He declared something happened without proof.
When was the last time you looked up “lie” in the dictionary?
You’re citing Bernard Goldberg whining about liberal bias and asking me if I’m serious? What you’re describing as an insider making an observation about his workplace was actually a crank taking his first steps into a growth industry. It’s his career now. Around the time of that piece he gave the public such brilliance as “Don’t Blame Me” (1996), which - I’m quoting from his website here - “showed how the United States was becoming a nation of finger-pointers whose citizens more and more were refusing to accept responsibility for their actions.” Then there was "In Your Face, America (1998), “about how vulgar and uncivil our popular culture was becoming.” Hard hitting stuff that has no bearing on his later work, like “Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News,” “Arrogance: Rescuing America from the Media Elite,” “100 People Who Are Screwing Up America,” “Crazies to the Left of Me, Wimps to the Right: How One Side Lost Its Mind and the Other Lost Its Nerve,” and “A Slobbering Love Affair: The True (And Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media.” If you want to attempt a nuanced discussion of news and implicit culture, this frothing dingbat is pretty much the worst place you could start.
Everybody has to start somewhere.
And not every person in Manhattan is a rich liberal hypocrite who sends his/her children to private schools and whose friends work in high finance. Gee, Goldberg’s generalities here seem awfully specific and contemptuous for someone who is merely making a point about the prevailing culture. It sort of almost reads like an attack on people he dislikes.
There there, there there. At least the fact people don’t agree with you proves you were right all along.
When I was 7. Lets go to the dictionary:
- A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
- Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
v. lied, ly·ing (lng), lies
v.intr.
- To present false information with the intention of deceiving.
- To convey a false image or impression: Appearances often lie.
What Kerry did was present information which he himself did not experience that implied his fellow soldiers were rampaging through the country. He LIED.
True – but if your life depended on quickly finding a rich liberal who sends his/her children to private schools and whose friends work in high finance, in which city would you start your search, New York or Omaha?
A lie means the information being presented is false. Your own damn definitions say so.
Now, on what basis do you believe the information presented was false?
I’d go to Warren Buffet’s house. New York City traffic is murder. 
I do think it’s possible to have a useful discussion about this, for what it’s worth- although it’s still something different from the original subject of the thread. I don’t think that discussion starts with Bernie Goldberg and the usual nonsense about elitism.
Oh, for fuck’s sake. :rolleyes: You could have looked it up in less time than it’s taken you to deny it. Here:
But somehow you know they were all lying, and that at best Kerry should have known that. How is that?
First, keep in mind that during his testimony, the sack of shit that goes by the name John Kerry used the word “We” repeatedly, when describing the supposed atrocities. Second, here you go.
The transcript has already been linked. Show us the lies, please. :dubious:
Thanks for the supporting evidence. Almost every single example there has the conclusion, by the military’s own investigators with their own incentives to whitewash it, “Investigation completed; insufficient evidence”. That, of course, discounts the statements by the participants themselves. And what else *could *you conclude years later on a different continent?
I did. Aside from most of the stuff bing recanted or shown to be untrue, he used the word “we”.
Supporting evidence? HA! Try reading it maybe. Feel free to click through the site as well. Many of the people withdrew their claims an/or said they lied. And that they were encouraged come up with shit at the meeting. Kerry is a piece of shit. He had dreams of being the next JFK, went to Vietnam to build up some war hero creed. made sure he got three quick purple hearts for a couple of scratches, then came back and sold out his fellow soldiers and America all in order to launch himself onto a national stage. And let’s not forget about him throwing his medals away and then, presto, when he wants them to bolder his lie as a patriot warrior, they reappear. I’ll give him this much, it worked. The man is a walking lie. I love the picture of the cock-sure piece of shit “reporting for duty”, then getting his ass handed to him. Still, apologists like you and others on the left try to make the Swift Boat Veterans the bad guys. It’s Bizzaro world when you guys control the media. Hanoi Jane would be proud of you.
Wrong.
Also wrong.
Show us the lie, please.
I did. In fact, I quoted more of it than you did.
So he must have lied to Congress, huh? Doesn’t work that way in the adult world, sorry.
No, it’s their *lying *that makes them the bad guys. Check into it sometime.
:D:p:)
This is worth your while, too, since it enrages you so: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/04/27/i_watched_kerry_throw_his_war_decorations/
Prove it.
This makes no sense. You alleged that Rather could not be a liberal because he is from Texas. Please demonstrate that this is the case.
Regards,
Shodan
Reread the names of his books.
No. This is not that complicated. Goldberg said the press would be look at things differently if more reporters came from conservative Omaha instead of effete, elitist New York. I pointed out that the guy he was just knocking (Rather) is from conservative Texas.
Who’d you have in mind? Our soldiers, our flag, our weapons. Think it was the Klingons?
Goldberg said that the press would look at things differently if more reporters lived in conservative Omaha:
He didn’t say much of anything about being from there. His entire focus was on living there.
Wasn’t it?
C’mon. You can tell the truth. Every reader already knows.
Same difference. He’s talking about what he thinks it would be like if they were part of a more conservative culture, not what would happen if their jobs were moved to Omaha tomorrow.
It’s not the “same difference” as Dan Rather having lived in Texas back in 1974, Marley. That would be what logicians might call a “different difference.” The mere fact that Rather lived in Texas once, but spent the last twenty-five years living in New York, does not remotely suggest that Goldberg was remiss in failing to mention it when comparing the environments of New York and Texas.
How long are you going to continue insisting that this absolutely absurd, bereft-of-logic claim of yours has any legs at all?
OK, so why should I put any special trust in this Goldberg guy? So he worked there, so did a lot of guys who don’t echo his views. So what? As to your stinging rebuttal that he wasn’t actually making a living bitching about the liberal media at the time, ok, again, so what? It isn’t possible he saw an opportunity and went for it? Maybe he thought he’d have a chance now with Ann Coulter?
Dan Rather obviously doesn’t agree, and he worked there. And, just as you say, he is a native Texan, a people widely celebrated for their clear thinking and warm modesty.
Cart before horse. I offered Goldberg, M says G is not credible, I ask why, M says (1) G makes a living bitching; (2) G didn’t reveal Dan Rather was from Texas.
“So what,” then, is: So reason (1) offered by Marley is wrong.
And So reason (2) offered by Marley is wrong.
Now you come along and say, “Why should I trust him?” That’s a different question than Marley saying, “Here’s why I don’t trust him.”