What constitutes a smear to you? Got a couple of examples from this thread?
Did a news anchor fabricate documents or simply accept documents that were fabricated without checking them enough? Major difference. I think that qualifies as a right wing smear.
Howard Dean is not minority leader. He is DNC and the controversy is to raise money, which it is doing. That’s his job.
You can cherry pick but for shear volume there is no comparision. The Pubbie media machine wins hands down.
I dunno, I think her main purpose (and certainly her originally-stated intent) is for the POTUS to stop spreading the WMD/terrorism/liberation/Saddam manure and give us the truth about why we went to war.
But then, I haven’t gotten the talking points from O’Reilly/Hannity/Limbaugh yet, so maybe you’re more current on what the Sheehan-Bash of the Day is.
[Maxwell Smart]
“would you believe the Vice President of the United States telling a “Liberal” Senator to 'Go Fuck Yourself” on the Senate floor?"
[/Maxwell Smart]
Rufus:
That is completely unfair. I was smearing the Spanish, not liberals.
Wring:
Oh foul! It was exactly 2/5 about Rather. That is considerably less than “most.” No, I’m not “really” attempting to stack anything other than give a single example in response to your previous post. Surely you see that you are extrapolating my posts to ridiculous degrees simply to ask rhetorical “is this what you mean?” type questions. But, if we must play this game, I’ll take your Limbaugh, O’Reilly, and Hannitty & Colms (isn’t one of them supposed to be a liberal) and raise you a Franken, Moore, Krugman, entire New York Times, LA Times, a Wolfowitz, and A Jane Fonda bus tour.
bizwire:
Where did I say he did that? What’s up with false attribution. If you think Dan did that than you say it, but don’t attribute it to me.
Cosmodon:
The fact that you would ask such a stupid question is proof that you are incompetant to hold a valid opinion (that would be a smear if I were saying that sincerely)
Rjung:
Well, I think, those are the reasons why we went to war. The implication that she is making by saying that she wants the truth is that there is some other reason that Bush isn’t telling. She does not know this to be a fact, so, what she is doing is a blatant attempt to discredit him on an unproven premise. That my frien, is a smear.
In other words she is stating as fact, an unproven premise simply for the derogatory value. That’s a Schmear.
Oh, a cheap shot. You lying liberal scum-dog. I could respond in kind but I refuse to lower myself to your ad hominem tactics. I will maintain the high road thus garnering the respect and admiration of all readers regardless of their political bent.
Technically, that would not be a smear. That would be a direct insult.
I do think Cosmodon is right. We do need to define “Smear.”
I would suggest that the definition of a smear is: An proven premise disseminated with intent to dengrate.
A first degree smear would be if you knowingly make up a false premise and disseminate it.
A smear in the second degree would be if you merely suspect, beleive or think your premise is possible but disseminate it.
A third degree smear of “mansmear,” would be if you are such an idiot that you think your premise is a fact and are doing a service by disseminating it.
By this accounting, the Texas lady is guilty of second degree smearing in my eye.
sure Scylla . market share of Air America vs Fox et al , especially factoring in amount of air play. Disingenous does not play well.
That would be an unproven premise.
Don’t you find it odd that Rather, CBS et al have shown no interest whatsoever in finding out just who did forge those documents and pass them off as real? One would imagine that finding that (ahem) unknown person would be a top priority, don’t you think? Or could it be that they know damn well who forged those documents?
Shit, Babaloo. Franken is bigger than Air America, but who mentioned that? You, not me.
How about CNN vs. Fox. or NYT vs. Fox. or CBS vs. Fox.
Speaking of disingenuous! Shame on you. You used to be so virtuous, and perfect in my eye, but now you have marred this perfect divine image I have of you, and proven you have feat of clay.
Personally, I think they’d love more than anything to find out who produced the documents, considering it took less than an hour after the show aired for some guy on an obscure website to figure it all out and post a rather detailed debunking.
I think CBS got set up, big time.
hell I like Franken, can’t get him, can’t get away from the rest. and aint no way CNN= Fox. or NYT vs. Fox. CBS /= rather.
back atchya, babe.
But wait a minute. Dan Rather told us his sources were “unimpeachable.” He obviously knows who passed them along to CBS. Are you telling me that CBS can’t follow the paper trail back to the Kerry campa----uh…I mean, whomever it was that forged the documents?
They know who gave them to CBS. The question is, who forged them in the first place?
By the way, if, if, IF what Drudge is reporting tonight http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3.htm is accurate then Cindy Sheehan has just become ‘fair game,’ as far as I’m concerned:
“We are not waging a war on terror in this country. We’re waging a war of terror. The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush!”
So declared Cindy Sheehan earlier this year during a rally at at San Francisco State University.
Also:
“We are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now. That country is contaminated. It will be contaminated for practically eternity now.” (Huh?)
“If he thinks that it’s so important for Iraq to have a U.S.-imposed sense of freedom and democracy, then he needs to sign up his two little party-animal girls. They need to go this war.” (You cross the line right there, Cindy. Spare us the ‘grieving mother’ schtick, please. Your son was an adult and signed up for the military…in fact, he re -enlisted! Bush’s daughters are adults…they can sign up or not. It’s their choice. Bush cannot ‘sign them up’ anymore than you could’ve stop Casey from doing so).
As I said, this all depends on whether or not Drudge’s source is accurate here. We all know he’s no Dan Rather :dubious: , but I require a second source before I believe Drudge’s own reports.
Now we can believe the other Swiftboaters (apparently the ones not for truth), who were there and on the same damn boat, the Naval records, and logic, or we can’t back ourselves into a mental corner, and say the SVFT didn’t lie.
[/quote]
I have really studied this March 13, 1969 incident. Your analysis is simply neither true nor fair. You have neglected to mention that the commanders of the two other working Swiftboats (after the mine under PCF3 went off) observed no fire, and the gunners on those boats who were saturating the area after the explosion reported no fire. Nor, did any of the boats suffer any bullet holes (yet this is not the terribly convincing argument one would think it is against incoming fire for reasons we don’t need to go into.)
The naval records of the report are Kerry’s version. Kerry has told at least three different versions of this incident. One of the wounds he reports to have suffered during this incident he describes getting in a different way on page 313 of his tour of duty book (he set off a grenade in a rice bin and stood to close.)
After reading all the different accounts both Kerry’s and the Swiftvets, I beleive Kerry acted honorably and correctly that day and indeed during his Vietnam service.
But, I challenge you to prove your assertion that Van O’Dell lied.
Failing that:
You will (by your definition, not mine) lied.
Oh, I agree.
Why doesn’t Dan let us know who gave him the documents. Nobody needs to protect a source that has burned you. Give us a name, Dan. We’ll take it from there!
No. The woman lost her son. She is entitled to her opinion. She can say what she wants. As far as I’m concerned that loss means it’s wrong to attack her. For all I care, she can claim that Bush personally killed her son, and I won’t attack her. I don’t credit her opinions or give special weight to her desires, but I think she has a free pass to say what she wants about the war and what it has cost her without recrimination.
OK, well, let’s use Scylla’s definition: “An unproven premise disseminated with intent to denigrate.”
“Kerry and Hillary felt compelled to send US troops into battle” (Smear? I’d call this an irrefutable fact). Well, I refute it. They authorized Bush to send US troops into battle, but only if he felt compelled to do so. Whether or not you see this as abdication of their responsibilities, it in no way indicates that they felt compelled. Since the decision to send troops to this battle is now widely seen as a mistake, this unproven premise can easily be seen as an attempt to denigrate.
“Funny how she’s not blaming the enemy for killing her son.” (Another fact -she’s blaming Bush for killing her son). Another “fact,” huh? You have knowledge of all her feelings regarding who is responsible for her son’s death? You know that she blames only Bush? Unproven attempt to denigrate.
“money for children and Alzheimer’s patients somehow winds up in the coffers of Air America?” (Fact). Yes, plainly stated, this is a fact. 51 to 47, now.
“I loved watching the Move-On idiots and the Michael Moore morons lose ‘the most important election of our lives.’” (Opinion). Perhaps you can clarify your opinion, here. Is it your assertion that all the members of MoveOn.org are idiots and that the fans of Michael Moore are morons? The terms idiot and moron are real words with real meaning. Prove that they apply in this case.
(Well, I guess this is a smear against Deadhead losers…but not Cindy Sheehan). Where is it stated that I am only counting smears against Cindy Sheehan? Irrelevant.
Is she taking money from Michael Moore, by any chance?" (A simple question is now considered a ‘smear?’ Wow). This is not a simple question. In fact, taken in context with your many other postings in this thread, you have been insinuating that Cindy Sheehan is the paid puppet of Michael Moore, who has orchestrated this whole thing as a publicity stunt. Just attaching a question mark to an unproved assertion does not remove the implication. Is Rush Limbaugh taking money from Karl Rove, by any chance?
Scylla wrote
“Rufus:
That is completely unfair. I was smearing the Spanish, not liberals.”
Actually, you were attempting to smear RedFury. “Unfair” is an apt word, though, for your attempt.
That’s hot.
To be more accurate, I was attempting to smear Redfury by way of the Spanish. As for “unfair” I strongly assert otherwise. Redfury had previously characterized me as a “chickenhawk” and suggested I liked to kill “towelheads.” Turnabout is fair play, therefore my smears were justified.
He drew first smear, not me. Of course, I called him a “dipshit” before that, but that was simply because he claimed moral highground as a foreigner for having pointed out an ironic acronym, so clearly he is a dipshit for that and I was justified.