SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Cogito who wrote (52747)11/2/2006 8:01:56 AM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 90947
 
Oh, I see*. Allen said "macaca" more than once at ONE event.

And that justifies a massive smear job by the WAPO? I'd be willing to bet that this is an unprecedented smear job considering there really was nothing remotely racist. And Allen has no history of racism or any other type of similar dirty tricks. Surely nothing that justifies 160+ articles by one major paper alone.

<< "And don't even act like Dems have never been slammed in the press." >>

I didn't ask you whether or not that ever happened. I asked you:
    Can you name one similar instance where, in the heat of an
election campaign, the WAPO or any other major MSM outlet
went screaming yellow zonkers over something a well known
Dem politician said that turned out to be a trivial
matter, yet they just kept on pounding away with an
obvious smear campaign?
And no, the Monica Lewinsky case is not remotely close a massive smear job by the MSM. Hell, they were in the tank big time for Clinton until Clinton's lies began to unravel. And even then, the MSM never lied, misled, distorted or smeared Clinton. If anything the opposite was true they covered up for him in a big way thoroughly misleading the public of the real facts. But they sure smear that Ken Star big time, now didn't they?

* BTW, you didn't document anything. I have to take your word as gospel (sans any evidence - again).



To: Cogito who wrote (52747)11/2/2006 8:19:01 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 90947
 
<< "Naturally, you are now going to tell me that these examples don't count, and that the smearvets story was really important and those guys were sincere and it wasn't a put-up job." >>

Sorry Allen, I don't have a credibility problem. I stick to facts & credible evidence that can be independently verified. I can & will back up my assertions with links to credible evidence to substantiate my POV.

I don't engage in these debates out of blind partisanship. I'm always searching for the truth no matter where it leads me. My posting history backs that up.

Bottom line Allen, your Monica Lewinsky (Clinton got slammed) example in no way resembles the WAPO - Allen smear campaign.

As for the "smearvets", you are dead in the water. The Swift Boat Vets for Truth were important. They did a masterful job exposing Kerry's lies, slanders, smears & deceit. The evidence to support this is overwhelming.

And the Swift Vets were NOT a "put-up job". No evidence exists anywhere to support that baseless assertion.



To: Cogito who wrote (52747)11/2/2006 8:24:46 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 90947
 
<< "Just save it. The piling on on this thread is so tedious. I will say, though, that you guys have really proved how open-minded you are here. Yes, you really consider other people's views. You're open to new ideas. Right." >>

Hey, all we're doing is engaging you in a reality based debate. You aren't the first person to try some shopworn leftist memes here. If your "ideas" are meeting with stiff resistance, then provide us with links to credible, independently verifiable evidence to substantiate your "ideas". We'll be more than happy to review them objectively & respond to them in a reality based manner.

But don't blame us for your own shortcomings. Just because you deeply believe your "ideas" are the gospel truth doesn't make it so. It's quite possible we've seen facts & evidence that are completely contrary to your "ideas" (sans any evidence).