Politics: A new beginning

[Connect_the_Dots]

Originally posted by reba
SHit! Blew my sock. At least its funny,

Yes, but are we laughing at you or laughing with you, sparky?

I may have to creeate a new award ...for the most unfunny sock of the day.

Reba

Doesn't it create a conflict when you win you own awards, corky?

Originally posted by Connect_the_Dots
She is on my ignore list so I didn't see it. Now that I have seen it, I still don't care. She has saggy tits and a bad dye job...why would her opinion matter?

So we have a misogynistic anti semite. Just like in the Middle East! makes sense.

Hey JSTALK, speaking of dye jobs, I know your roots. Given those, this bad dye job thing sounds like a bit of self loathing. Yes you may have fought your way out of that trailer, but you still work in a tiny cubicle with someone named Mario, doing the equivalent of ambuslance chasing, only less thought provoking. Maybe you should finally go for that LLM so you can get a really prestigious job that will allow you to look askance at the dyed proles that constitued your friends and family back in the wonder years?

Originally posted by Connect_the_Dots
Yes, but are we laughing at you or laughing with you, sparky?



Doesn't it create a conflict when you win you own awards, corky?

Hey JHATED

Just bc you IM to pester kindly older posters like Aloha and Gattigap, does not mean anyone actually likes or respects you. Your lame attempts to get accepted on the board, including the change of name and switch of a secondary sock to a primary to cover your past indiscreitions, is an exercise in futility. You certainly don't have the right to say "we".

Oh, and props for "sparky" and "corky". Vacation was a great movie, and since you have nothing clever or original to use as an effective flame on your own, going with Chevy Chasisms is always a smart bet.

Say hello to Aloha for me. I am sure he will be happy to get yet another IM from you.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Bilmore: They've only had several months to search the country, and haven't looked everywhere yet.

Like inquisitors condemning a witch, some argue that this failure to find very much simply confirms Mr Hussein's cunning.*

*I wish I had made this up, but it's actually from the Economist. They supported the war, remember, which should (but likely won't) mean that one can't say that they are just big DEMs who have it in for Bush.

Edited to change "you" to "one."

Originally posted by paigowprincess
Hey JHATED

Just bc you IM to pester kindly older posters like Aloha and Gattigap, does not mean anyone actually likes or respects you. Your lame attempts to get accepted on the board, including the change of name and switch of a secondary sock to a primary to cover your past indiscreitions, is an exercise in futility.

Can you please identify the socks? I've been a bit busy lately, but with the good news from CA, I am considering getting re-acquainted with all my old friends here, and catching up on the sock outing thing...

Faithfully yours,

Fugee.

[rufus leeking]

Originally posted by Connect_the_Dots
Egypt is still a corrupt shithole. I wouldn't invest a dime there. Egypt is the no. 2 recipient of US foreign aid. Need another reason for stopping the flow of money to them?

yeah, but the kid got named HITLER, har har har...

[Connect_the_Dots]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Like inquisitors condemning a witch, some argue that this failure to find very much simply confirms Mr Hussein's cunning.*

*I wish I had made this up, but it's actually from the Economist. They supported the war, remember, which should (but likely won't) mean that one can't say that they are just big DEMs who have it in for Bush.

Edited to change "you" to "one."

Unless the people at the economist were in on it. They are in the pocket of left-wing ideologues like Samuelson and Krugman. The Economist has turned into the NY Times Editorial page with color graphs.

Of course if we don't find WMDs and a quagmire-type situation evolves, I will clarify my prior statements and you will see that I was against an Iraqi invasion all along. Bush and the Neo-Cons didn't fool me for one minute. We Dems can't be fooled that easily.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I don't understand what anyone thinks the LA Times did wrong. There's obviously a story there. I don't understand why anyone thinks they would sit on it, waiting for someone else to break it.

I was with you on this, untill I heard that they searched the story out (it didn't come to them) so the timing is more suspect. It was no secret that the LA Times favored Davis (based on their coverage and placement of the stories). They also have previously sat on stories regarding Davis' temper and outbursts, so if you put it all together, it looks like a partisan hit, rather than the reporting of an exclusive.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I was with you on this, untill I heard that they searched the story out (it didn't come to them) so the timing is more suspect. It was no secret that the LA Times favored Davis (based on their coverage and placement of the stories). They also have previously sat on stories regarding Davis' temper and outbursts, so if you put it all together, it looks like a partisan hit, rather than the reporting of an exclusive.

Guess what: reporters are lazy and don't want to do all the work when they can get a partisan campaign to feed it to them. It is a symbiotic relationship. Thus, most stories that get play are really collaborative efforts between the reporter with the by-line and the sources that are cited. If the LA Times figures out there is a story on Ahnuld's sex life, and some good Dem operatives get wind of it, they're going to go out and earn their keep and find some dirt. And if good Dem operatives find some dirt, they're going to sell someone on the story.

And, for the next few years, the reporters who play balls with Ahnies boy toys are going to get more stories. We'll see if Ahnie can use that to contain the damage, or if there are enough newspaper sales in this story to cause the papers to chase it even without benefit of gubernatorial access being used as bait.

[Connect_the_Dots]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I They also have previously sat on stories regarding Davis' temper and outbursts, so if you put it all together, it looks like a partisan hit, rather than the reporting of an exclusive.

The LA Times wouldn't publish the stories about the Davis outbursts (which including throwing things at staffers, and grabbing and shaking a 62 y/o woman) because it said that they they don't publish stories based on anonymous stories. Fast forward to the story about the Gropinator where they print a story about 6 alleged incidents, 4 of which were from anonymous sources.

Besides, I think the Dems broke there shovel trying to dig Slick Willy out of a hole for the Monica/PaulaJones thing. They kept him as far away from Cali as possible. Arnold's breast-grabbing is not nearly as offensive as the Governor of Arkansas whipping out his dirty paigow and asking a state employee to give him head.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Guess what: reporters are lazy and don't want to do all the work when they can get a partisan campaign to feed it to them. It is a symbiotic relationship. Thus, most stories that get play are really collaborative efforts between the reporter with the by-line and the sources that are cited. If the LA Times figures out there is a story on Ahnuld's sex life, and some good Dem operatives get wind of it, they're going to go out and earn their keep and find some dirt. And if good Dem operatives find some dirt, they're going to sell someone on the story.

Dearest, while it appears that you have conceded the point, I think it would be nice if you would just come right out and say that only DEMs engage in this type of behavior. Nothing is too-slimy or repulsive or morally-bankrupt for DEMS. Republicans do not do such things. They are horrified when the media get hold of scandalous stories about DEMS. The horror is somewhat mitigated by the fact that DEMS are so inherently sinful and bad that it is difficult to find anything other than vile foulness to report on, and they have a duty to the public to cover all candidates so they are, unfortunately, unable to abide by the "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all" rule.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I was with you on this, untill I heard that they searched the story out (it didn't come to them) so the timing is more suspect. It was no secret that the LA Times favored Davis (based on their coverage and placement of the stories). They also have previously sat on stories regarding Davis' temper and outbursts, so if you put it all together, it looks like a partisan hit, rather than the reporting of an exclusive.

If this were really a partisan hit, they should have broken the story earlier to give the story time to really sink in. Everyone knows that calling the opponent a pigfucker is only really effective with a couple of weeks of lead time. So either is was not a partisan hit or the LA Times is incompetent. I do not know enough about the LAT to pass judgment.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Dearest, while it appears that you have conceded the point, I think it would be nice if you would just come right out and say that only DEMs engage in this type of behavior. Nothing is too-slimy or repulsive or morally-bankrupt for DEMS. Republicans do not do such things. They are horrified when the media get hold of scandalous stories about DEMS. The horror is somewhat mitigated by the fact that DEMS are so inherently sinful and bad that it is difficult to find anything other than vile foulness to report on, and they have a duty to the public to cover all candidates so they are, unfortunately, unable to abide by the "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all" rule.

Yes, exactly. Just look at the Clinton scandals. All those DEM sins, and the Republicans never made a call or held a press conference.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Guess what: reporters are lazy and don't want to do all the work when they can get a partisan campaign to feed it to them. It is a symbiotic relationship. Thus, most stories that get play are really collaborative efforts between the reporter with the by-line and the sources that are cited. If the LA Times figures out there is a story on Ahnuld's sex life, and some good Dem operatives get wind of it, they're going to go out and earn their keep and find some dirt. And if good Dem operatives find some dirt, they're going to sell someone on the story.

And, for the next few years, the reporters who play balls with Ahnies boy toys are going to get more stories. We'll see if Ahnie can use that to contain the damage, or if there are enough newspaper sales in this story to cause the papers to chase it even without benefit of gubernatorial access being used as bait.

As usual, whatever point you are trying to make is beyond my comprehension.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
As usual, whatever point you are trying to make is beyond my comprehension.

My point is that every story can be charged with being a plant. It is how the news is done.

Just as our courts are two folks trying to twist the strands of truth to fit their patterns, the newspapers must twist the strands fed to them by various sources, mostly partisan, to fit a story that sells.

You must work very hard to find truth.