or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Daily Kos should hang
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Daily Kos should hang

post #1 of 14
Thread Starter 
Blogging for dollars

Quote:
Journalists think blogging makes everyone one of them, but not everyone wants to be a journalist. That's the lesson from a long-running discussion among prominent political bloggers that spilled into the pages of the Friday Wall Street Journal. The Journal's lede: "Howard Dean's presidential campaign hired two Internet political 'bloggers' as consultants so that they would say positive things about the former governor's campaign in their online journals, according to a former high-profile Dean aide." The "high-profile aide" is Zephyr Teachout, the former head of Internet outreach for Dean. Teachout earlier this week blogged on the subject of "Financially Interested Blogging." She wrote, in part, "In this past election, at least a few prominent bloggers were paid as consultants by candidates and groups they regularly blogged about."

Teachout named two prominent bloggers in particular: Jerome Armstrong of myDD.com and Markos Moulitsas Zuniga of Daily Kos. "On Dean's campaign, we paid Markos and Jerome Armstrong as consultants, largely in order to ensure that they said positive things about Dean. We paid them over twice as much as we paid two staffers of similar backgrounds, and they had several other clients," Teachout wrote. "While they ended up also providing useful advice, the initial reason for our outreach was explicitly to buy their airtime.

Now we all have probably heard about this one way or another. Most people who care to knee-jerk it dismiss the buying of public opinion here with two causes, one it wasn't tax payer money or two, one of the two disclosed the "consulting" even though it was in reality, buying positive coverage.

However now we get down to this...

Quote:
Moulitsas' crime isn't taking money from Howard Dean. He, too, can get away with a suspended sentence for insufficiently disclosing his role in the Dean campaign once he was off the payroll. The hanging offense is that Moulitsas took money from other, undisclosed, political clients. And while he may have disclosedin 2003that he wouldn't disclose them, that's not good enough. DailyKos raised money for a dozen congressional candidates this past election. Which, if any, of them paid Moulitsas for the honor of directing his grassroots minions to part with their wallets? If you gave one of Moulitsas' preferred candidates money, wouldn't you like to know if Moulitsas' endorsement was purchased?

So the point is, while he did disclose the fact that he was "consulting" for Dean, he is now being paid by several other political clients and will not disclose who they happen to be.

Do you consider this better or worse than the Dean buy of positive blogging coverage? Does it overstep a line? What say you?

Here is what Moulitsas had to say about his own behavior when applied to another.

Quote:
Here's what Moulitsas wrote about payola pundit Armstrong Williams' assertion that "There are others" on the government dole: "Until names are named, we can assume every conservative pundit is on the White House's payola rolls."

Shouldn't he name names?

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #2 of 14
Sucks. Politics and media should be transparent. Then again this is politics and media where rules and ethics are broken at will.
post #3 of 14
Transparent?

Check out the title on this year old news article:

Web forum shapes political thinking: Dean consultant in Berkeley builds 'blog' into influential tool

post #4 of 14
.....Don't tempt me, Frodo. I dare not take it, not even to keep it safe. Understand, Frodo, I would use this Ring from a desire to do good. But through me, it would wield a power too great and terrible to imagine.


.....You cannot wield it. None of us can. The One Ring answers to Sauron alone. It has no other master.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #5 of 14
Naw it's okay. You can compromise your standards as long as it's for the right side, the left side.
post #6 of 14
So this is the same topic that you were "joking" about in another thread, where you blew me off with a flip little remark when I called you on it.

My post there stands, this is the most transparent kind of specious equivalency hunting, designed to inoculate against the Williams revelations.

It's been done every single time the Bush admin or conservative operatives get caught out in something unseemly. A figure or practice on the left is trotted out, never mind the differences in kind or quality, that purportedly "balance out" the original malfeasance.

Obviously, the tactic is designed to confuse the public discourse so that severe abuses by Bush and the republicans can kinda sorta be viewed as nothing out of the ordinary if you squint a bit.

The abrupt appearance of tongue clucking articles about blogs and paid consultancy hard on the Williams story are obviously designed to provided cover for that story.

The right has been using Drudge et al to inject bullshit into the mainstream for years, but the author of the Slate article seems bemused by the possibility only when he comes across a liberal blogger who has done work for Democratic candidates.

Personally, I like Kos, it's clear to me where he's coming from, and I don't care if he does work as a paid consultant to candidates. A few kind words for a politician, on a frankly partisan blog, doesn't strike me as particularly nefarious.

Of course, the right would like to bully the left into some kind of restrictive code of ethics, the net result of which is that Drudge, and the right wing echo chamber will continue to make shit up, plant stories for the admin, and move the national discourse to whatever distraction is convenient at the time while the left ties themselves into knots to avoid talk of conflict of interest.

Know what? Fuck that. You don't bring a knife to a gun fight, and (as the conservative posters on these boards make endlessly clear with there every word) the right doesn't give a shit about the truth. They just want to hamstring the left while giving themselves endless license to say whatever they want.

And no, Nick, I'm not joking. Unless I feel like claiming I am, whatever suits my rhetorical purposes at the moment.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #7 of 14
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
My post there stands, this is the most transparent kind of specious equivalency hunting, designed to inoculate against the Williams revelations.

Oh, it's far, far worse than that. While the rank and file wingnuts of the 101st fighting keyboarders go looking for equivalency to deflect attention from the fact that the Administration paid Williams $240,000 to be their shill, they're actually playing a key role in a much larger game-plan, one that is aimed at smothering in its crib the infant new left-wing grassroots fundraising and GOTV. This is no different than when righ-wing pundits go out to every screaming head show they can find to say blatant untruths until a lazy media picks them up and starts to report them, and then that reportage gets folded back into the talking points as fact, and then reported as so.

They have this down to a fucking science.

And until people like Kos get it through their heads that they can rebut till they're blue in the face and it won't make a damned bit of difference. This is about creating a new reality. This is about transforming the real into what you wish it to be. The left isn't even playing the same game as the right, and the right knows it. And now they've enlisted blogs as more than a way of moving talking points; now the blogs are the target.

Watching Kos respond to these idiotic "charges" is like watching wingnuts go berserk every time Michael Moore comes to town. The more they protest, the longer the story has legs.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #8 of 14
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
So this is the same topic that you were "joking" about in another thread, where you blew me off with a flip little remark when I called you on it.

Actually no. What happened is your spastic response made me investigate it further and I found this information.

Quote:
My post there stands, this is the most transparent kind of specious equivalency hunting, designed to inoculate against the Williams revelations.

I'm not defending Williams. However Kos didn't just implicate Williams either. He took a shotgun and blasted "every conservative pundit." Do you endorse his reasoning that one guilty makes all guilty?

Quote:
It's been done every single time the Bush admin or conservative operatives get caught out in something unseemly. A figure or practice on the left is trotted out, never mind the differences in kind or quality, that purportedly "balance out" the original malfeasance.

Actually it happens just about any time one sides to go after the other by using something besides legislation and votes. Any time someone starts airing dirtly laundry a whole load of people get hit. For example Republicans impeached Clinton but went through about three House Speakers while getting it done. You don't tell your wife she needs to wax her lip, she doesn't complain that you don't wipe your ass well enough.

Quote:
Obviously, the tactic is designed to confuse the public discourse so that severe abuses by Bush and the republicans can kinda sorta be viewed as nothing out of the ordinary if you squint a bit.

The "general public" probably doesn't pay attention to Armstrong Williams or Kos. We are the weirdo politicos that love and discuss this stuff and discuss it like the dorks in the next forums discussing what college is recruiting who.

Quote:
The abrupt appearance of tongue clucking articles about blogs and paid consultancy hard on the Williams story are obviously designed to provided cover for that story.

Maybe people just hate hypocrisy and start noticing when the piling on begins and take note that the people doing the piling seem to take the same actions.

Quote:
The right has been using Drudge et al to inject bullshit into the mainstream for years, but the author of the Slate article seems bemused by the possibility only when he comes across a liberal blogger who has done work for Democratic candidates.

Easier to question the intent of the author than address the content of the article?

Quote:
Personally, I like Kos, it's clear to me where he's coming from, and I don't care if he does work as a paid consultant to candidates. A few kind words for a politician, on a frankly partisan blog, doesn't strike me as particularly nefarious.

There can be plenty of people, left or right that I enjoy watching or listening to with regard to policy and debate. However the willingness to condemn on one hand while overlook on the other is really sort of laughtable. I mean we could go back to nonsense like Carville and Begala working for CNN while also working for Kerry for example. No one has to defend Williams, but when you condemn him, you better include those for who clearly muddle the lines as well. Otherwise don't be surprised when your mock outrage does not arouse others.

Quote:
Of course, the right would like to bully the left into some kind of restrictive code of ethics, the net result of which is that Drudge, and the right wing echo chamber will continue to make shit up, plant stories for the admin, and move the national discourse to whatever distraction is convenient at the time while the left ties themselves into knots to avoid talk of conflict of interest.

Please... the left has made it quite clear that they will attempt to win at all costs and no smear or assertion is beyond them. You can't impose a code of ethics on a group that has none. That is why Republicans made their own resign while impeaching Clinton and watched as NOW defended a man who was beyond defending. That is why the left claims intimidation by the little guy while running blue bloods and paying for it with the earnings of currency traders.

Quote:
Know what? Fuck that. You don't bring a knife to a gun fight, and (as the conservative posters on these boards make endlessly clear with there every word) the right doesn't give a shit about the truth. They just want to hamstring the left while giving themselves endless license to say whatever they want.

Really, why argue with such "lucid" reasoning. Obviously you must be enjoying your little wannabe "twentyfifth hour fuck you man in the mirror" rant. Just remember in the end your frustration is caused by your own shortcomings and the ideals you endorse. When they continue to lose you should look in the mirror and stop spreading contempt and conspiracies around to explain the shortcomings.

Quote:
And no, Nick, I'm not joking. Unless I feel like claiming I am, whatever suits my rhetorical purposes at the moment.

Of course you're not joking. You're too busy treating people in a contemptable manner to ever have some fun with them.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #9 of 14
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Actually no. What happened is your spastic response made me investigate it further and I found this information.

Spastic response? You mean the one were I made specific points as to why calling out Kos is dishonest?



Quote:
I'm not defending Williams. However Kos didn't just implicate Williams either. He took a shotgun and blasted "every conservative pundit." Do you endorse his reasoning that one guilty makes all guilty?

No, because that's not his reasoning.

Quote:
Actually it happens just about any time one sides to go after the other by using something besides legislation and votes. Any time someone starts airing dirtly laundry a whole load of people get hit. For example Republicans impeached Clinton but went through about three House Speakers while getting it done. You don't tell your wife she needs to wax her lip, she doesn't complain that you don't wipe your ass well enough.

So there can never be actual disproportionate misbehavior by a distinct political group, because matters of governance are trivialities of appearance akin to the hairiness of ones upper lip. When the Bush admin uses the actual apparatus of the Social Security Administration to sell his lies about the status of that very agency, for instance, there can be no real criticism or accounting because opponents of his plan to eliminate same must surely have misrepresented something or another at some point in some sense. And anyway, it's all just "he said she said" because there is no such thing as the truth, just symmetrical accusations.



Quote:
The "general public" probably doesn't pay attention to Armstrong Williams or Kos. We are the weirdo politicos that love and discuss this stuff and discuss it like the dorks in the next forums discussing what college is recruiting who.

If they don't, it may be largely due to the calculated use of exactly the kind of obfuscation that you're offering up here, wherein every outrage is immediately paired with another in the hopes that, like matter and anti-matter, they will annihilate one another.


Quote:
Maybe people just hate hypocrisy and start noticing when the piling on begins and take note that the people doing the piling seem to take the same actions.

Except that they don't . The world doesn't work that way, neatly divided up into equal and opposite halves. Claiming that it does is, very obviously, a strategy for avoiding accountability for a pattern of misbehavior.



Quote:
Easier to question the intent of the author than address the content of the article?

You're actually not that good at random rhetorical flourishes. Might want to stick to the script.


Quote:
There can be plenty of people, left or right that I enjoy watching or listening to with regard to policy and debate. However the willingness to condemn on one hand while overlook on the other is really sort of laughtable. I mean we could go back to nonsense like Carville and Begala working for CNN while also working for Kerry for example. No one has to defend Williams, but when you condemn him, you better include those for who clearly muddle the lines as well. Otherwise don't be surprised when your mock outrage does not arouse others.

If you want to me condemn others than Williams than you best show me others who are behaving in a comparable manner. Kos isn't it. Perhaps you'd like to argue that I mustn't decry the Bush administration's fondness for torture if I'm not willing to deal with the fact that some well known liberal has been known to kick the dog.

Quote:
Please... the left has made it quite clear that they will attempt to win at all costs and no smear or assertion is beyond them. You can't impose a code of ethics on a group that has none. That is why Republicans made their own resign while impeaching Clinton and watched as NOW defended a man who was beyond defending. That is why the left claims intimidation by the little guy while running blue bloods and paying for it with the earnings of currency traders.

I'm having a little trouble following that but I get the feeling that you're under the impression that the modern Republican party is a bastion of "ethics" while the Democrats are without morals of any kind. Humorous.

Quote:
Really, why argue with such "lucid" reasoning. Obviously you must be enjoying your little wannabe "twentyfifth hour fuck you man in the mirror" rant. Just remember in the end your frustration is caused by your own shortcomings and the ideals you endorse. When they continue to lose you should look in the mirror and stop spreading contempt and conspiracies around to explain the shortcomings.

No idea what this means. You think ill of me?

Quote:
Of course you're not joking. You're too busy treating people in a contemptable manner to ever have some fun with them.

Nick

Probably not the best time to tell someone they treat others in a contemptible manner is in a follow up sentence to the kind of spittle inflected semi-coherent attack in the paragraph above.

Cheers.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #10 of 14
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
Spastic response? You mean the one were I made specific points as to why calling out Kos is dishonest?

I called him out as being for hire to help. I didn't call him out for being bad or wrong. You simply assigned that value to it.

Quote:
No, because that's not his reasoning.

Don't delude yourself. It is his reasoning. I quoted it verbatim.

Quote:
"Until names are named, we can assume every conservative pundit is on the White House's payola rolls."

That is a direct first person quote. He implicated everyone because of the actions of one.

Quote:
So there can never be actual disproportionate misbehavior by a distinct political group, because matters of governance are trivialities of appearance akin to the hairiness of ones upper lip. When the Bush admin uses the actual apparatus of the Social Security Administration to sell his lies about the status of that very agency, for instance, there can be no real criticism or accounting because opponents of his plan to eliminate same must surely have misrepresented something or another at some point in some sense. And anyway, it's all just "he said she said" because there is no such thing as the truth, just symmetrical accusations.

We aren't talking about policy decisions here and that is what you bring up with Social Security. I was referring specifically to when one party starts going after the other with regard to dirty laundry. Anytime this happens a whole bunch of it gets aired out and both sides end up looking bad. Hillary and Bill call it "the politics of personal destruction." It isn't about policy. It is about using human fallibility to win instead of ideals or policy. Neither party is above doing it. Both have paid for doing it.

As for the status of SS, I've discussed that in another thread. The people trying to calm everyone about it should be ashamed. It is clear the government can "honor" their debt obligation. I mean dollars are not backed by anything in this day and age. They can print as many of them as they want to pay a debt. They can simply print away the debt which causes massive inflation and crushes anyone on a fixed income or that has fixed wealth assets. This destroys the very people it is claimed to intend to help and to claim SS is okay because they can "honor" the bonds in ten years is akin to nonsense because they way they will honor them is actually harmful to the parties supposedly helped.

Quote:
If they don't, it may be largely due to the calculated use of exactly the kind of obfuscation that you're offering up here, wherein every outrage is immediately paired with another in the hopes that, like matter and anti-matter, they will annihilate one another.

Doubtful. It is likely because real life consumes most of their time. Also if what you say is true, all that would have to happen is for one party to clean up even the appearance of corruption and then it would be done. We can sit here and argue whether Carville, Begala or Kos are most like what Williams did or are not like what Williams did. It is the Democratic party that in all three cases decided it was appropriate to pay people doing reporting instead of forcing them to quit their reporting jobs. One little rule change and bam, no cross complaints possible.

BTW, Begala and Carville (I like Carville quite a bit so don't think I desire to think of him on bad terms) were both still working at CNN while working for Kerry. They didn't come onto the campaign until after the convention which means they were paid with federal election funds. In otherwords taxpayer dollars. Ready to condemn them yet? I doubt it.

Quote:
Except that they don't . The world doesn't work that way, neatly divided up into equal and opposite halves. Claiming that it does is, very obviously, a strategy for avoiding accountability for a pattern of misbehavior.

Who said anything about equal and opposite? I simply stated that they won't become outraged when they notice the people piling on having the same issues. It isn't credible. It doesn't inspire any sort of outrage.

If Rush Limbaugh started lambasting someone about drug use on his show tomorrow, it is doubtful he would inspire others with his view. It isn't credible. He's a hypocrite in that area of his life. You claim it is apathy generated by the continual tit for tat. I'm telling you that in my view, the apathy is generated because the people doing the accusing are hypocritical.

Quote:
You're actually not that good at random rhetorical flourishes. Might want to stick to the script.

You can dismiss the article any way you care to. You can dismiss the author and even dismiss me for whatever reason you desire. However don't expect others to be outraged with you when it is clear you are so closed minded. Instead they'll follow your example and just dismiss you instead of generating some outrage.



Quote:
If you want to me condemn others than Williams than you best show me others who are behaving in a comparable manner. Kos isn't it. Perhaps you'd like to argue that I mustn't decry the Bush administration's fondness for torture if I'm not willing to deal with the fact that some well known liberal has been known to kick the dog

Kos isn't it to you because you are practicing the blogger version of don't ask, don't tell. Kos has admitted to being paid by others and not disclosing it in any fashion. You have no ideal how it is affecting his blogging. I also pointed out Begala and Carville who are very clear examples of what you claim to be outraged over.

Quote:
I'm having a little trouble following that but I get the feeling that you're under the impression that the modern Republican party is a bastion of "ethics" while the Democrats are without morals of any kind. Humorous.

The Republicans aren't perfect but I don't see them holding hearings claiming the CIA created crack to harm black people and then watch a few years as no one gets outraged when the NAACP pays a person to register votes with crack for example. They claim not only a correctness of view, but also hold contempt for anyone who does not agree with their view. Contempt denotes a hierarchy in which they consider themselves above others when in fact they do the same or worse. Ted Kennedy is a drunk asshole who drives people to their death and gets away with it. Jesse Jackson is a rich race-baiting asshole who pays off the women he sleeps around with and gets them jobs in places to shut them up. They are that which they claim to fight while holding contempt over others for daring to disagree with them. Absolute nonsense. Hillary Clinton "cares" about the poor and then take an eight million dollar advance while her publisher is laying people off. Bullshit of the first degree.

Quote:
No idea what this means. You think ill of me?

Go watch the movie. Spike needs the money and it is a great movie anyway. Plus you like shotgun blast reasoning and Spike is very good at that.

Quote:
Probably not the best time to tell someone they treat others in a contemptible manner is in a follow up sentence to the kind of spittle inflected semi-coherent attack in the paragraph above.

The best you can question is my timing? Well the point is that I can still have some fun, even at my own expense, while debating around here. Too bad you can't.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #11 of 14
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
I called him out as being for hire to help. I didn't call him out for being bad or wrong. You simply assigned that value to it.

(Double checks thread title: "Daily Kos Should Hang") Hmmm......



Quote:
Don't delude yourself. It is his reasoning. I quoted it verbatim.



That is a direct first person quote. He implicated everyone because of the actions of one.

His point being that if you're going to assume payola sans repeated, documented disclosure, you would have to assume that every conservative columnist is on the take. You chose to read it literally, and missed the intent, I guess, or you're just playing games.



Quote:
We aren't talking about policy decisions here and that is what you bring up with Social Security. I was referring specifically to when one party starts going after the other with regard to dirty laundry. Anytime this happens a whole bunch of it gets aired out and both sides end up looking bad. Hillary and Bill call it "the politics of personal destruction." It isn't about policy. It is about using human fallibility to win instead of ideals or policy. Neither party is above doing it. Both have paid for doing it.

As for the status of SS, I've discussed that in another thread. The people trying to calm everyone about it should be ashamed. It is clear the government can "honor" their debt obligation. I mean dollars are not backed by anything in this day and age. They can print as many of them as they want to pay a debt. They can simply print away the debt which causes massive inflation and crushes anyone on a fixed income or that has fixed wealth assets. This destroys the very people it is claimed to intend to help and to claim SS is okay because they can "honor" the bonds in ten years is akin to nonsense because they way they will honor them is actually harmful to the parties supposedly helped.

I'll leave SS for another thread. Your reasoning is bizarre.



Quote:
Doubtful. It is likely because real life consumes most of their time. Also if what you say is true, all that would have to happen is for one party to clean up even the appearance of corruption and then it would be done. We can sit here and argue whether Carville, Begala or Kos are most like what Williams did or are not like what Williams did. It is the Democratic party that in all three cases decided it was appropriate to pay people doing reporting instead of forcing them to quit their reporting jobs. One little rule change and bam, no cross complaints possible.

BTW, Begala and Carville (I like Carville quite a bit so don't think I desire to think of him on bad terms) were both still working at CNN while working for Kerry. They didn't come onto the campaign until after the convention which means they were paid with federal election funds. In otherwords taxpayer dollars. Ready to condemn them yet? I doubt it.

So now you're extending your "everybody does it" to more characters. But in the real world the Bush administration, and the republican party, are using an unprecedented level of orchestration with various media entities to shape and control the nature of the discourse. Williams is an example of that. But you don't want that context, so you go wandering off (or more properly, I should say that the right wing talk machine goes wandering off, and you follow) into spurious examples which you purport are of a similar type. They're not. They're increasingly strained rationalizations designed to provide cover for the right while at the same time discouraging the nascent rise of leftist coordination of information on the web.



Quote:
Who said anything about equal and opposite? I simply stated that they won't become outraged when they notice the people piling on having the same issues. It isn't credible. It doesn't inspire any sort of outrage.

If Rush Limbaugh started lambasting someone about drug use on his show tomorrow, it is doubtful he would inspire others with his view. It isn't credible. He's a hypocrite in that area of his life. You claim it is apathy generated by the continual tit for tat. I'm telling you that in my view, the apathy is generated because the people doing the accusing are hypocritical.

By your definition of "hypocritical' it simply is never going to be possible to make substantiate criticisms of of the Bush admin because someone on the right is always going to nominate some actor from the left who they can claim is "doing the same" (hence equal and opposite). Which of course is the intent. Doesn't matter how disproportionate the power wielded, how systematized the process, or how pervasive the abuse, these fundamentally dishonest equivalencies will continue to be pressed into the conversation at every turn.

And, it's not "the people" that are spontaneously making these connections. There is a very obvious mechanism for proffering and enlarging attacks on left wing entities as a corrective for right wing abuse.



Quote:
You can dismiss the article any way you care to. You can dismiss the author and even dismiss me for whatever reason you desire. However don't expect others to be outraged with you when it is clear you are so closed minded. Instead they'll follow your example and just dismiss you instead of generating some outrage.

Not buying the absurd connection between Williams and Kos doesn't strike me as close minded. I'm practicing critical thinking. You might check it out, sometime.


Quote:
Kos isn't it to you because you are practicing the blogger version of don't ask, don't tell. Kos has admitted to being paid by others and not disclosing it in any fashion. You have no ideal how it is affecting his blogging. I also pointed out Begala and Carville who are very clear examples of what you claim to be outraged over.

I'm not "outraged" over anything, I'm explaining my reasoning. You seem to have a kind of compulsion to view me as "angry", "ranting", "outraged", etc. That's a cheap rhetorical device ('no need to pay him any mind, he's hysterical") that has really worn thin, but by all means, imagine what you want about my state of mind. Doesn't change the dishonesty of your argument.


Quote:
The Republicans aren't perfect but I don't see them holding hearings claiming the CIA created crack to harm black people and then watch a few years as no one gets outraged when the NAACP pays a person to register votes with crack for example. They claim not only a correctness of view, but also hold contempt for anyone who does not agree with their view. Contempt denotes a hierarchy in which they consider themselves above others when in fact they do the same or worse. Ted Kennedy is a drunk asshole who drives people to their death and gets away with it. Jesse Jackson is a rich race-baiting asshole who pays off the women he sleeps around with and gets them jobs in places to shut them up. They are that which they claim to fight while holding contempt over others for daring to disagree with them. Absolute nonsense. Hillary Clinton "cares" about the poor and then take an eight million dollar advance while her publisher is laying people off. Bullshit of the first degree.

Oh, I get it! You were beat up by a liberal as a child and have been harboring deep seated resentments ever since. At least, I hope that's it, because if that bizarre litany of petty gripes, made up shit, and pointless invective is supposed to be the "flip side" of the republican consolidation of power by any means necessary then you, um....... never mind.

"Closed minded"? Jesus.



Quote:
Go watch the movie. Spike needs the money and it is a great movie anyway. Plus you like shotgun blast reasoning and Spike is very good at that.



The best you can question is my timing? Well the point is that I can still have some fun, even at my own expense, while debating around here. Too bad you can't.

Nick

Yeah, you're quite the cut-up. I know we've all enjoyed your light touch and self deprecating ways.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #12 of 14
The FCC is investigating the Williams matter now. Previously, I'd have thought "meh," what with Michael Powell and whatnot...but since Colin is on the outs....
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #13 of 14
I'll just throw this one out there for you guys to chew on. We as people should be smart enough to get our info from credible sources. Now these bloggers might be well known people, but they are, in the end, only accountable to themselves. Thier reputation is the only thing they really have and if they are willing to risk it then that is strictly up to them. Now when this sort of thing happens in the main stream media we should take alert, for this is far more serious. And just to be clear, this is not new. It has been going on forever.
post #14 of 14
adda and trumpt:

I like the things you are discussing but I dislike the venom. Subtraction can be addition!

*hugs*
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Daily Kos should hang