I heard a rumor

[Feanorcurufinwe]

that someone on Fox was going to say something bad about one of our candidates.


Gee, maybe it's time to throw in the towel.

:eyes:

[lastknowngood]

1. instead of rumor

how about a little truth about the shrub and his criminal enterprise.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

2. That would be nice

[Loren645]

3. Yes, let's delve into that dank American mob Dynasty

I guess Faux isn't in the truth biz.

[displacedtexan]

4. How about a fact? Inouye endorses Kerry!

:bounce:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

5. I doubt it will be reported on Faux, lol

Inouye supports Kerry for president

Veteran U.S. Sen. Dan Inouye said yesterday he told U.S. Sen. John Kerry two weeks ago that he would support his presidential campaign.

"I have watched him develop into a great leader," Inouye said.

The Massachusetts Democrat won a come-from-behind victory on Monday in the Iowa caucuses and Inouye said he made his decision to support Kerry before polls showed that Kerry was gaining strength.

Inouye, who has represented Hawaii in Washington since 1959, said he is close to Kerry in the Senate.

"I told this fellow two weeks ago 'You will have my help,'" Inouye said of Kerry.

"There is a special kinship, we both served in battle -- he has a Purple Heart and I have a Purple Heart," said Inouye, who was awarded the Medal of Honor for his acts of bravery in World War II.
http://starbulletin.com/2004/01/21/news/story11.html

[Fenris]

8. Yep. He and Kerry became close during the Iran-Contra scandal

[DFLer4edu]

6. Shouldn't be too much of a worry for the primaries, because

they're fair and balanced! They'll smear each candidate equally!

Go Dean!

[dsc]

7. May I ask what the difference is between what you are mocking here

and the article you posted which quoted unnamed people (ie a rumor) calling Dean supporters storm troopers? Why is this deserving of mockery and what you did perfectly defensible?

[dsc]

9. kick

[Feanorcurufinwe]

10. The difference.

I didn't spread a rumor started by Sean Hannity, I posted an article published in the New York Times.


With all due respect, do you really not understand the diffence?

[dsc]

11. No I don't

that article dissed every single Democratic candidate (except Kerry) and frankly could have been written by Hannity. It called Kucinich a panderer, called Edwards a liar, and called Dean's supporters bad names. I fail to see any difference at all.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

12. You are welcome to your opinion.

But you are inaccurately characterizing the article.

[dsc]

13. Oh really

True of false it called Kucinich a panderer (on the issue of having Iowians work on the health care plan he has)

True of false It used an unidentified attribution to call Dean supporters Storm troopers.

True of false it accused Edwards of lying (I can't recall the issue)

True of false it praised Kerry.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

14. Here is the article

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/18/politics/campaigns/18POIN.html


And what is true, is that you inaccurately characterized it in post 11.



The fact is, Dean lost Iowa badly, and one of the reasons is probably revealed in the exact quote from the article that you are taking such issue with. Maybe instead of assuming it's not true because you don't like what it is saying, you should learn the political lesson it is teaching.

Here is a Washington Post article that also reports that nickname being used: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30839-2004Jan20_2.html


I know it is popular among Dean supporters to believe in a grand conspiracy against their candidate, but I'm not buying the idea that folks at the Washington Post and the New York Times conspired together to print a falsehood.

[dsc]

15. Oh really

Charge one:

The article calls Dean workers storm troopers without siting a name.

To try to answer those questions, we hit the pavement on Tuesday with a team of four Dean volunteers who had paid their way to Iowa from Colorado, Minnesota, Vermont and New York City. In order not to bias the experiment by dampening their ardor, we did not inform them that some skeptical Iowan politicians had taken to calling the orange-topped hordes the Perfect Stormtroopers.

Charge two It accused Kucinich pandered.

Giant Pander Award. The competition was fierce this campaign. Besides the usual paeans to ethanol subsidies, candidates passionately swore fealty to the "national packer ban," which would prevent meat-packing companies from owning herds that would compete with Iowa farmers.

But Representative Dennis J. Kucinich showed special flair before a Des Moines audience worried about his plans for a national health care system. Since his public system was supposed to replace private companies with all their unnecessary paperwork and profits, what would happen to all the insurance workers in Des Moines now shuffling that needless paperwork? Not to worry! All these workers "absolutely" will get jobs in the new streamlined federal system, Mr. Kucinich said, and added with a perfectly straight face, "I mean, where better to find the expertise than here in Des Moines?"

Charge three It called Edwards a liar.

Here I was wrong they called him vacuous.

Least Controversial Policy Pronouncement. From Mr. Edwards's stump speech: "I say no to children going to bed hungry."

I was two for three and spot on on the tone of the article.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

16. Yeah, really.

You did indeed mischaracterize the article in post 11. In post 11. That is where you mischaracterized the article.

"that article dissed every single Democratic candidate (except Kerry) and frankly could have been written by Hannity. It called Kucinich a panderer, called Edwards a liar, and called Dean's supporters bad names. I fail to see any difference at all."


that's what you wrote, and it's not entirely accurate, is it? A polite way to point that out, is to say that you 'mischaracterized'.

:eyes:

[dsc]

17. I was wrong on one detail

and it was a snarky hit piece.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

18. You mischaracterized the article.

[dsc]

19. No I didn't

It attacked our candidates.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

20. Yes, you did. No, I didn't. Yes, you did. No, I didn't.

Yes, you did. No, I didn't. Yes, you did. No, I didn't.
Yes, you did. No, I didn't. Yes, you did. No, I didn't.
Yes, you did. No, I didn't. Yes, you did. No, I didn't.
Yes, you did. No, I didn't. Yes, you did. No, I didn't.
Yes, you did. No, I didn't. Yes, you did. No, I didn't.
Yes, you did. No, I didn't. Yes, you did. No, I didn't.
Yes, you did. No, I didn't. Yes, you did. No, I didn't.
Yes, you did. No, I didn't. Yes, you did. No, I didn't.
Yes, you did. No, I didn't. Yes, you did. No, I didn't.


There, I saved us a few posts. Continue, if you wish.