Why, no! It was all about the unreliability of Google! In fact, I just did it again, got the same results.
The reliability of the *Washington Times *is not in question, its reputation speaks for itself. They are consistent and unwavering in their dedication! Why, just the other day, they reported the temperature in Washington DC to be 63 degrees, and this has been verified by other reliable sources.
Far be it from me to try to besmirch the Washington Times. I’m not even sure such a thing is possible!
But what do you think? How would you rate the reliability of WashTimes in comparison to such sources as Breitbart or Fox News? Do they measure up in comparison, or fall somewhat less?
Also, why is no one on the right calling you out for supporting making it harder to vote, to protect the integrity of elections against a nearly non-existent problem… when the laws you support will distort the elections much, much more than any in-person voter fraud?
Only a fool seeks a cure that’s worse than the illness. Are you a fool, Bricker
For suggesting the incident was fabricated, and then, on seeing evidence it was not, never acknowledging his, while in the same post calling out the subjects of that story for failing to eat crow.
Probably because they agree with me that the Voter ID measure is not an unwise one.
Do you agree with elucidator’s suggestion that the Washington Times fabricated the story?
Because he is basically honest and shows moral integrity, whereas you aren’t and don’t. You’re relying on nitpicking and pettifoggery, pedantry, and deflection.
Also, the quote you gave from elucidator himself, which you claimed showed him besmirching the reputation of the Washington Times, didn’t show any such thing. He questioned their internet search results. Your own evidence doesn’t support the claims you make about it.
Now, I’ll happily besmirch the reputation of the Washington Times. Everyone knows it’s a shit newspaper.
I’ve got it! Speaking strictly for myself of course, it’s liberal hypocrisy. That’s my middle name!
Err – those are my middle names!!-? Ahh - capitals, that’s what they’re lacking! Capital Letters On All My Middle Names. That looks – better – ?? Or something. Yeah, something. Maybe dementia. OK, I’m sure I’ve got it now. Dementia, caused by liberal hypocrisy.
Huh? Meds? No, took 'em already. Didn’t I? Shot of Scotch sounds good though…
Ah, no, in the interest of strict candor, it wasn’t about Google, not really, I was kidding about that. What I mostly went looking for was did anyone give a shit, and was there an alternate version of the story. Was frankly surprised not to find anything!
My “how every odd” was pretty much inclusive, why is this a big hairy ass deal or did it even happen, or da fuq? My reputation for snarkasm can be misleading, and I don’t know if I could live it down, especially since I haven’t the slightest intention of trying.
I think Justice overdid it on this, especially since there are so many bigger fish that need frying. Still, its the smaller sort of potato, and I can’t get all that worked up over it. In fact, that part kind of bothers me more, howcum Justice has time for this happy horseshit when ALEC is running amok all over the country?
I don’t think elucidator was being dishonest, he was just making a common mistake partisans make: to assume that because a paper is a) partisan and b) has an editorial slant that you don’t like, that it follows that they would just make up stories out of thin air.
It’s not the Weekly World News. And if you’ve read enough partisan media from both sides, you can read between the lines and tell what should be questioned and what is probably true.
In the end, the left wing press didn’t care because the story was minor. It was mainly something that produced right-wing outrage, because it was an abuse of the preclearance power for partisan ends. Which really should be a bigger deal than it was, because supposedly that section of the VRA is sacrosanct. the administration violated that trust and while I can’t prove it, I believe that the Supreme court was influenced by the administration’s behavior since the Kinston case was a companion case to Shelby Cty vs. Holder.
Sure. I don’t say he was dishonest in that respect: I say he was mistaken, and that when shown the evidence of his error, he turned his commentary to a mild criticism of the people without ever admitting his error. And part of that mild criticism was, ironically, an admonition that they should have eaten crow because they were wrong.
There’s no partisanship in that series of events. That’s exactly what happened.
And, predictably on the SDMB, no one is willing to step up and say it, because that would be criticizing a liberal and supporting a conservative. In fact, when I called for anyone to step up and say it, Trinopus appeared with a staunch defense of elucidator that even extended beyond what elucidator was claiming! And then, in turn, he admits misreading but justifies it because I’m still “a blowfly,” and apparently as a result the normal rules of accurate analysis and truth do not apply when speaking about me.
That’s an extremely overbroad and reductive claim. In this very thread, people have criticized liberals and supported conservatives. They’ve even supported you! Not a huge amount, maybe, but enough to contradict your implication.
I think that no one stepped up and criticized Elucidator for a moment of minor weasellyness for two reasons:
(1) it was minor. Fairly inarguable, which is why you pounced on it, but minor
(2) more importantly, no one here is Elucidator’s keeper. I’m not responsible for what any other liberal posts, and vice versa. If a situation arises in which I feel like other liberal posters are off base in some way, I sometimes choose to respond to it. And sometimes I don’t. If a liberal started a thread saying “Bricker literally tortures puppies” and seemed to actually honestly mean it, I would certainly not post in agreement, nor would I post in entertained semi-amused-mock-disapproval, trying to have my cake and eat it too. But would I step in and point out how baseless the accusation was? Well, I might. And I might not. It would depend on lots of things including my mood, how busy I was, whether I was reading on my iPhone, etc. I might be tempted to do so, but I in no way would have a RESPONSIBILITY to do so.
(Note, by the way, that you yourself did not criticize Adaher’s posts in this thread until I specifically asked you to. And that’s something that is FAR more comparable to this than voting rights and the MA senate debacle ever were.)
Is it possible that you don’t get it? Doesn’t matter what a stinker I am, what a hypocrite, any of that shit. Your argument ensuckens dead donkey balls. That’s it, and that’s all.
I’m not adaher’s keeper. But when asked, I was willing to step in and attack his errors, because they were errors, and my willingness to identify them as such is strong evidence that they’re not simply issues of partisan disagreement, but actual objective flaws.
Certainly no one has a responsibility to respond here at all.
I don’t agree that this ought to be the bar, though. Sure, I agree that elucidator’s “weaselyness” is minor. But when we have threads about disparate treatment of conservatives and liberals on this board, this is the kind of thing I mean. No one poster has any specific responsibility to step in and identify what you are now calling “weaselyness.” But when a conservative poster is “weasley,” there’s never a shortage of posters in line to point out his sin. This social pressure forces conservatives to toe the line, to be utterly sure of their facts and argument before they post, or risk immediate and gleeful exposure.
In contrast, elucidator can post as he did and get called out by no one except me, and rebut my criticism by suggesting that it arises from mere partisan disagreement. And that happens because you’re not nearly as motivated to reply from your iPhone when your reply would involve criticizing a liberal.
Sure, this particular issue is minor. But it’s real. adaher posted a link to a major city’s newspaper; elucidator brushed it off by derisively calling it the “Moonie Times,” and reporting his attempts to confirm the story by Google produced no results.
And when shown additional links, he didn’t admit the slightest bit of error, while simultaneously criticizing the subjects in the reported story for their unwillingness to eat crow.