So Sarah Palin Was Right About Bush Doctrine

[mike saunders]

Originally Posted by Dire Wolf

1) These emails we read about, where are they? What did they really say? Who wrote them? When were they written? What agency has them? Where is the real information these "journalists" used to make their article? I saw no validation for their accusations. That says they are not reporting but are spreading rumors with no fact to back it.

OK.

File a FOIA and get them yourself.

2)I was going to post the links to the blogs that at least 2 of them have done, but I think I have provided you with so much information prior, that it wastes my time to give you more.

LOL!......No, you saw after the fact that the blog they post on is actually the Times' campaign blog, so you're hedging on your original claim

I said that these 3 "journalists" are actually pro Obama guys that spend the majority of their time looking to slam Palin. Nice try there Bubba, but there was no generalization made, and therefore, no need to be butt hurt.

That's a WAG of the wildest kind.

3)I have already given you the information stating that Gibson's peers disapproved of his behavior in this interview, I fail to see how the "argument has been quashed."

Meh. He's had just as much support from people surprised that he asked any sharp questions at all, since he was specifically chosen for the task by the McCain campaign.

4)Try looking at the comments people put at the end of the initial airing of the interview. But, I am pretty sure you have and that is why you would ask such a daft question.

Actually, I did....and there's a pattern of generally favorable comments that seem to turn on a dime, indicating there was an astroturfing campaign launched to give the impression of widespread public dismay. That tends to correspond with conservative bloggers being outraged and telling their readers to email WXYZ or some newspaper or a congressman.

But you knew that, didn't you, because you did exactly the same thing, prompted by some conservative site.

[Dire Wolf]

Originally Posted by mike saunders

OK.

File a FOIA and get them yourself.

Why would I have to do that if these reporters already have?

Originally Posted by mike saunders

LOL!......No, you saw after the fact that the blog they post on is actually the Times' campaign blog, so you're hedging on your original claim

What? No, a few of them were independent blogs. Try looking again. And they are all anti McCain/Palin people that were unable to write an actual story. Over 60 people interviewed eh? And only like what five people quoted? Sounds like they were working pretty damn hard to get that nasty story. I know! Maybe they could be assistants for Geraldo Rivera!

Originally Posted by mike saunders

Meh. He's had just as much support from people surprised that he asked any sharp questions at all, since he was specifically chosen for the task by the McCain campaign.

So, the fact that the other reporters saying the interview was ridiculous in the beginning are from NYT, Washington Post and the Boston Herald don't count? Are they not perused enough to be considered popular?

Originally Posted by mike saunders

Actually, I did....and there's a pattern of generally favorable comments that seem to turn on a dime, indicating there was an astroturfing campaign launched to give the impression of widespread public dismay. That tends to correspond with conservative bloggers being outraged and telling their readers to email WXYZ or some newspaper or a congressman.

Honestly? Within 4 hours of the show airing? It was that quick and easy to "astroturf" ABC's comments section? Sorry, not buying it. I know that I only check my email every few days as most of my colleagues do...

Originally Posted by mike saunders

But you knew that, didn't you, because you did exactly the same thing, prompted by some conservative site.

The NYT is some conservative site? ABC is some conservative site? What a great ASSumption!

[Dire Wolf]

Originally Posted by mike saunders

Crypto-fascists aren't independent.

Nifty! What's it mean? What party line do they fall under? Cryptos or fascists?

[Dire Wolf]

Originally Posted by Zouave

And the e-mail rumors about Obama are...?

Oh yeah. Lies. Rumors. Implications.

This is, although biased, actual journalism, and talking about actual events. If you want to talk about smear campaigns, I'd be more than happy to go down that road.

But then several people on this forum would remind me I have my 'Liberal blinders' on, and can't see that most of the major news organizations around the world, including the AP, BBC, NBC, CBS, Reuters, et al, are really just bastions of liberal socialism and do nothing but print garbage, and won't cover the 'truth' about Obama (aka, every rumor that has ever been circulated about him).

For those that missed it, that was sarcasm in the paragraph above...

So, it's only a rumor that Obama's dad is Muslim and that his grandma is devout as well? Or that he has been photographed chumming it up with Ayers? Email rumors eh?

[Zouave]

Originally Posted by Dire Wolf

So, it's only a rumor that Obama's dad is Muslim and that his grandma is devout as well? Or that he has been photographed chumming it up with Ayers? Email rumors eh?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp

Go for it. Educate yourself instead of reading chain letters. This took me a whole twenty seconds to find a reliable source regarding this.

"Although the elder Obama was raised as a Muslim, no evidence supports the claim that he was ever a "radical Muslim," and Senator Obama's family histories note that his father was an atheist or agnostic (i.e., no longer a practicing Muslim) by thetime he married the younger Obama's mother."

So yes, I will chalk those into e-mail rumor category, because the conclusion it guides people towards is wholly false, even if parts of the information are true.

And because your grandparents were racist, or bigoted, or a different religion, does that mean that you are? I don't think so. Or maybe it does... Are you against interracial marriage?

[mike saunders]

Originally Posted by Dire Wolf

What? No, a few of them were independent blogs. Try looking again. And they are all anti McCain/Palin people that were unable to write an actual story.

Links, please....or you're making this up.

So, the fact that the other reporters saying the interview was ridiculous in the beginning are from NYT, Washington Post and the Boston Herald don't count? Are they not perused enough to be considered popular?

You mean like this from the Times?

"He asked a lot of good questions,” Mary Matalin, a Republican strategist and supporter of Mr. McCain, said in an interview. “I don’t think, like some of my friends, that Charlie didn’t do a good interview.”

Honestly? Within 4 hours of the show airing? It was that quick and easy to "astroturf" ABC's comments section? Sorry, not buying it. I know that I only check my email every few days as most of my colleagues do...

wow.....Now I see the appeal of a candidate who can't use email at all. Maybe that low level of Internet interaction is a hallmark of a specific generation, or perhaps a subset of societal Luddites who want things back the way they were before the internets led to high taxes, teen pregnancy, mass immigration and uppity city folks.