More Active Posts
Front Page
Hillary’s sting
 |
 72 Comments |
Looks like the Clinton campaign pulled a fast one on Anderson Cooper and CNN . . .
 |
Topic: WorldMagBlog |  |
Email a friend |
 |
Keywords: |  |
RSS 2.0 |
 |
Both comments and pings are currently closed. |  |
Share this: |
One more diversion
Horrors! You mean the Republicans’ evil plan to ensure that only card-carrying members could ask questions was foiled by the Queen of Darkness??
Seriously, how is this pulling a fast one? Anybody can submit questions, right? Now if you had evidence that the QOD’s people somehow gained control over what questions were asked of the GOP candidates, you might have a story. As it is, you’ve got a guy with an agenda (doesn’t everybody?) who went through the proper channels to ask a question, and the debate organizers chose it. End of story. Or am I missing something?
So he asked a question? Big deal. The guy had 43 years in the miltary and is a retired general. A general! No one even knew where Bush was.
He kept his secret of being gay for 43 years while serving in Active Duty and in the National Guard. Apparently with honors.
Look what we are doing now. We kicked out dozens of Arabic translaters. You can go to UTube and hear them talk about how they got “caught”. One guy feels especially bad because he was always on the front line and was able to talk to Iraqis to get support and make his squads job safer. His personal e-mail was opened on a spot check and now he knows there is no replacement for him. The guys he worked with knew he was gay and now he is not there to help them. They are less safe because of this harmful policy.
This retired general has every right to put these people on the spot who are apparently more afraid of Dick Cheney’s daughter than Islamo facist terrorists.
If the Radical Muslims ever find that out, they will put together a brigade of lesibians and chase us out of Iraq.
I don’t get it either, Lynn. The debate organizers chose to let the guy ask his question. Where is there anything out of order here?
Why aren’t you all over yesterday’s revelations that Rudy Giuliani billed the taxpayers of New York for his adulterous trysts? You blow this up into a blog post and ignore that?
Amazing.
CNN owes it to their audience to do simple background checks on those who are raised up to the nation to ask questions in order to reveal possible personal agendas or conflicts of interest.
It is not a problem that this man asked a question. It is a problem that neither he nor CNN felt obligated to reveal a very relevant fact, that he works for or has recently worked for the Clinton campaign.
If you cannot see that, take a course in jounalistic ethics.
Excellent post, Joel Mark.
Don’t y’all understand? WorldMag is showing that it’s prepared to go to any lengths to discredit Mrs. Clinton or whomever the eventual Democratic nominee is. I’ve already warned y’all that we’re going to see a smear campaign on here (and elsewhere) that will make the “Swift Boating” of John Kerry look like a little girl’s tea party. We’ve already had one story this week that was nothing but vicious rumors and innuendo on Mrs. Clinton’s past. This may be a Christian site, but politics will take priority over faith over the next 12 months.
Anderson Cooper of CNN, himself, already admits that if he had known this relevant fact, he would have disclosed it. But Cooper also let it slip that they DID in fact know that this question-acker was an “activist.” That, in itself, should have been made clear to the audience (and that should have caused them to check further) inh the interest of full and fair disclosure.
But I have long ago stopped expecting fair journalistic ethics from CNN. Also, the Republicans did fine with their answers anyhow.
Why is it that the Democrat candidates are so closed- minded and fearfully protective that they have refused (and as far as I know, continue to refuse) to do any debates on the Fox News channel?
Yet, the Republican candidates seem to be willing to debate anywhere at any time and take whatever questions that come?
By the way, this question-asker was recently on a steering committee for Hilary Clinton. THAT is relevant in the context of a debate like this. How many other You-Tube question-askers were set-ups?
Maybe Anderson Cooper wanted this guy to ask his questions because both are gay.
Anlir, I would say “nice try” to your post at #6, but I don’t think it was. World Mag is a very gracious host for you to practice your free speech. I realize you don’t have to be gracious in return, but I still think that World Mag is a gracious (and fair) host.
And the “Swift Boat” veterans were great heroes twice over. They served their country well in Vietnam and then they also served their country honorably again by practicing their free speech rights in a political campaign in a truthful and accurate way regarding a candidate about which they were personally familiar. It was fair and right for John Kerry to be held accountable by his own peers in the service for the things he (Kerry) said about his fellow service men during the Vietnam war.
If one counts the number of anti-Clinton blogs on here it would be completely laughable to claim that WorldMag is not out to take down Mrs. Clinton.
We already know that many conservative Christians consider lying and slander to be virtuous if it’s directed at the Democrats. Thus, the “Swift Boating” of John Kerry was a high spiritual moment for many conservative Christians.
But, when you’ve already sold your soul to the Republican Party as WorldMag and many of it’s readers have it’s too late to make a stand for things like honesty, decency and civility.
I agree CNN should have been aware and should have disclosed it, yes. But the question is legitimate question no matter who asks it, and the chances are they would have allowed it even if they had known.
So where is the “fast one” Hillary allegedly pulled?
And why is World not outraged about Giuliani’s open adultery billed to the taxpayers of New York?
Anlir,
Mrs. Clinton is the presumed top candidate for the Democratic nomination for POTUS. Thus she is newsworthy and of great interest to other people on World’s blog, if not to you. You are permitted to skip posts about her, if you choose.
Steveg and I see eye to eye on very little, so let me take this opportunity to agree with #12. Original post and 13 comments later, no one has demonstrated that a “sting” was pulled by the Queen of Darkness’ evil minions.
If CNN knew that a questioner worked for a rival campaign and decided not to disclose that knowledge, you might have a story (about CNN, not necessarily the QOD) but no such case has been made.
Cheryl D.
It’s fine to do stories on Mrs. Clinton. But every single one of them has been negative toward her, some of them quite unfairly. There has not been one positive story about her on here. With that kind of evidence, one can reasonably conclude that WorldMag has an inordinate dislike (hatred even) of her. It’s their site and they can post anything they please about Mrs. Clinton. And I’ll keep pointing out how ridiculous and unfair it is.
I’m no fan of Mrs. Clinton and I won’t be voting for her in the primary. I just think the “knee-jerk” anti-Clinton stuff is immature.
#10: practicing their free speech rights in a political campaign in a truthful and accurate way regarding a candidate
You can’t be talking about the Swiftboating of John Kerry. The men on Kerry’s boat, both democratic and repubublican have held him in very high regard. Come on now, don’t lie and call it truth.
I have three words for you guys, “Presidential Advance Manual”. ‘Nuff said.
Anlir, your post #11 was a slanderous smear on “many conservative Christians.” You did not back up your slader in any way with any content.
It is now you moral obligation to prove that any of the Swiftboat veterans actually “lied.”
You say that “many conserviative Christians” consider lying and slander as “virtuous” if directed toward Dems. You better back that up with specific examples, pal, or stand down in humiliation for your own unsubstantiated slander.
Not one thing the Swiftboat vets said has been demonstrated to be a lie. They were there and they have points of view. Disagree, but if you plan to accuse decent Americans of lying or praising liars–you better back it up with proven facts.
Don’t poison the discourse.
RDEAN,
Actually, the smearing of the Swiftboat veterans is what comes right out of the Democrat Advanced manual.
Those who think for themselves, actually listened to all the veterans and made their own decisions about John Kerry. The Swiftboat veterans had every right to speak out.
The knee-jerk critics of the Swiftboat veterans’ use of their free speech are the ones using a mindless manual.
What’s surprising to me, Anlir, is the fact that you are incredulous that WMB would oppose Mrs. Clinton. You realize that this is a conservative Christian site?
And I don’t see this post as a smear. It’s really more about CNN’s goof-up than about Mrs. Clinton.
I notice that you did not respond to Joel Mark’s making the obvious point that Anderson Cooper admitted that CNN should have and would have disclosed the general’s involvement with the Clinton campaign.
The problem for me is not the original question but the fact that he was allowed to make a speech from the floor of the hall.
There has not been one positive story about her on here.
Why should there be, Anlir? Remember, this site is posted by CHRISTIANS with an EVANGELICAL worldview.
You are not one of the hosts here, buddy.
As for the Swift Boat group, there’s been a $1 million reward offer made to anyone who can find a single inaccuracy in their ads, and NO ONE has been able to claim that reward.
The general’s party affiliation has no bearing on the content of his question. If Osama bin Laden had stood up and asked if the candidates would repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, then the candidates should answer the question.
Right after Secret Service got through arresting him.
The question is related to our nation’s interests and ought to be considered on its own merits regardless of who asks it.
The SwiftBoat lie campaign is old news, but let’s look at just one example:
John Kerry won a bronze star for pulling Jim Rassman out of the water during a battle under heavy enemy fire.
Larry Thurlow, who was on a boat near Kerry’s in the same incident, said that there was no enemy fire.
Rassman contradicts Thurlow and insists there was. But much more importantly: Thurlow himself won a bronze star in the same incident, and the Navy records regarding it confirm there was heavy enemy fire going on at the time.
But, you have a great capacity to believe what you want to believe in spite of the clear facts, so I won’t pursue this one any further.
For anybody who is interested: SBVT falsehoods.
It has been reported now that the general whom CNN allowed to ask his question (who HAS worked on a steering committee for Hilary Clinton) may have lied about his political activities and associations. Will Senator Clinton continue to employ him or distance herself from a worker that uses such poor ethics? Now Clinton needs to be asked about it. Her campaign has already been shown to be willing to “set-up” questioners in a disingenuous manner.
Still, CNN knew he was an “activist” and this was just one example among many of a very undignified and inappropriate manner of seeking and selecting questions for a presidential debate.
I’m sure that Fox News would have conducted a much more presigious and presidential debate. Yet many Democrat candidates simply refuse to go into a forum wherein honest and straight questions may actually be asked by non-sychophants.
JJF - the point is not his party affiliation, it’s the fact that he works for an opposition candidate and it was not disclosed by CNN. I didn’t watch the “debate” but I have read that he hogged the microphone and was given more time than any candidate’s response [to any question] because, in spite of 3 answers to his question, he kept saying he didn’t get an answer
[presumably meaning one he liked].
Also, the general was featured in an article reported on CNN.com in Dec, 2003. That fact alone tells me it was a set-up.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/12/11/gays.military.ap/index.html
#20: there’s been a $1 million reward offer made to anyone who can find a single inaccuracy in their ads, and NO ONE has been able to claim that reward.
That’s because the guy offering balked.
#22: But much more importantly: Thurlow himself won a bronze star in the same incident, and the Navy records regarding it confirm there was heavy enemy fire going on at the time.
If you are talking about the guy with the ’stash and the heavy southern accent, I saw him being interviewed by Tim Russet. Tim had the military records listing every bullet hole in the boat with discriptions and pictures and it was actually one of the boatmates that got the Bronze in the same incident as Kerry. When asked if his boatmate deserved the Star since Kerry didn’t, the guy said he had been set up and walked off the show. The guy is a lier and the Republicans are easily sold a bill of goods. Kerry’s problem is that he let it go on for so long, it made him look guilty.
Joel,
You prove my case for me. The fact that you think the “Swift Boating” of John Kerry was a wonderful thing, even though it’s been proven to be full of lies and slander, shows that many conservative Christians have lost their moral compass when it comes to politics.
WorldMag can put up anything it wants on Mrs. Clinton. It can sling all the mud it want. It will show the rest of us that when it comes to slander and innuendo, Christians really are no different than the rest of us heathen. It’s disappointing, but not surprising anymore.
Andrew Jackson was accused of being a murderer and rapist. Johnson said Goldwater would let the Soviets drop atomic bombs on us.
It’s been going on for a long time. But for the last twenty years, the Democrats have been a deer caught in the headlights with adds such as Willie Horton and the swiftboating of John Kerry. The Republicans have reached such lows that have rendered the Democrats spineless.
RDean,
You’re right! The Democrats are spineless! Their opponents (the Republicans) have been fighting dirty for a long time, and they’ve stood there and let them get away with it time after time. I worry that this time out it will be even worse. I don’t think the Democrats have a clue as to how low the Republicans are going to go in ‘08 to win the White House. I keep hoping they’ll get a clue, but so far it doesn’t look good.
Pickens offered $1 million and Kerry took him up on it. Then Pickens changed the terms of the contest. Originally the winner had only to prove that anything in the Swiftboat ads were “materially untrue.” After Kerry’s response (which can be read here, Pickens stipulated that Kerry must first open all his personal records (correspondence, diaries, video footage) from 1971 to 1978 and then prove the charges false. (Source here).
The Swiftboat incident is a lowpoint in American politics and taints with rank hypocrisy the Republicans’ frequent and loud assertions that they “support the troops.”
Missed a link above.
Kerry’s response to Pickens
Unless CNN knew the general worked for the Democratic party, they bear no responsibility in this case. We cannot expect and do not want a news organization running background checks on everyone who asks a question.
Debate questions should be selected on their own merits, not on the credentials of the person who asks them.
(And I saw the general ask his question. He did so honorably and respectfully. He did not “hog the microphone.” Anderson Cooper asked him if he was satisfied with the candidates’ answers, and the general said he was not and explained himself. You can watch for yourself on Youtube.)
Anlir,
I make my own points. And my main one is that I beleive is free speech and I think the Swiftboat veterans used that right responsibly and honestly. This has never been disproven in any way, not even slightly.
Anlir, your continuing slander against “many conservative Christians” poisons this discourse.
In a presidential debate like this, the network does have an ethical responsibility to know who is asking the qeustions, disclose their political connections honestly and let them ask their questions.
The manner in which CNN staged questions was often biased and unfitting for this process, in my view.
Still, nothing any Swiftboat Veteran said or did has been shown to be the least bit worong or dihonest.
The real problem was that candidate John Kerry was never able to actually come up with a substantive response (that many Americans could believe) to what the Swiftboat Vets were saying. That is what hurt him.
Joel,
Many conservative Christians (like you) supported the “Swift Boating” of John Kerry. That, if anything, has poisoned “the discourse” in this country. So I find it completely laughable that you would be lecturing me on poisoning “the discourse”!
Still, nothing any Swiftboat Veteran said or did has been shown to be the least bit worong or dihonest.
Read #22 and follow the link in #23. RDean adds more in #26.
You can stick your fingers in your ears and chant la la la all you to avoid it, but the fact remains they’ve been shown to be liars many times overs. By refusing to admit it, you’re supporting and joining the lie.
If that’s not a classic case of bearing false witness, I don’t know what is.
Not one thing the Swiftboat vets said has been demonstrated to be a lie.
It is not a problem that Joel Mark makes assertions. It is a problem that he considers his false assertions a virtue. The Swift Boaters portrayed themselves as non-partisan. That was a lie. After the election, IRS filings showed that most of the group’s financing came from Republican donors. More than half of the money came from just three Republican operatives. Furthermore, one of Kerry’s main accusers was lobbying for $40 million in federal funds for a pet project. The Swift Boaters were predominantly a Republican front group.
Joel Mark is unqualified to give lectures about “fair journalistic ethics” #7.
the things he (Kerry) said about his fellow service men during the Vietnam war.
2.7 million Americans served in the Vietnam War. Kerry never said anything at all about every one of them. How could he? Kerry spoke about some of them. Some, like Kerry, were heros. Some admitted to or were convicted of doing bad things. So what?
STEVEG,
I read those posts and they certainally do NOT disprove anything claimed by the Swiftboat veterans, nor do they prove that they lied at all. Those veterans had every right to join the debate. The problem was that Senator Kerry could not come up with a respectable and substantive response to their views. All he could do was generate smears against them by Democrat smear machines (which are still smearing those veterans).
Steve, you can blindly follow Democrat talking points all yopu want, but I believe in free speech and that INCLUDES the speech of those who oppose Democrats.
I believe in free speech too:
Joel Mark eats babies!
Scroop Moth,
When you accuse American veterans practicing their free speech of being liars, you need to offer definate proof. You have not. They NEVER lied about where they got their financing and they have a right to accept financing from whomever they please. And we have a right to evaluate their message for ourselves.
Also, any one of them also has a right to lobby for whatever issues he pleases. Some of them were even Republicans. None of this proves that they were speaking out of partisan passions when they exercized their free speech rights in responding to Sen. Kerry in a political campaign.
They had every right to express themselves as they saw fit. You can disagree as you see fit but you cannot and have not proven that any of them lied in any way.
I read those posts and they certainally do NOT disprove anything claimed by the Swiftboat veterans, nor do they prove that they lied at all.
In very simple terms, JM, and my last try to get anything resembling an honest response from you:
1. Larry Thurlow says “We weren’t being fired at, so Kerry doesn’t deserve his Bronze Star.”
2. Thurlow himself has a Bronze Star from the same inicident, and the Navy papers awarding it confirm there was heavy enemy fire.
Thurlow is either lying to us in saying there was no enemy fire, or else lied to the Navy in saying there was AND accepting an award based on it.
Either way, he’s a liar.
Now I fully expect you’ll just blare “That doesn’t prove he lied,” yet again, and there will go the last shred of your own credibility. Have at it.
To #42:
Live and on Pay Per View.
The issue of free speech is blatant (and seemingly intentional) red herring, Joel. Everyone has a right to express himself, but character assassination and lies are still (in John McCain’s words about SBVT) “dishonest and dishonorable”. So the issue under debate is not whether these men had a right to speak, but whether what they spoke was “dishonest and dishonorable.”
The link in post #23 most definitely does disprove some things claimed in the SBVT ads, unless you jack your standards of “proof” into the impossible. (e.g., God has not gone on record stating the absolute objective truth, so I’m free to believe what suits me).
Read the link for yourself. Don’t take Joel Mark’s word on it.
Why don’t you apply that standard to yourself, Joel?
Do you have definite proof that John Kerry lied about his medals?
No.
You have the accounts of people who were not on his boat, who were funded by Kerry’s political opponents, and at least one of whom stood to gain financially should Kerry not be elected. You disregard or dismiss the Navy’s official documents and the accounts of people who were on Kerry’s boat.
You have very shaky evidence at best, and certainly not “definite proof.” By your own words, then, you lack sufficient grounds to conclude that Kerry lied about his service.
My proof stands. Nice try, Joel, but you can’t defend liars by asserting that some of the things the liars say are true. You still have to deal with the lies the liars lie about. Which in this case is the Swift Boater’s claim that they were non-partisan. The reason they happened not to have lied about their funding is that hey didn’t talk about it until after the election, so that before the election they could claim falsely that they were non-partisan. If the Swift Boaters said they were non-partisan because they were sincere, as Joel Mark asserts, that was another lie. Sincerity has nothing to do with partisanship or non-partisanship. The $40 million dollar federal funding shows that one of Kerry’s chief accusers had a partisan incentive. The claim of non-partisanship was clearly false.
Was the substance of the Swift Boater’s accusations dishonest? One of the men who swore an affidavit later admitted he had no personal knowledge of what he swore to. That’s dishonest.
. . . many conservative Christians have lost their moral compass when it comes to politics. — ANLIR #27
Yes, but God has punished them as He usually does by giving them what they wanted — George Bush.
STEVEG,
You are simply taking isolated quotes out of their context from an eyewitness account.
Was Thurlow saying that no one was fired upon at any time during that entire incident? Obviously not. His comments had a specific context with reference to a specific moment in the indicent. He was an eyewitness to the account. I trust his eyewitness account more than your baseless accusations that he’s lying.
Free speech sure is scarey isn’t it? if it’s not the speech you can tolerate, you demonize it.
JJF asked, “Do you have definite proof that John Kerry lied about his medals?”
Sir or madam, I did not aver that he did or didn’t lie. I have heard that Kerry himself claimed that he threw those medals over a fence in a protest a long time ago, by that was simply a report I have heard. I made no such claims myself.
In any case, I was not the one who began smearing anyone for their free speech. I am simply defending those who practaiced that right from unjustified smears.
If the Swift Boat vets could actually be discredited with substance or with a legitimate claim, that would be all over the NY Times, CNN, NVC, ABC, CBS, NPR and we would have heard no end to it.
JJF wrote; “You have very shaky evidence at best, and certainly not definite proof.”
Evidence for what? Did I claim to have evidence for anything? What is it I am trying to establish? I have not even said that I think the Swiftboat vets were right in all they said. I have said, however, that no one has proven them wrong. I have seen or heard zero evidence that those accusing them of lying have a leg to stand on.
I did not make the initial accusations. I did not make any charge that requires a buden of proof. Those who are slandering the veterans are the ones with the burden of proof–and they don’t have it.
As for you, JJF, what definate proof do you have that I consume babies?
Joel has clearly tied his horse to the SBVFT group, and will therefore countenance no criticism of it’s claims or tactics, no matter how wrong they are or how low they go. I’d say it’s very problematic for his faith, but as long as he can live with it, what more can one say? We’ve certainly seen far worse things done and said, while claiming the mantle of “Christian”.
Personally, I see nothing further to be gained when a man stakes his reputation and pride on a cause or a group. So I will bid him adeu. I wish Scroop and SteveG the best in exposing the inconsistencies and lies of the SBVFT. I suspect no matter how much evidence they put forward, Joel is not going to budge one inch.
The American people made up their own minds about John Kerry. Deal with it. Either that or just whine forever about a historical campaign.
But if you want to talk about dirty camapign tactics, what about the horrific NAACP ad using a relative of James Byrd, a black man whose murderers were punished severely for their deed in Texas, to indict George W. Bush’s policies for his murder? Yes, in 2000, the NAACP ads likened President Bush’s opposition to a hate crimes bill, to killing a black dragging victim James Byrd “all over again.”
What about the treatment Clarence Thomas recieved from Senate Dems. that was a travesty.
What about Al Gore telling black audiences that republicans do not even want African-Americans to be counted in the cenesus, when in truth it was him and the Democrats who wanted social sampling tactics to be applied in the census rather than actual counts? Republicans were advicating actually counting citizens rather than sociologists doing sampling game.s
In 2004, the Missouri Democratic Party aired radio ads saying, “When you don’t vote, you let another church explode. When you don’t vote, you allow another cross to burn. When you don’t vote, you let another assault wound a brother or sister.” That’s as dirty as it gets.
Remember the rash of unsubstantiated charges Democrats leveled against Republicans concerning black voter intimidation in the 2000 and 2004 elections–without a shred of credible evidence?
Sen. Ted Kennedy hysterically predicted on the Senate floor that with the confirmation of such judicial ogres as John Roberts and Sam Alito, the Supreme Court would roll back the clock on civil rights.
I did not aver that he did or didn’t lie. Joel Mark
Joel Mark, how is it that Satan so possessed your mind that you lied to the Holy Spirit by keeping back part of the price? The price of claiming the Swift Boaters did not lie is to aver that Kerry did. When you keep your opinions to yourself, they remain your own, and you don’t have to defend them. But when you support those who bear false witness against an honorable man, you do in fact challenge his truthfulness. What makes you think you can get away with this? You have lied not to men but to God.
Here is the text for a political Campaign ad for Democrats in Georgia in 2006 9when the Dems made big gains):
“On November 7 we face the most dangerous situation we’ve ever have. You think fighting off dogs and water hoses in the Sixties was bad, imagine if we sit idly by and let the right-wing Republicans take control of the Fulton County Commission. [MAYOR SHIRLEY FRANKLIN, ATLANTA:] The efforts of Martin and Coretta King, Hosea Williams, Maynard Jackson and many others will be lost. That’s why we must stand up, and we must turn out the vote for the Democrats on election day.” (this radio ad was played in Atlanta, Georgia, just before Election Day, November, 2006).
Al Gore campaigned thusly; “When my opponent, Governor Bush, says that he will appoint strict constructionists to the Supreme Court, I often think of the strict constructionist meaning that was applied when the Constitution was written, how some people were considered three-fifths of a human being.” (Al Gore, just prior to the 2000 elections). What a blatant distortion.
On July 16, 1998, at an NAACP annual convention, Al Gore said, “The Republicans know theirs is the wrong agenda for African Americans. They don’t even want to count you in the census!”
TRUTH (as summed up above): Most Republicans opposed the Clinton administration’s plan to conduct the census by statistically sampling the population rather than actually trying to count everybody.
Al Gore once compared President Bush to Richard Nixon, King George III, Julius Caesar and Enron’s Ken Lay and then followed with this whiff of dirty politics: “The [Bush] administration works closely with a network of rapid responders, a group of digital brown shirts who work to pressure reporters and their editors.” Al Gore, 2004, in a speech at at Georgetown University’s Law Center.
When Gore and Clinton did the same sort of thing they accuse Bush of doing, in 1992, it was called “The War Room.”
Jesse Jackson claimed, without any proof, legal or otherwise, in 2000, that African-Americans were victims of “a systematic plan to disenfranchise black voters” and “a clear pattern of voter suppression.”
I just think that Republicans should demand proof more often when such charges are made.
Croop Moth,
You are obviously not even listening to me.
I meant Scroop Moth.
Joel Mark #57 — another D.O.A. assertion. You can claim a poster misinterprets you, if you have an explanation, but you can’t claim they ignore the texts they quote.
You’re raving, Joel. Jesse Jackson. Gore. Clinton. Clarence Thomas, James Byrd. All-cap TRUTH. Perhaps, before He kills you for lying to Him, God is striking you with madness.
Anlir at #53: I wish Scroop and SteveG the best in exposing the inconsistencies and lies of the SBVFT. I suspect no matter how much evidence they put forward, Joel is not going to budge one inch.
Nah, I’m not going to bother. Now I’m watching him frantically trying to change the subject rather than admit what is obvious to everyone, and I’ve seen it all before, four years ago.
I know a brick wall when I see one. There’s no point in my wasting my time.
Proof? Did I claim to have proof for anything? I never said you consumed babies. I didn’t even say the people who said you ate babies were right. All I’m saying is they have a right to say that. Not that I believe it.
But no one has been able to prove that you don’t eat babies. I have seen zero evidence establishing your non-consumption of infants.
So I haven’t said anything that requires any proof. Those that say you aren’t a baby-biter are the ones with the burden of proof, and they got nothing.
I love it that you guys are going at it without getting personal.
P.S.: Anlir, I just profiled Hillary for World Magazine and gave her a very fair shake. Not everything I write about her is negative. But let’s face it, she has been shown a ruthless, White House-looting liar whose husband, as president, was impeached and left a trail of dead bodies and ravaged women in his wake.
Sorry, but negative Hillary stories abound. I just report them.
Vastly amused. If WoW had an award for thread of the month, I’d nominated this one. Joel’s refusal to accept facts when it threatens to collapse his personal narrative has always been amusing but this time the contortions he goes through have reached spectular proportions.
In a desparate attempt to make sense, he offers the MSM he usually despises. The abscence of any report on the Swift Boater is simple. The election was over, its old news and besides that its hard work to actually investigate. Much better to let someone else form the narrative and then follow the group.
Meanwhile, the diabolical Clinton has infiltrated an open debate to ask a legitimate question. The presumptive woman, how dare one of her friends ask a question that embarrasses the entire Republican party. CNN actually allowed tough questions to be asked and the audience wasn’t handpicked. Legitimate political discourse — what a horrid thought. Sure the Clinton team snuck one by CNN, but it was a more legitimate question than the one about the Bible. Only Huckabee spoke the truth there. I’m surprised the Republicans didn’t do something similar or maybe this is an indication the Democrats have grown a spine.
I just watched a Simpsons rerun featuring Mayor Quimby (kennedy) vs Sideshow Bob (Bush Sr.) complete with a Willie Horton ad. Its an excellent commentary on American politics; Bob cheated and won the election. Lisa and Bart discovered the truth when Smithers (deep throat) exposes his boss, Burns and the corporate elite since the Republican Party conflicted with Smither’s choice of lifestyle. Lisa and Bart discovered the dead vote Republican and restore Quimby to the presidency where he continues his corrupt ways with women and wine.
she has been shown a ruthless, White House-looting liar whose husband, as president, was impeached and left a trail of dead bodies and ravaged women in his wake.
I presume these allegations will be given a higher standard of evidence than the Swift Boaters — I’ll start with the dead bodies.
As for ravaged women, why portray them as victims. I never saw Monica as a victim, rather a woman who enjoyed her time with Bill, enjoyed her infamy and made a little money on the side.
Clinton was impeached for lying about an affair. The Star Chamber continued from a real estate deal to a travel agency to his sex life. I’ve never known an inquiry with a wider mandate. The nerve and “balls” of the Republican party is only matched with the lack of a spine on the Democratic side for its failure to impeach Cheney and Bush.
Looting the White House struck as the most juvinile of charges and one I was not personally familar with so I did a simple Google search and got this http://dir.salon.com/story/politics/feature/2002/06/13/scandal/
which detailed the childish actions of both parties but major league whining by the Republicans.
I could go on about a lying thieving administration which has bungled a war and amassed a higher body count. But to detail an alocholic, draft-dodging, cocaine sniffing bankrupt businessmen would take too long. And in the end negative Bush stories are everywhere and google just too easy.
Looting liar has a nice ring. very good! Did she loot the Arkansas governor’s mansion too or was the White House beginners luck?
Lynn, did Hillary murder Vince Foster?
Who did Bill Clinton murder?
Lynn, could you explain what you mean by “a fast one”? Rick Scarborough has commented that CNN knew the gay general had “ties” to Hillary. Hillary didn’t choose the questions, CNN did. So what do you mean?
More importantly, didn’t Grover Norquist “pull a fast one”? The whole point of the debate was supposed to be youtube.
O Hillary, where is thy sting?
#4 Joel,
I suspect that CNN did at least a Google search on all the people asking questions (they can’t be so stupid not to being some of the smartest people on earth as lefties), but as a mouthpiece of the Democrat Party they felt compelled to put in, what we now know to be at least 6 ringers for the DNC to ask questions. I suspect that after Hillary put in her college ringer to ask her a question, I am sure that Hillary forced the Clinton News Network to fly in her ‘Gay retired General that works for her on her campaign ringer for this debate too.
If there was ever a question that the MSM is a servant slave of the Democrat Party and Hillary Clinton. these question have been forever answered. Oh I know that the left will deny it, but just like these cases, ignore what they say and their denials and watch what they do (or did in this case instead. They simply have no self control, no shame and can never be satisfied -just like any other terrorist.
The MSM complicity and being in the pocket for Hillary and Democrats is as plain as the nose on your face. Sadly, the nose on left’s face today grow longer and longer - like Pinocchio
It will show the rest of us that when it comes to slander and innuendo, Christians really are no different than the rest of us heathen. It’s disappointing, but not surprising anymore.
So again, why the h-e-double-hockeysticks do you still hang around here and promote this blog to lurkers and claim some sort of ownership???
LOL
The thing nobody wants to admit is that the retired general’s question was completely legitimate. It’s an issue the president and whomever the president appoints to be defense secretary will have to deal with. How the candidates feel about it is relevant information (a lot more so than some of the questions asked at debates.)
You can work yourselves up over the fact that the questioner had undisclosed connections to a Democratic candidate, but that’s just a smokescreen to avoid admitting the validity of the question.
Why do none of the good Christians here seem to care that Rudy Giuliani billed his adultery to the taxpayers?
Fox News of course slants the story to favor Rudy’s defense, but even they have to admit the odd thing:
According to a 2002 letter from the city comptroller and numerous travel receipts and documents released Thursday, Giuliani’s administration billed tens of thousands of dollars in security travel expenses to little-known city offices. Those included the Loft Board, which oversees some types of apartments, and an office in charge of helping the disabled.
Rudy’s defense is that the city would be paying his security expenses in any event, and that’s true. But for a normal trip, his office would have had the police department pay the expenses. When he traveled to the Hamptons to meet his mistress, he took money out of the hands of the disabled to try to hide the costs.
But I’m sure whether Hillary sent one of her people to the Republican debate is a much bigger scandal.
Sorry for coming late to the party. I probably won’t read the 70-odd posts that preceded me.
I have no problem that the homo general’s question made the cut. It’s a fair question. (And I disagree with his agenda of letting open/practicing homosexuals join/remain in the military. There is a question of fundamental moral fitness of military members that needs to be discussed.
Shame on our side for making the general the issue rather than addressing the question.
We’re not making the General the issue, Frank. We’re making CNN the issue.
You’d do well to read the 70-odd posts preceding your own, brother . . .