation, but you have no problems concluding that Pelosi is treasonous in her partisanship when nothing at all on the Syria trip points to that at all.
Again, this is what makes it hard to treat you as a respectable poster. And you think you can lecture anyone on blind partisanship?
You refuse to see that the humor in my joke, (which was a reply to a joke bashing conservatives,) has a basis in reality.
The Democrats are invested in defeat. Pelosi is not your ordinary Congressman. She is third in line to the Presidency and leader of the opposition. Her outspoken criticism of the Administration and her visit with Assad coupled with refusal to talk to Bush has a much more symbolic meaning. To equate her visit with rank and file Congressmen is not an apt comparison. I do believe the Administration asked her not to go. However she went, and her sidekick, Congressman Lantos, said they were going to deliver the Democratic foreign policy. That does nothing but weaken the U.S. position vis a vis Syria and Iraq and she knows it. That is not mindreading on my part but a very real criticism offered by liberal editorials, such as in the Washington Post.
Again you are rehashing something that is in another thread. Obviously I cannot reply to every post. For you to infer that I avoided posts is silly.
Again you discount the obvious reasons for my post and rather speak to the substance, you use it as a method to attack me. Forgive me if I am not impressed with your objectivity and or your insight. Why still no comment on HBL's statements? Hmmm?
Okay this has gone on long enough. It is a silly thread stemming from silly statements made by a silly HBL. I am bored. To expect a little evenhanded analysis from so many of you about troll like behavior was a mistake on my part. It all makes sense to me now.
"You refuse to see that the humor in my joke, (which was a reply to a joke bashing conservatives,) has a basis in reality."
No, I understand that's your belief. What I'm saying is you shouldn't dismiss criticism of your view because it's a "joke" (twice!) when it obviously reflects your actual beliefs. That's cowardly at best, and downright lying at worst.
"I do believe the Administration asked her not to go."
You believe the Administration asked her not to go? What is that based on, please? You have some nerve to criticize others for not backing up their points when you spout nonsense like "Democrats are invested in defeat" and other unsupportable cliches.
"That is not mindreading on my part but a very real criticism offered by liberal editorials, such as in the Washington Post."
The same "liberal" Washington Post that has supported the war the whole time? There's a valid basis for opposing our foreign policy. To attribute it to partisanship is mind-reading, no matter who said it first.
"Again you are rehashing something that is in another thread. Obviously I cannot reply to every post. For you to infer that I avoided posts is silly."
Then don't tell me you would reply to me on a thread when you don't reply to others. I'm only "rehashing" something to point out your hypocrisy and your trollish/idiotic nature. It's obvious you can't handle accountability for your own posts.
"Again you discount the obvious reasons for my post and rather speak to the substance, you use it as a method to attack me. Forgive me if I am not impressed with your objectivity and or your insight. Why still no comment on HBL's statements? Hmmm?"
I commented three times on HBL's statements. You read them. Are you lying or what?
And poor you, under attack because of your hypocrisy, baseless rhetoric and lies. Let me get my violin.
Very good Brabantio.
Warmonger, moronic conservatives like YOU are interested ONLY in getting as many Americans killed as humanly possible. Excuse us for looking for alternatives to that policy.
So then it wasnt a joke and you are a liar. Did you think your delusional take on an issue somehow defined reality. I already posted the Counsil on foriegn affairs saying Syria does NOT sponser terrorism against the west nor sanction it. Even so you talk with those you have disagreements with, those you agree with you dont have the pressing need to solve those difference. YOUR simplemindedness would leave no alternative to war every time we have a major disagreement. YOUR solutions would leave no alternative to the already failed lets get as many Americans killed as possible policy. I know you really love that one but most people really dont like it. You are free to do all you can to assure the maximum number of dead Americans as we do to trying to minimize that number.
whatever EXCUSE you want to use for YOUR ignorance, and childish insults to save time just automatically extend the same privelege to us liberals to do the same thing. Bottom line you rightwingers dont get the exclusive franchise on personal attacks just because you are so stupid its all you have.
You show your lack of understanding how politics works in this country. You darn good and well the Republicans pray that Obama wins and would never stand in the way of him thumping Hillary upside her political repugnant head.
This story had Clinton War Room written all over it as does your website.
Nice attempt at spinning another lie.
valsetz, have you met AnotherAmerican ?
Wow. One of the most spectacular meltdowns I have ever witnessed on this site, AA.I got pretty busy earlier (I was posting at work) but just got a chance to look over the entire thread, so I hope you make it back here.
Let me lay out the scene for you; This is a website dedicated to the exposure and documentation of conservative disinformation in the media. People come here for various reasons, but generally as a respite from the barrage of corporate media gruel that may be the only news they have access to at other times.
Add to that, in my case, I live in a very conservative area, and do business and interact socially with Republicans on a regular basis. I hold my tongue often in the real world, in the face of amazingly uninformed and vocal conservatives. I enjoy this site for a number of reasons; Different perspectives of the posters, the integrity of the site and its backing up of its items, and especialy that opposing views are not only allowed, but encouraged (as opposed to most right wing sites and some left wing ones).
Here's what you don't seem to get- People who come here to get away from ridiculous, usually debunked, conservative media talking points can not be expected to entertain your idea that these exact same talking points are valid, nor that they deserve repeated, point by point rebuttals.If you can't take the time to read the first post explaining the flaws in your post, it's hardly reasonable to expect others to take the time to respond in a polite way.
There are some very intelligent and civilized conservative posters here , and although they end up in disagreements, sometimes devolving into insults and name calling on both sides, they are generally respected.
Why ? Because they put a little work into it. By work, I don't mean 30 or 40 posts crying about paranoid fantasies that somebody shooting down their comments is "stalking" them, or performing amateur psychoanalyses based on completely imaginary events.By "work", I mean they actually read the items, as well as the other posters comments.Then, if they have a decent argument, a solid rebuttal, or even a lame joke, they post.
And once they hit "post", they understand that their ideas are subject to others comments.
Sorry, this got long.
What I don't get, AA, is the mindset of the conservative who logs on, apparently doesn't read the item or understand it, then decides to post a comment to prove it.
These comments often start out with "lol", "hahahahahaha", or some other red flag that indicates the argument immediately following is so weak that a laugh track needed to be added. End it with a "typical liberal " or "you guys are so stupid", and then act astounded that all of the regurgitated propaganda in the middle didn't receive a standing ovation.
You seem like a bright person.Possibly the type who hangs out with a group of not- so -bright people in order to ramble on uncontested to those unable to see through pompous rhetoric. Maybe you had the type of doting parents who praised every move you made. I don't know and don't care.
I just wish, because I appreciate the opposing viewpoints here by those who can actually put a paragraph together, that you would not be as intellectually lazy as you are at times, and bring something to the table. You might win an argument occasionally, and better yet, you might learn to lose graciously.
I'm not sure why you picked me to designate as a "stalker", as many other posters shot you down just as effectively as I did, I'll just take it as a compliment that I made you look at yourself. Read your posts when you're calm. You ended up literally begging other posters to attack me, then insulted them when they didn't mollify you by pretending you were right. Pretty pathetic. You latched onto a couple of words from Brabantio ("If HBL's a troll, so be it", which I took to mean that you're entitled to your opinion), words that he posted after you pasted only the shortest of my comments.
Keep this in mind as well; If a number of posters (It's not just me, as much as you seem to be trying to convince yourself) regularly comment that you have no substance to your post, or ask you what the hell you're talking about, it may not be all about them.
Get some rest. When you return, read the items, read the other posts, and remember; If you don't have anything to say, you don't have to post.
I apologize for taking up this much space, I just like to help people.
HBL,
Even though I discount almost entirely your apologia, I appreciate you finally raising your level of discourse.
My original comment regarding your "stalking" was innocuous enough. It was only to let you and others know that I recognized your childish antic. I called them stupid because they were.
However, your rationalization at this point fails in my mind considerably. For you to come back with some sort of rationale for your insipid and stupid remarks only proved my orignal point. My posts did not even require any replies. I get so many childish responses, like yours, to my posts, that I brush them off easily. To try to justify those comments is simply laughable.
I have taken more hits than just about anyone else that I've read on this site. I take them all as they don't bother me. I only pointed out the fact that you went overboard and had devolved into simple minded namecalling. It is an obvious case of trolling as any I've seen.
You were not posting any new ideas and I see that many times you don't. You simply latch on and think your one or two sentence put down is some sort of point. And maybe some of them are. However as I tell my children; Once is funny, two is stretching it and everything after that is simply too much. (Oh and by the way, my kids are five years old.) Your posts were the first in more than a few years where I've had someone simply respond to my posts in the same thread with the same nonsensical putdowns. When you carried it over to a new thread, I decided to make it known to others as I thought it showed a lot about you and the obsessive behavior you were exhibiting.
What I think is enlightening is the illustration by this thread of the myopic viewpoint and closemindedness of a lot of the so called liberals and progressives who post here. It is amazing and funny at the same time.
People came out of the woodwork to attack me and my posts. Hey, that is okay. I don't care. But most everyone should know by now, I will respond if I can. Some, like Easy to Refute, asked questions, impuning that I was misleading. I provided proof. Some, like Brab, asked for references, I provided them. Then rather than acknowledge your out of control trolling comments, Brab decides to pile on, coming in late to try to rehash old arguments, out of context, rather than discuss the point at hand. I simply called him and others on it.
You may laugh but this line sort of reminded me of the Duke rape case. You know, where all those sanctimonious liberals (and MMFA if I remember correctly,) piled on those 3 students rather than look at the facts. I have repeatedly referred back to the facts of my post, back to your original comments, but it seems almost none of the responders was interested in the facts. Instead, it seemed to me, they just want to attack. Well, thats okay too. if they want to ignore the obvious, I'll call them on it too.
Many of you think it is some sort of argument to call my posts, "talking points". Go ahead. What you don't realize is that so many of you drink up the one sided and far left "talking points" that are in every thread of this site and yet you have no awareness that is the case. That lack of introspection makes me laugh. For many to Dismiss my posts as 'talking points' is in my mind, the simple minded way out and very poor rationale. I offer proofs of my opinions day in and day out, which is more than I can say for so many here who only toss out infantile and redundant insults with nothing to back it up.
We can argue, and do, all day about these ideas and the reasons we agree or disagree. That is the purpose of this thread. Not obsessive, and silly little nobrain attempts at put downs like yours aimed at me just because you happen to disagree with me.
So go ahead HBL, make your stupid one line comments all you want and go ahead and defend them if you think you can. When you get obsessive about it, I will simply call you on it like I did yesterday.
AA, you really have no concept of accountability, do you? I wish I had more time to help you with your paranoid fantasies and delusions of adequacy, but I think you need to do some work on your own.
Or you can continue to blame everybody else, and imagine you're brilliant. Cheers.
Hahaha..... I guess this is deja vu all over again. Thank you for proving my point once again. Most of your posts lack any substance and are simply tired attempts at insults.
Let me remind you of your lack of accountability by illustrating your original posts. Talk to me again when you acknowledge the fact that you were childishly trolling.
AA, I've got to give you credit. In a Hannity-esque way, you've made it difficult to respond to you today. Almost every sentence you've written is so hilariously inane, one doesn't know where to begin.
- HuntingtonBeachLefty / Friday April 13, 2007 03:29:07 PM EST
AA, which of the voices in your head are you talking to? You seem as if you could really use a nap.- - HuntingtonBeachLefty / Friday April 13, 2007 03:36:23 PM EST
Seriously, AA, none of your posts seem even remotely connected to the subject nor to any other comments. Are you all right? Starting the weekend a little early?- - HuntingtonBeachLefty / Friday April 13, 2007 03:57:17 PM EST
And AnotherAmerican announces his arrival as the first wingnut of the week with a hearty "hahaha" (conservative for "warning:BS approaching")….- - HuntingtonBeachLefty / Monday April 16, 2007 02:35:12 PM EST
I stand corrected, Snoop. You may have overloaded AA's reality deflection shield with the addition of that one.AA, this is from my post above.A good point for you to concentrate on.. If you'd rather copy and paste my comments pointing out your lack of a point, enjoy.You're not proving anything except that you're dense.I'd suggest you read and try to understand.
"Here's what you don't seem to get- People who come here to get away from ridiculous, usually debunked, conservative media talking points can not be expected to entertain your idea that these exact same talking points are valid, nor that they deserve repeated, point by point rebuttals.If you can't take the time to read the first post explaining the flaws in your post, it's hardly reasonable to expect others to take the time to respond in a polite way."
That is called rationalization. You've mastered it.
Its not a rationalization just because YOU arent bright enough to get the point. If you WANT substantive replies you need to start with substantive points. When you instead to an imitation of a demented Myna bird fed too much Rush Limbaugh, and repeat already many times debunked talking points or spew your own inane insults, then you dont DESERVE substantive responses. You get returned what you put out.
Wait, I take back part of what I said.
I think Tommy has taken more hits.
;-)
"Then rather than acknowledge your out of control trolling comments, Brab decides to pile on, coming in late to try to rehash old arguments, out of context, rather than discuss the point at hand."
No, the point wasn't to "rehash" the argument, it was relevant that your post which HBL responded to was full of garbage. That was relevant to the point at hand, since you were pretending to be a reasonable poster "stalked" by HBL. It was not "out of context", you told everyone where the comments were and I later linked to them. In addition you said you would have replied to me on that thread, yet you didn't reply to others there who made the same points. You pretend your post was defendable, respectable, yet you couldn't back it up when challenged. That section of the thread has been conveniently scrubbed, so I'm not going to let you be dishonest about it.
It should also be noted that on this very thread, your first post contained a highly questionable point about the anonymous campaign worker that you failed to back up when questioned. That's the same behavior as you exhibited on the other thread, so why shouldn't people point out your habits the way you're pointing to HBL's?
You provide proof of your opinions? Thanks for the laugh, as you would say.
Sorry my posts don't fit your storyline. You seem determined to put a round peg in a square hole.
Getting back to the point at regarding my first post. It is as 'obvious' to MMFA as it was to me that the unidentified person was talking about Obama.
To say I was challeneged and didn't respond is silly. It is also obvious that it is my opinion. It is also obvious that there is no proof at this time, one way or another. At least it is to me. For you to say I don't provide proof is silly when you disregard everyone else offering theirs. Take the arguments or leave them, but argue them in the thread.
Lets make it simple. I simply stated my opinion on this thread and others offered theirs. You stated yours. I replied. You will undoubtedly reply and a I will not.
Your posts don't fit my storyline? Whatever that means, I'm quite sure you can't support it.
"Getting back to the point at regarding my first post. It is as 'obvious' to MMFA as it was to me that the unidentified person was talking about Obama."
No, you said "Obviously the 'campaign' is Obama's and the advice given should be taken for what it is worth." The question wasn't who they were talking about, it's who said the unidentified source was.
"To say I was challeneged and didn't respond is silly."
Valentinian and Conley both were left wondering what the hell you were talking about. What's silly about it? It's right there on the first page, plain as day.
"It is also obvious that it is my opinion. It is also obvious that there is no proof at this time, one way or another. At least it is to me. For you to say I don't provide proof is silly when you disregard everyone else offering theirs. Take the arguments or leave them, but argue them in the thread."
Again, why should I reply to your original post when you leave two people who have already done so hanging? You're going to respond to me, but not to them? Yes, it's my fault for not pointing something out to you earlier when you ignored those that did. Brilliant.
"Lets make it simple. I simply stated my opinion on this thread and others offered theirs. You stated yours. I replied. You will undoubtedly reply and a I will not."
In other words, it was a baseless assumption. Don't criticize others for not backing up what they say when you do the exact same thing. Is that fair to say?
See, you can't have it both ways. You can't claim your arguments have merit and substance and then say "that's my opinion, I can't support it, take it or leave it". It should occur to you at some point that when you do that, people have no reason to respect your commentary.
What is the deal with Politico?
I've been following their site since it launched and I'm still trying to get a feel for who they are targeting (as their market). A lot of the "inside dope" sounds like inside-the-beltway non-sense with little fact-checking to back it up. They also use too many unnamed sources for run-of-the-mill information.
I'm still waiting for them to screw up a story that ends up making a Republican to look bad. They've been days behind on national stories and don't seem to have a real grasp that they are looking more and more like Insight Magazine but with a better pedigree.