Good point.
For examples, see Ken Starr, or Paula Jones or any of the other subjects of the “nuts and sluts” defense.
Regards,
Shodan
There’s another characteristic of the blind partisan, the willingness to rewrite history to alter or even reverse the facts to make the other guys the one that looks bad. One example would be morphing David Brock’s efforts to portray Anita Hill as “a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty” into something to do with the anti-Clinton vendetta.
That would be difficult to do, considering who was President during Thomas’ hearings.
But again, you are correct. Blind partisans tend to misrepresent history. 
Regards,
Shodan
You make even less sense than usual there. Perhaps you can explain how you conclude that the GOP’s pro-Thomas smear campaign was Clinton’s fault. :rolleyes:
Brock did come to his senses eventually. We’re still waiting for some of the rest of you.
I didn’t. That was you. As I pointed out, Clinton wasn’t President during the Thomas confirmation hearings. That was your misrepresentation.
I referred to Paula Jones. See the words “Paula Jones” in my post? That’s how you can tell what I am talking about.
OK, maybe you can’t tell, but that is probably because
Regards,
Shodan
With words taken from David Brock, who was referring to Anita Hill.
If you want to disparage what you imagine to have been a defamation campaign against Paula Jones, you really ought to be able to find some actual words said by somebody who actually was participating in such an actual campaign. But no, you didn’t, and you couldn’t, could you?
To put forth an argument, even one as lame asyou’ve tried to peddle here, you had to misattribute words used by one of your own guys about somebody else. See the credibility problem there yet?
If you can back up what you’ve said about this alleged Jones defamation campaign, directly, feel free to do so at any time. Or else, we can chalk this up to a characteristic of blind partisans that I’ve already pointed out to you, which can be summarized in this case as “lying”.
No, James Carville, referring to Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, Juanita Broadderick, Kathleen Wiley, et al. You know, just like I said.
No, actually I could and I did. You can’t see it, because you are all the things you mentioned - blindly partisan, given to ad hominem attacks when at a loss for anything useful to say, etc.
For me? I am afraid there isn’t any problem.
The only problem is your continued misrepresentations. You obviously have no idea whatever how to respond to my pointing out that what you describe in the text I have quoted twice is exactly what was done to Ken Starr. Thus you continuously demonstrate exactly what you describe - blind partisanship leading to misrepresentation, denial, fervently defending a politician of your own party and reflexively condemning those of another.
Your SOP, in other words.
Blind partisanship tends to verge into dishonesty and then on into idiocy. You are clearly well into the first. I suppose I will have to drop this, before you venture into the second.
Regards,
Shodan
Your Carville cite says nothing about either nuts or sluts, yet you misrepresent it as such.
Your random blog you misrepresent as somehow representing the “Democrats’ anti-Starr campaign” is convincing only in showing how deep you had to dig to find something you could misrepresent.
Quick q - does anyone here see anything our friend has presented as fact that actually is factual, much less accurately represented? Anything at all?
You’re even lying about the “Regards” part.
Afraid he’s got you dead to rights this time, Elvish. I mean, that link has direct quotes from both NewsMax and Washington Times, two of the most respected sources of unbiased journalism extant. As you know, the Washington Times, like the Christian Science Monitor, is backed by one of the most respected religious organizations in America, the Unification Church. Can’t believe a church, well, really, who can you believe? And NewsMax, Fox News and Drudge…all three, the very essence of unbiased reporting.
(This has been a test…if your sarcasm detection equipment does not register at least 7.3 on the Stewart Scale, recalibrate or check the batteries. This has been a test…)
How did this thread get hijacked into a discussion of Kenn Starr/Paula Jones/Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill/Alger Hiss? What? Nobody mentioned Hiss yet? How did that happen?
That was caused by Post #41. The rest is yet another case of “Cleanup in Aisle 9”.
It would be nice to return to discussing DeLay’s smear-Earle campaign, but those who were defending it or denying its existence have skulked away in what we hope is the silence of shame, but that would be a best-case inference.
Or, perhaps, they’re unwilling to open their mouths until more information comes in, unlike fools who need to yap at all times.
Wrong. Look at all the “yapping” they’ve done here already.
Update from the AP:
See “Bad Ronnie, Bad” here.
If it helps, the KGB secret files appear to state that Hiss was, in fact, a communist spy.
This book.
I’m familiar with that . . . whazzit gotta do with Earle?
Now that’s “yapping”!
What’s the point of this ad? Unless Earle is up for re-election in the (very) near future, how does the Free Enterprise Fund think an appeal to public opinion is going to make a difference in the disposition of DeLay’s case?
So the ad’s obviously about uniting America behind continuing to “give charity to the oil companies while doing virtually nothing to help consumers”. In other words, “Free market values.” :dubious:
Maybe they’re hoping someone will get mad enough to kill the guy?
I see it as not-so-subtly working the ref (in this case, public opinion and ultimately the trial judge). The trial judge will now have to decide the case knowing that if he does not dismiss it, he’ll be in for the same brand of scorn (from some circles) as the Florida judges in the Schiavo case.
I find it interesting that the ad never actually claims that DeLay is innocent. Instead it emphasizes the selective prosecution theory (Earle singles out conservatives for prosecution). It also sets up a straw man argument (it’s not a crime to be a conservative–as if DeLay were charged with no violation of the criminal code). They also fault him for keeping a grand jury’s failure to indict quiet. But it would be a violation of grand jury secrecy laws for him to reveal that information. “The proceedings of the grand jury shall be secret.” http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/CR/content/htm/cr.001.00.000020.00.htm#20.02.00
So it’s a good bit of propaganda, too.