Or rather just Super Duper Majorly Insane Conspiracy Theorist? Even Michael Medved and Hugh Hewitt apparently think the guy’s too fringe. What does THAT tell you, magellan?
As for “respected newspaper”, are you sure you’re not confusing the Washington Times with the Washington Post? The latter is a well-respected newspaper-the former is most-definitely NOT.
This is one messed up thread.
A senior Bush administration official “palling around” with Saddam Hussein.
There. That’s precisely three thousand, nine hundred and eight and one-quarter percent more evidence for malfeasance than you’ve brought to the table. I win!
Do you realize Jerome Corsi is a 9/11 tinhatter? People who believe and/or spread that shit cannot be trusted to tell you what time it is.
HA! Wright: He went to the man’s church for twenty years, got even closer to him and had him marry him, baptize his daughters and act as his personal spiritual advisor, yet, YET, he expects people to believe he never heard him spew his hate. There’s the audacity of hope and then there’s the audacity of lying. At least he’s got the last on down cold. And Ayers? Please. “Oh, he was just a guy who lived in the neighborhood”. If he winds up losing he should go straight to The Comedy Store reprising John Lovitz’s “Yeah, yeah, that’s the ticket.”
First, I don’t agree with that assessment. But more important, it has nothing to do with my OP.
Too true. Too true. But still, some are worse than others, as is evidenced by their respective tax plans.
I need to get more info on Odinga. It might very well be more benign than presented. I’m not saying it necessarily is, but it might be. Ayers has the Alinsky connection: super-liberal idiots wanted to create some chaos and temporary anarchy which would give their ideas a chance of gaining a foothold. Wright presents the question of to what degree Obama, and his wife, hold with black liberation theology and see the white man as the oppressor-devil. For Odinga I’ll have to learn more about the comparative stances of he and his main competitor.
You’re saying 9/11 tinhatters are trustworthy people?
Hmmm. I actually thought you knew better than this: build a hyper extreme example that has a slight resemblance to the issues posted and seek to draw equivalence. :rolleyes: Sigh.
Consider ignorance fought.
I’m not sure you realize exactly how thin the credibility behind your OP is.
I don’t think that applies here. I’ve stated that I think that his associations show a pattern, or bent, what it indicates and why I think it is worthy of serious concern.
If you’d like clarification on something, just ask.
I change that to read that I might not realize how thin some people think the credibility behind my OP is. And you’d be right. I hold the WT in much higher esteem than most on the left. I guess the reverse would be true for the NYT.
So be it.
Again, I made zero mention of the man who helped save us from John Kerry.
I think they both are. The Post is further to the left, the Times further to the right. But I don’t hold that further to the right equals less credible.
Another John played the pathological liar, but I think you are talking about McCain:
FactCheck.org concludes McCain spot on Obama and Ayers is misleading
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/he_lied_about_bill_ayers.html
Yawn. Other than making sure to not by stock in it. Thanks for the tip.
And be branded the “I swallow all the bait from the extreme right media?” so do not mind me?
Works for me, I will save this thread wherever you pretend in the future that you can spot misleading information.
Leaving aside all the support you are getting here (none at all) it is clear that many already know that the Washington Times does not depend on being accurate or on having a readership to continue publishing trash.
And you are only showing willful ignorance when you did not investigate what Mark Hyman and the Sinclair Broadcast Group are, (make the search also with swiftboaters if you are not bored)
I don’t see much point to trying to argue the accuracy of a blatant smear job with no citations for their accusations, clearly labeled “commentary” in a newspaper more known for pushing its politics than for accuracy in reporting, so I’ll just point out that the author, Mark Hyman was the guy who’s idea it was to air the anti-Kerry film Stolen Honor on all Sinclair Broadcast Group stations in the days leading up to the 2004 election. So, I think the appropriate response to the article is to see if anyone can provide any sort of citation to a reputable source that backs up anything.
Seems pretty futile for me to sit here trying to prove that vague accusations of events two years ago in Kenya are untrue if nobody’s going to show what the evidence that they are true is first. If Hyman had posted that article as a GD post, the response would be, justifiably enough, “CITE?”. Just because he got the Moonies to dignify it with publication, doesn’t somehow shift the burden of proof onto the rest of us.
In any event, the crux of the argument seems to be that Obama openly supported Odinga while visiting Kenya. Since I don’t think it was responded to upthread, I’ll mention PolitiFact’s response (yes to Corsi’s specific allegations, but they seem on point to Hyman’s as well):
ETA: I swear that GIGObuster’s post about Sinclair and Swiftboating wasn’t there when I started writing.
Comparing the credibility of NYT and WT? You must be joking. Really, that’s a put-on, right? Don’t tell me you’re so blinded by partisanship you can’t recognize the WT for the hack rag that it it…and if you think the content of the NYT is partisan, you really aren’t paying attention.
If Repubs lose and continue to gripe about “liberal media bias,” all they will do is ensure further losses and irrelevance in subsequent elections.
So, please do continue. But don’t be surprised if people who actually care about accuracy and honesty simply point and laugh. Whiners are losers.