Jim Stillman
Randy Inman
M-KazDoes political talk have any standards?
August 11th 2008 11:33
There simply have to be minimum standards for expressing political views, standards that if one repeatedly violates, causes even the most ardent supporter to protest and become ill. SL has brought political discourse to a level that stops all discourse.
Quite often, the material is false and has been thoroughly discussed at Snopes or elsewhere. At no time has SL acknowledged the true facts.
In the past she has misquoted Senator Clinton, among others, and when challenged to state where the statement had been made, responded that, if the Senator really didn’t make it, then someone else did and that, anyway, it’s consistent with what the Senator or her supporters believe or it’s what others believe!
SL has done it again.
In her post dated August 11, SL quotes at length an article by New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd. Very impressive, Senator Obama was receiving his financial support from foreign sources, illegally, and through various sneaky schemes.
Only problem, the “article” wasn’t written by Ms Dowd, is totally bogus, completely false!
Really Long Link
Each “fact” in the fake article is untrue and without foundation
.
A comment to the post explaining all of this was made. Did it produce an apology? Of course not! As SL states, even if the article is a lie, even if the facts presented are untrue, something must be wrong with Senator Obama’s fundraising.
SL has suggested that I do not use her blog as a medium for pointing out her flaws. I really don’t blame her;
if I were spreading misinformation, I would want to hear only from those who think as I. One may argue about the conclusions I draw from events or statements; but at least I do not spread lies.
Quite often, the material is false and has been thoroughly discussed at Snopes or elsewhere. At no time has SL acknowledged the true facts.
In the past she has misquoted Senator Clinton, among others, and when challenged to state where the statement had been made, responded that, if the Senator really didn’t make it, then someone else did and that, anyway, it’s consistent with what the Senator or her supporters believe or it’s what others believe!
SL has done it again.
In her post dated August 11, SL quotes at length an article by New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd. Very impressive, Senator Obama was receiving his financial support from foreign sources, illegally, and through various sneaky schemes.
Only problem, the “article” wasn’t written by Ms Dowd, is totally bogus, completely false!
Really Long Link
Each “fact” in the fake article is untrue and without foundation
.
A comment to the post explaining all of this was made. Did it produce an apology? Of course not! As SL states, even if the article is a lie, even if the facts presented are untrue, something must be wrong with Senator Obama’s fundraising.
SL has suggested that I do not use her blog as a medium for pointing out her flaws. I really don’t blame her;
if I were spreading misinformation, I would want to hear only from those who think as I. One may argue about the conclusions I draw from events or statements; but at least I do not spread lies.
| 52 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Jim Stillman
Political Certainty
The point is, first, this is usual and commonplace in her blog, and, second, we all have an obligation not to post material without checking that it's true.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
I'm trying to explain to SL and one of her followers on her blog that not only is the content untrue but that the article was not even written by Dowd.
Unfortunately, they seem to have convinced themselves that Dowd wrote the article after having uncovered some shaky dealings and is now been silenced by the Obama campaign.
I'm honestly at a loss. I just don't understand and how people can refuse to accept such clear evidence when it is laid out before them.