Left Wing Lie Of The Hour (Including Ones About The Fictional Right Wing Media)

[Engimo]

"Most liberals" is still a blanket statement. You're still trying to group a lot of people together, still trying to paint them with the same brush.

Calling Coulter Dan instead of Ann is a widespread joke, and not only on this site. Lighten up a little.

Seriously. Regardless of her politics, you must admit that she is rather mannish.

 

[libertarian_knight]

"Most liberals" is still a blanket statement. You're still trying to group a lot of people together, still trying to paint them with the same brush.

Calling Coulter Dan instead of Ann is a widespread joke, and not only on this site. Lighten up a little.

dammit it is? I thought of that on my own dammit!

There once was a girl named Ann
I heard people say she was a man,
There was a bulge in her pants
We looked at her apple askance
Then they started calling her Dan.

-

There once was a girl named Ann
Some people wanted to call her Dan
her politics sucked
her apple was f***ed
Getting it scrapped off should be her plan.

 

[hipsterdufus]

I did a thorough Lexis Nexis search of everything Al Franken and Ann Coulter said about each other in their books as a part of a media research project last year at my university. The results were reminiscent of the 2nd Bush-Gore debate, where MSNBC put a team of fact checkers on standby to tally up which candidate told more lies/made more inaccurate statements.

The worst one Bush got caught on was when Gore tried to irrationally portray a brutal hate crime against a Texas black man named James Byrd as some kind of embarrassment for Republicans and Bush. Bush replied with, "and those men will be put to death." Actually, all but one got sentenced to death. The last one turned state's evidence against the others in exchange for life behind bars. Bush got caught in 4 of these kinds of statements.

Gore got caught telling 27 lies/misstatements and they weren't little details as with Bush. They were things like, "My father was a civil rights leader." Al Gore's father was a notorious racist who voted against the historic 1963 Civil Rights Act.


This is VERY similar to the way things worked out with Coulter and Franken. Franken said exactly one thing that wasn't either a huge distortion or a flat out lie. Coulter DID misspeak about the New York Times not covering the Dale Earnhardt accident, which was an incredibly irrelevant tidbit. EVERYTHING ELSE he said was wrong.

SHE was generally dead on with her facts. And the most disturbing thing here is that Franken had not one word to say about any of her overwhelming evidence of extreme liberal media bias, treasonous Democrat cohesion with the Soviet Union, or any of the scathing indictments she mad about the left's actions. NOT ONE STATEMENT regarding any of it.

In his book, Franken admittedly had a large team of researchers checking out everything targeted conservatives like Coulter had ever said for his book. He called them TeamFranken. In EVERYTHING they researched, all they could find was one minor error and NOTHING to contradict her actual allegations.

Using minor mistakes to assassinate the character of a conservative is what the left has been reduced to with Coulter. I suspect this is something people do when they cannot contend with either the evidence being presented to them or the intelect of the person delivering it. They resort to lies because they have to.

Hey, welcome back. Hepfully you'll be around for more than a day this time:roll:

What, exactly, are the lies that this award winning paper you wrote on Al Franken exposed.

4 months and counting on the answer....

 

[hipsterdufus]

So you are asserting that the NYT waiting until THE DAY the Patriot Act to publish the wire tapping thing was a coincidence?

You think they haven't endorsed a single Republican president since Eisenhower because their MAINSTREAM?

The term "assinine" has been used here. It fits YOUR "logic" best.

I can only point you to the evidence you continue not to respond to-because you can't:


From my earlier post:

"When conservatives point out that Dan Rather called a leak about a looming Clinton indictment “well orchestrated” and “Republican backed,” only to have a liberal judge appointed by Jimmy Carter admit the next day to accidentally leaking the information, it is not paranoia. It is the only logical explanation.

Try and find the last example of the New York Times or the Washington Post endorsed a Republican president. It was Eisenhower. When America voted for Reagan over Mondale by gigantic majorities, all the major papers were endorsing Mondale, just like McGovern, Carter, etc.

75-80% of the producers, news directors, reporters, and anchors who control the dissemination of news in this country consistently admit when asked in non-partisan studies to supporting incredibly liberal things and nearly always voting for Democrats.

Ever wonder why when liberal operatives get done serving Democrats in office they get immediately put in positions of extraordinary power in the media? George Stephanopolous just got promoted to news director of ABC. Tim Russert, Bill Moyers, Chris Matthews, etc, etc. The list is a mile long.

Most conservatives aren’t even alleging a conspiracy. We are simply asserting that there are enormous conflicts of interest throughout the media that almost always favor liberals.

Since you seem so inept at correctly identifying actual conspiracy theorists, here is a real example: Calling the media conservative based on almost nothing more than the actions of two opinion journalists (Hannity and O’Reilly)-who, by definition, aren’t even supposed to be objective-on ONE channel (FOX).

Liberal conclusions almost always require huge unsubstantiated leaps to buy into them. Republicans operate on facts and evidence, and there are mountains it against the liberal media."



And, BTW, pasting other people's long, mind-numming editorials about how the media would be blatant if it were biased doesn't refute anything. It is just dumb.
__________________

This post is so two weeks ago...

 

[Deegan]

Hey, welcome back. Hepfully you'll be around for more than a day this time:roll:

What, exactly, are the lies that this award winning paper you wrote on Al Franken exposed.

4 months and counting on the answer....

Leave the kid alone, try picking on someone your own size, and reply to my posts professor.

 

[hipsterdufus]

I second that.

I third that.

 

[aquapub]

Hey, welcome back. Hepfully you'll be around for more than a day this time:roll:

What, exactly, are the lies that this award winning paper you wrote on Al Franken exposed.

4 months and counting on the answer....

What, are you posturing?

:lol:

There is a thread called, "Left Wing Lie Of The Day." YOU whined to the moderators repeatedly to get that thread shut down because you were embarrassed that you had been caught citing a conspiracy theory web site to "back up" one of your lame, hysterical arguments.

On that thread is a brief explanation of some of Franken's lies. You know this. You responded to it when I first posted it. You can still view it. So what is this halfwit posturing? Did you really think no one would remember that the facts on Franken have already been laid out? "4 months and counting," are you serious?

Are you ever honest? Do you ever think about your arguments before you make them, because they are really phony?

You are such a ridiculous light weight. :roll:

And yes, I have been away from this web site for several days. You bring this up as if it means something. Is this another feeble attempt at logic or do you even have a point with this?

As if it matters, I was picking up my brother-in-law who just got back from Iraq. Does that make it okay that I was away? Some of us have lives.

 

[Gill]

Seriously. Regardless of her politics, you must admit that she is rather mannish.

Really? People say the same thing about Jamie Lee Curtis but she didn't look rather "mannish" during her nude scene in "Trading Places".

 

[aquapub]

http://www.uexpress.com/anncoulter/?uc_full_date=20051214

Since hipsterdufus insists on continuing to lie through his teeth about whether or not I have explained what lies Franken has told about Coulter, I will (FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME) post a link to Coulter defending herself against him, and, since I have explained this whole thing over and over again, I will leave it at that.

Every time you tell this lie, (and all the others) I will correct you on it. Every time you lie or cite wack job conspiracy theory sites as evidence, people learn not to trust the crap you peddle. Stop the posturing and misinformation. :roll:

 

[aquapub]

I posted the wrong link for this. This is the one I meant to post:

http://www.uexpress.com/anncoulter/?uc_full_date=20031008

 

[aquapub]

Here is a recent example of a genuine (meaning, not based on conspiracy theories, but actual facts) left wing media lies:

Matt Laur calls Alito (who voted AGAINST anti-abortion laws 2 out of 3 times on the 3rd Circuit court) an, "ultra-conservative."

http://newsbusters.org/node/3530



And here's a recent example of why people can't keep a straight face while calling Keith Olbermann an objective or accurate journalist:

http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2005/cyb20051216.asp#3


And just in case anyone missed it, here is the MRC's worst reporting awards of 2005:

http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2005/cyb20051227.asp#1

 

[stsburns]

The NYT isn't the only media source calling it eavesdropping.....all other media sources that are reporting on it have a choice in what to call it, so you can't just say that they're following the example or anything like that....

The media these days do nothing more than copy and paste articles. Some of them change the story in small ways, while other don't change it at all. They have the same slogans and/or headlines. The truth about the story, or about any story. News organizations buy them from Reuters. Or they are writen by a random person, from a random news channel/newspaper, futher known as "Associated Press". It could even be your naibor. :lol:

 

[Stace]

The media these days do nothing more than copy and paste articles. Some of them change the story in small ways, while other don't change it at all. They have the same slogans and/or headlines. The truth about the story, or about any story. News organizations buy them from Reuters. Or they are writen by a random person, from a random news channel/newspaper, futher known as "Associated Press". It could even be your naibor. :lol:

Valid point, but they do still have the option to change stuff

 

[aquapub]

Dispelling Feminist BS:



The exchange on the January 9 Hardball:

Norah O'Donnell: "And we are back with a very fun segment. Kate O'Beirne is the Washington Editor of the National Review and the author of Women Who Make the World Worse: And How Their Radical Feminist Assault is Ruining our Schools, Families, Military and Sports. Thank you, Kate for coming here."

Kate O'Beirne: "Thank you Norah."

O'Donnell: "So who are these women who make the world worse? Give me the roster."

Kate O'Beirne: "They, well I do name names. I find you have to name names because my feminist friends deny that they stand for certain things. And I quote and name mainstream, celebrated feminists, not marginalized figures. They're the kind of women who claim that they don't, and haven't, haven't denigrated marriage and motherhood. Yes, they do. They're the kind of woman who claim they're not hostile to men. They're hostile to men and little boys because they're men in the, in the offing. They're the kind of woman we don't pay enough attention to. Too many people think feminism is a spent force. That's so seventies. They don't realize how influential the feminist agenda is. The feminist ideology is in our schools, on our campuses. We certainly saw that with the trouble Larry Summers at Harvard got into. Boy, was that brutal. When he said very unremarkable things at an academic conference and we saw what a grip Harvard is into the feminists. Enormously influential on Capitol Hill. That won't come as a surprise to you. They're the kind of women who have hyped the phony gender gap in politics to intimidate politicians into thinking that they represent American women. We're gonna see that on display with, with the women's groups opposing Sam Alito."

O'Donnell: "But there is a gender gap. There is a gender gap that exists, that, that there are more women who vote for Democrats. This President tried to court the so-called security moms. There is a gender gap. Men and women vote differently."

O'Beirne: "The way the women's groups hype it, which intimidates politicians, is by pretending it's owing to a monolithic sort of vote on the part of women. You recognize because you cover politics, that's simply not the case. John Kerry, yes, he carried overall women by three points. He lost white women by 11 points. He lost married women with no college education by 16 points. There is no monolithic women's vote and there is no view of monolithic so-called women's issues."

O'Donnell: "So your main dig is that feminism has led to this belief that all women want the same thing. Which is that we want a family and a career. We all want the right to have an abortion. We all want equal pay. And that has been a bad thing."

O'Beirne: "Well, they profess, it's been a bad thing that they get away with claiming that's what all American women want. Because it has fueled their success. They have persuaded an awful lot of people that those are the demands of American women across the board."

O'Donnell: "But don't you think feminists, to some degree, have at least brought attention to issues like inequity in health care. That there isn't amount the same amount of research on women as men. That they brought attention to the issue that women are still paid less than men."

O'Beirne: "Norah, Norah, Norah."

O'Donnell: "Kate, Kate, Kate."

O'Beirne: "You are, you are so bright. This, this is why my chapter on the phony pay gap is so important. They get a lot of mileage out of the fact, they claim, that women work for 76 cents on the dollar. Think about that for a minute. If a woman with the same education level, skills, and experience would work for 76 cents to a man's dollar, who would ever hire a man? There is no discriminatory wage gap. Being a woman in America is not in conflict at all with having a very successful career. Now, being the kind of devoted mother and wife some women freely choose to be does conflict with many of the demands of a career. Never married, college educated women make more than never married college educated men. But they have gotten such mileage out of the phony gender gap. The kind of women who promote that in order to paint America as a discriminatory country with respect to women are the kind of women I name in my book."


This was from the MRC website:

http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2006/cyb20060111.asp

 

[hipsterdufus]

What, are you posturing?

There is a thread called, "Left Wing Lie Of The Day." YOU whined to the moderators repeatedly to get that thread shut down because you were embarrassed that you had been caught citing a conspiracy theory web site to "back up" one of your lame, hysterical arguments.

On that thread is a brief explanation of some of Franken's lies. You know this.

I never whined to a moderator about you. Ever. I love having you around (like Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff)

Where is the post? I'll read it and get back to you.

 

[aquapub]

I never whined to a moderator about you. Ever. I love having you around (like Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff)

Where is the post? I'll read it and get back to you.

And I quote: (you talking to a moderator about the thread) "...You yourself even said you hated this thread...It's moronic...[insert several other mindless smears]..."

It was from "Left Wing Lie Of The Day." You forgot to do all your whining in private. Also, when it was shut down, their private message explanation of why it was being shut down resolved any doubts in my mind that it was at your constant urging. The fact that they haven't enforced the rule you were harping on in any other thread kind of clued me in too.

Nice try. Stop lying or go insult people's intelligence on another site.

 

[dragonslayer]

I did a thorough Lexis Nexis search of everything Al Franken and Ann Coulter said about each other in their books as a part of a media research project last year at my university. The results were reminiscent of the 2nd Bush-Gore debate, where MSNBC put a team of fact checkers on standby to tally up which candidate told more lies/made more inaccurate statements.

The worst one Bush got caught on was when Gore tried to irrationally portray a brutal hate crime against a Texas black man named James Byrd as some kind of embarrassment for Republicans and Bush. Bush replied with, "and those men will be put to death." Actually, all but one got sentenced to death. The last one turned state's evidence against the others in exchange for life behind bars. Bush got caught in 4 of these kinds of statements.

Gore got caught telling 27 lies/misstatements and they weren't little details as with Bush. They were things like, "My father was a civil rights leader." Al Gore's father was a notorious racist who voted against the historic 1963 Civil Rights Act.


This is VERY similar to the way things worked out with Coulter and Franken. Franken said exactly one thing that wasn't either a huge distortion or a flat out lie. Coulter DID misspeak about the New York Times not covering the Dale Earnhardt accident, which was an incredibly irrelevant tidbit. EVERYTHING ELSE he said was wrong.

SHE was generally dead on with her facts. And the most disturbing thing here is that Franken had not one word to say about any of her overwhelming evidence of extreme liberal media bias, treasonous Democrat cohesion with the Soviet Union, or any of the scathing indictments she mad about the left's actions. NOT ONE STATEMENT regarding any of it.

In his book, Franken admittedly had a large team of researchers checking out everything targeted conservatives like Coulter had ever said for his book. He called them TeamFranken. In EVERYTHING they researched, all they could find was one minor error and NOTHING to contradict her actual allegations.

Using minor mistakes to assassinate the character of a conservative is what the left has been reduced to with Coulter. I suspect this is something people do when they cannot contend with either the evidence being presented to them or the intelect of the person delivering it. They resort to lies because they have to.

Talk about fiction and character assasination. you are very unhappy man.
By the Way there definitely republicans on welfare. YOu are a funny person, you realize that most who read your writings know the truth. I have never been on welfare, but obvously you have. It is better to have to on welfare than have babys and children starving. Since it is almost impossible to get a good job anymore without going overseas, getting a living wage is hard.

 

[Kelzie]

Dispelling Feminist BS:

I'm sorry, this is just wrong. There is a wage gap. It is 80 cents to the dollar taking into consideration time out for raising kids. If that isn't accounted for, it is 56 cents to the dollar. The rest of that crap was just false generalizations about feminists.

 

[Gill]

A great example of the hypocrisy at the New York Times:

NY Times: 'Illegal' Spying OK Under Clinton

Carl Limbacher

NEWSMAX.COM

Last month, when the New York Times revealed to the world that the Bush administration had a top secret National Security Agency program that monitored communications between al Qaeda terrorists and their U.S.-based agents, it strongly condemned the operation as a dangerous and possibly illegal invasion of privacy.

However, the Old Gray Lady wasn't nearly as upset over a much broader surveillance program under the Clinton administration, which routinely monitored millions of phone calls between U.S. citizens without a court ordered warrant.

In fact, the paper called the blanket invasion of privacy a "necessity" - even though it was carried out without the justification provided by the 9/11 attacks.

The American Thinker web site has unearthed Times quotes from 1999, when the paper was reacting to reports on the NSA's Echelon project under Bill Clinton, which randomly trolled U.S. telecommunications looking for trouble.

"Few dispute the necessity of a system like Echelon to apprehend foreign spies, drug traffickers and terrorists," the Times explained helpfully.

The same report quoted an NSA official assuring Times readers "that all Agency activities are conducted in accordance with the highest constitutional, legal and ethical standards.”

These days, however, the Old Gray Lady doesn't like to talk about Echelon. In the dozens of stories on the Bush NSA operation since reporter James Risen "broke" the story on December 16, the Times has mentioned the older NSA program only once.

In a December 22 report by Timesman Scott Shane, the paper dismissed "reports on an agency program called Echelon [asserting] that the agency and its counterparts in the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand and Australia somehow intercepted all world communications," calling such claims "exaggerated."

 

[Stace]

A great example of the hypocrisy at the New York Times:

Got any sources other than Newsmax? They're known to be less than credible.

 

[hipsterdufus]

http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2005/cyb20051227.asp#1

Anyone that knows Alito's recod of the past 15 years knows that he is, in fact, ultra conservative. More to the right of even Scalia.

As for the Olberman story - it's funny that you put up a story that Olbermann corrected when proven to be in error. A simple mistake done by his graphics department superimposing Neil Boortz's pic for Max Cleland - corrected the next day. BFD.

Of course, you have no problem with the Swift Boat Vet's unwarranted attacks on Cleland's patriotism. BTW, in case you don't know Cleland lost 3 limbs in Vietnam. The Swifties attacked Cleland's patriotism in 2002, and John McCain's in 2000.

Who's next? I'm guessing the Swifties will be denegrading the service records of the Iraqi vets that are running for congress in '06.

 

[hipsterdufus]

And I quote: (you talking to a moderator about the thread) "...You yourself even said you hated this thread...It's moronic...[insert several other mindless smears]..."

I stand by that statement.

 

[hipsterdufus]

I'm sorry, this is just wrong. There is a wage gap. It is 80 cents to the dollar taking into consideration time out for raising kids. If that isn't accounted for, it is 56 cents to the dollar. The rest of that crap was just false generalizations about feminists.

I just heard about Norah O'Donnell yesterday at a seminar my school did on racism in America. Norah was featured prominently in the seminar.

 

[aquapub]

1) Anyone that knows Alito's recod of the past 15 years knows that he is, in fact, ultra conservative. More to the right of even Scalia.

2) As for the Olberman story - it's funny that you put up a story that Olbermann corrected when proven to be in error. A simple mistake done by his graphics department superimposing Neil Boortz's pic for Max Cleland - corrected the next day. BFD.

3) Of course, you have no problem with the Swift Boat Vet's unwarranted attacks on Cleland's patriotism. BTW, in case you don't know Cleland lost 3 limbs in Vietnam. The Swifties attacked Cleland's patriotism in 2002, and John McCain's in 2000.

Who's next? I'm guessing the Swifties will be denegrading the service records of the Iraqi vets that are running for congress in '06.

1) Then how do you explain him voting AGAINST abortion restrictions 2 out of 3 times in the 3rd Circuit? He follows the law. If that seems extreme to liberals, it says more about liberals than it does Alito.

2) Here's how I introduced the Olbermann clip:

"And here's a recent example of why people can't keep a straight face while calling Keith Olbermann an objective or accurate journalist:"

The graphics part and the fact that he corrected the GRAPHICS part are the least relevant parts of the story.

The part that demonstrated, as I said, that he was not objective or accurate were his baseless smears on Boortz. He corrected the graphics sure, but then he added more smears onto Boortz and then praised Cleland, who was caught all through the Kerry campaign lying through his teeth.

3) I never endorsed Swift Boat Veterans. But from what I understand, many of their claims about Kerry largely DID have corroboration.

 

[Gill]

Of course, you have no problem with the Swift Boat Vet's unwarranted attacks on Cleland's patriotism. BTW, in case you don't know Cleland lost 3 limbs in Vietnam. The Swifties attacked Cleland's patriotism in 2002, and John McCain's in 2000.

Uhh, the Swift Boat Vet's didn't exist until 2004. Want to try again??

Swift Vets and POWs for Truth, formerly known as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT), is an organization of American Swift boat veterans and former prisoners of war of the Vietnam War, formed during the 2004 presidential election campaign for the purpose of discrediting John Kerry's military service, and opposing his bid for the presidency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swift_Boat_Vets